User talk:Sole Soul/Archive 1

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
 * In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

RFA spam

 * &mdash;Kww(talk) 18:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Interview: Interview with John Blossom
 * News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
 * In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
 * Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
 * Features and admins: Approved this week
 * Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
 * Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

10th Nov
Hi there Sole Soul, I'm a little confused. I've been putting up a few links to the AllAboutLaw site relating to the various articles that they have (which I deemed useful to the various subjects at hand) so why have they been removed? It is because of the frequency? Also, it is because I have only used it as a source? If so, whenever I edit a page in the future I assume it is best to add suggestions not simply from one source? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.92.162 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well done
On political articles we have already all the details that are in this new link, the user adding it is only adding this link, it can clearly be described as spamming, the user is close to a report, better if they just stop repeatedly adding the link, let me know if it continues, best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said :) Sole Soul (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

igloo
Hi Sole Soul, and thanks for your interest in igloo. Before using the program, please read the following information carefully - failure to do so may result in your test access being revoked.

igloo is a JavaScript-powered, browser-based anti-vandalism tool, which means you do not have to download or install anything on your computer and it will work on multiple operating systems. However, it does mean that the performance relies on that of your browser and it may operate more slowly than downloaded programs. You must have either Mozilla Firefox 3+ or Google Chrome to use igloo, as it is currently incompatible with other browsers.

igloo relies on a system called iglooNet to assist you in finding and reverting vandalism. It is this system that transforms the program from a pretty version of recent changes to an actual anti-vandalism tool. Naturally, this is beyond the power of a client-side program, and igloo will regularly communicate with an external, non-Wikimedia server. Because of things like server logs, and the iglooNet abuse tracker, this may allow your IP address to be attached to your username - something which is otherwise impossible on Wikipedia. If you do not want this to happen, you MUST NOT USE IGLOO.

If you decide that you do want to test igloo, please keep in mind that it not wholly stable, and you may experience problems where it performs an invalid edit, or other unwanted action. If this happens, fix any mistakes you've made, apologise to anyone you've offended, and let me know. I don't take any responsibility for your use of the program - if you aren't willing to fix any errors, don't use it.

igloo is already quite powerful. The following is a simple guide to using the program:


 * The igloo interface is similar to that of other software, including huggle. Recent changes appear on the left, and diffs appear on the right.
 * igloo sorts diffs based on iglooNet data so that edits most likely to be vandalism are displayed first. You can press spacebar to view the top diff, or click on any diff to view it directly.
 * When you find vandalism, press 'Q' or click the revert button to revert the change, and issue a warning to the user. igloo automatically issues the correct warning. It will ignore existing warnings that are more than 5 days old, and restart from the beginning.
 * The iglooNet assertion system tags clean and dirty edits with colour coding - if it suspects an edit is vandalism, it will be flagged as red, and if it believes it to be clean, it will tag it green.
 * At any time, you can re-review diffs you have already seen by pressing backspace or using the icons to move through the diff history.

If you have any questions, comments, suggestions or other feedback, I'd love to know. If you hate it, and won't be using it again, please let me know why - and I'll remove you from the test whitelist. If you now try and use igloo, you should find that it will allow you to use the program. Thanks, and good luck! A le_Jrb talk 21:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 14:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 06:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Report
A summary of the community's comments on our WP:Edit warring policy will be featured in the Policy Report in next Monday's Signpost, and you're invited to participate. Monthly changes to this page are available at WP:Update/1/Conduct policy changes, July 2009 to December 2009, and it may help to look at previous policy surveys at WT:SOCK, WT:CIVILITY or WT:U. There's a little more information at WT:Edit warring. I'm not watchlisting here, so if you have questions, feel free to ask there or at my talk page. Thanks for your time. (P.S. Your last edit at WT:Edit warring was months ago, but I'm hoping you remember something you consider interesting, because we haven't had much participation in the survey so far this week.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Tapella
Please see my comments at Articles for deletion/Robert C. Tapella. - Eastmain (talk) 00:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax  07:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
╟─ Treasury Tag ► CANUKUS ─╢ 23:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
╟─ Treasury Tag ► sheriff ─╢ 23:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
╟─ Treasury Tag ► quaestor ─╢ 23:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad and assassinations
I proposed a name change from Muhammad and assassinations to Muhammad and killings but in retrospect this seems too wide a heading. Would executions be a better word?Cathar11 (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Killings is too wide, but also not all of them were executions and definitely not all of them were assassinations. I think we should do the reverse, if the subject is Muhammad and assassinations we should remove anything else. And add attempted assassinations against Muhammad. Sole Soul (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. I have no specialised knowledge of this so I will leave that to those that can.Or I may return in a while after some research ;) -Cathar11 (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you are online, please have a look at Muhammad and assassinations. I really do not want to get into a revert war, but this is testing my patience -- Raziman T V (talk) 13:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for catching my mistake at Anti-frogman techniques. As you probably guessed, I was checking the format of the references while editing just a section, and forgot to remove the references tag at the end. Much appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 01:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome. Sole Soul (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 09:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

MJ Albums Discography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Michael_Jackson#Michael_Jackson_Albums_Discography_page Simone Jackson (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:DISCOG We must respect the Wikipedia standard. Now, i can modifie. Simone Jackson (talk) 00:15, 13 January 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 ForteTuba, 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) 22:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Template:Infobox weather
Hello Sole Soul, please do not delete the parameter |accessdate = from the Template:Infobox weather, as you did here, here and here. This has destroyed the tabels. There was, in all three cases, an uncomplete Template:Cite web, missing the two leading curly brackets '{{'. See here. Regards, --Ben Ben (talk) 23:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * oops, I'm sorry. Thank you for cleanining my mess. Sole Soul (talk) 23:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank You
Sole Soul,

That was great editing on the Adam Clayton Powell IV article. Thank you.

Best,

MBernal615 (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Darts
You are invited to join the discussion at. —  SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 04:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;


 * gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and


 * ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Addition of final periods to list items
Hi, I'm unclear why you did this in view of the guideline at WP:Lists which states clearly that list items shouldn't have a final period unless the item forms a full sentence or sentences. Have I misunderstood? --Yumegusa (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, You haven't. I didn't know about that guideline. I simply did it because it looked awkward to me. Thank you. Sole Soul (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Article Move
Sole Soul, I requested that a user draft be moved to the article space in late December. You asked a question about the draft, which I addressed on my own talk page. Perhaps that was incorrect protocol. I would still like the article to be moved. Thank you! Mark Kretschmar (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Scouts de Sahara
Thank you so much for your help!--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 23:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation
Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Refactored this message a bit. thanks, hoping to hear from you. Ikip 17:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 07:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Amir Madaninejad
An article that you have been involved in editing, Amir Madaninejad, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ray Talk 23:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Sole Soul thank you for reviewing the articles voting gender gap and sole soul. You edits and insight is extremely helpful. Again, thank you --Two bills (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, and thank you for the good researched article. Sole Soul (talk) 22:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, more guidelines for Sherif Sonbol article
Hi Soul Sole, thanks for reviewing the article.

I read the "peacock" section thanks, I trimmed it down. I would still appreciate, should you have time, if you could be more specific on what details of the career section are not needed and/or suitable for Wikipedia, as I added what is in the reviews I found. I thought since he is self-trained it was reasonable to add the NYTimes etc info on his job progression and why/how he entered photography. I'm not sure how to handle it from here:For example would you suggest I just mention he was marine underwriter and that at a certain point he left?

Thanks so much, --Welle 1 (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Have a trim
Thanks so much for the star, well done for finding the picture, that is a clear copyright violation and as all the pics have been uploaded by the same editor it is a hint that they are all violations, your sock investigation could well be correct, I could easily have deleted the lot as you did, perhaps we should trim it right back and let it be created again from a stub, anyway feel free to trim some more of the excessive content out, especially if your from the USA as I am British and it is harder for me to understand what is undue weight, Rob. Off2riorob (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:Adam Clayton Powell IV (politician)
Hello Soul Sole,

I understand what you are saying, but blanking the page is not going to work because somewhere along the line someone is going to accuse you of vandalism. When I first wrote about him, it was a clean cut article, but now it seems as if it has been converted into a political battlefield. You did the right thing by reporting the situation in ANI. The best advice that I can give you right now is to try to clean it up some in a way that it represents a balanced article. Check the references given and so on. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 08:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Sole Soul, I know what you mean. Wikipedia can be stressful sometimes, even if you are just helping out. That is among the many reasons which I have decided to no longer contribute to the project. I just happened to be around to tie up any loose ends in some of the articles which I had written and that is how came upon the changes made or someone requesting my help. Anyway, I can tell that you are one of best intentioned editors here and wish you luck, not only in Wikipedia, but in your personal life as well. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

MERGER AGREED

Good afternoon Sole Soul, The question of merging 'de Cusack' into 'Cusack' was posted on both sites on 1st Feb and apart from the 'agreement to merge' by both authors - Yumegusa and C.Cleeve - there has been no other comment either for or against. Will you please be so good as to do the merger, as you suggested, if that is possible? Yours sincerly C.Cleeve (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA
Hi Sole Soul,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;


 * Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?


 * As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;


 * Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?


 * Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.


 * Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3)  How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;


 * Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".


 * In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).


 * Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I voted none as a second choice. I understood it correctly. Thank you. Sole Soul (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

appreciation
I appreciate working in making the article NPOV. So please list your comments soon as I will be on vacation soon and don't want to check again. Thanks. --RustamDastani (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I really do not think I can, I'm very busy currently. I can access to Wikipedia most of the day but only for few minutes each time. Sole Soul (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay will be awaiting any other comments you have, but I am in rush within the next few days and might show up much later.--RustamDastani (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am out for the next two days. Feel free to add what you believe is correct, but if you want to delete something, propose it in the talkpage and I'll respond when  I get back.  Rememeber: "Specialist sources".  Thanks --RustamDastani (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * May be you do not mean it, but the tone of your message sounds to me like an ownership. Sole Soul (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. I just asked if you want to delete something, please propose it in the talkpage.  So when I come back, I know what is going on.  Thanks  --RustamDastani (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, then I'm sorry. I'm logging off now. Sole Soul (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment
Dear Sole Soul, Sorry it took a while for me to respond to your comment on Talk:Washington Institute for Near East Policy, but I have responded. I appreciate your feedback. Thanks! --Shamir1 (talk) 02:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding
Some would consider this as WP:Wikihounding. In case you didn't know, that IP belongs to a banned user, the dispute is irrelevant. You're not suppose to evade you block, when you're blocked. The user was originally blocked not for Farabi, but 3RR violation on another unrelated page. --Kurdo777 (talk) 11:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to read policies before citing them, I disagree with you in a narrow area and I voiced that disagreement only regarding that area. You also should know the difference between blocked and banned. Sole Soul (talk) 11:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with your disagreement, I just wish you hadn't allowed the civil differences between us, to cloud your judgment on the behavior of an uncivil IP with a history of disruptions on multiple unrelated pages. And I know the difference between blocked and banned. He is currently blocked for 6 months and continues to evade his block on multiple pages. Do you propose that we reward such behavior and and turn a blind eye on his block evasion because he is not technically "banned" yet? Since when is evading blocks acceptable? Regardless of the content, this guy should automatically reverted on any page he edits, as enforcement of his block. --Kurdo777 (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Kurdo, you and I know why you are reverting the user, so either speak frankly or let just stop this discussion. Sole Soul (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't, and I don't appreciate your bad-faith assumptions either, so please read WP:AGF, and stop defending a disruptive blocked user out of spite that I disagreed with some of your edits. --Kurdo777 (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a nice day. Sole Soul (talk) 12:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * أتمنى لك يوماً سعيداً --Kurdo777 (talk) 12:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Web resources application system
Hello, I'm just letting you know that I've proposed the above article for deletion. I'm letting you know because you helped the author bring the article into the mainspace, and cleaned it up a bit. I've proposed it for deletion because there seems to be no coverage of the concept outside of the single book already used as a reference in the article, and the whole concept appears to be a neologism. If you disagree, feel free to remove the proposed deletion tag but please try to address the problems with the article. Thanks! --  At am a  頭 17:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I don't remember any thing about it but reading it now I think you are right. Sole Soul (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Interference fit
Hi, can you please explain why you put the confusing template on this article so that the problem can be rectified. Thanks. Wizard191 (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)