User talk:TracyMcClark/Archive 6

Gender
Male. --E4024 (talk) 20:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Understood... señor it is then.TMCk (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Name dispute
Estimado señor,

I read your comments on the TP of the Bozcaada/Tenedos island article. However, I could not understand very well what your opinion was. As English is not my mother tongue, and as I understand you speak also Spanish, which is easier for me, could you possibly be kind enough to provide me with a courtesy translation of your rather short contribution? Se lo agradezco de antemano y le saludo atentamente. --E4024 (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Estimado señor E4024,

Although my understanding of español is decent at least, it is quite rusty in speaking and I've never truly learned to write in that language. Thus instead of a true translation I'll clarify my comment from over there in English.

I wrote:

"Ridiculous. The official name should be the name to use. I.e. USA is not a redirect to "America". E is spot-on re. the reasons for this silly dispute."

Clarification:

The official and contemporary name is "Bozcaada" and there is no doubt in my mind by opinion and policy that this name should be used as the main title for this article. And in my opinion you where absolutely right that the dispute arose because of nationalistic, etc. reasons only.

Hope that clarifies my comment for you, but if not please don't hesitate to dig further.

Saludos, TMCk (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Muchas gracias. Now everything is clear. Saludos. --E4024 (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * De nada.TMCk (talk) 22:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's something I prepared for you:
I had Turkish tea at some time in my life; Strong, sweet and tasty. To my knowledge, Turkish coffee is strong and similar even so different in taste to espresso [isn't it mocca?], so I know I like it ;) (Our American coffee is so weak that it puts one to sleep below a gallon... :))  )

Gracias señor, I'll enjoy.TMCk (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Tea and coffee chat
Did you have this Turkish tea? It is tasty; it could be strong if they serve more "dem" and less water; it may be sweet if you serve much sugar (sugar is always added in the "glass", normally by the consumer, if you do not have a geisha :-). As regards Turkish coffee, I know too little about "mocca" to compare. Wandering in WP I found only this "Mocha" related to Turkish coffee. When Yemen was part of the Ottoman Empire we brought our coffee beans from there, today, almost entirely from the American continent. All the best. --E4024 (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I added a nice video on Turkish tea culture, lecture by an American lady, at the "External links" of the Turkish tea. You might enjoy it. --E4024 (talk) 14:19, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks like the Turkish tea I was served. It was strong, very sweet and served in a tiny glass to me. That was in a time when I used to add that much sugar to my coffee or tea that the tea spoon would not tilt when stuck into it :)) I guess I misspelled "mocca" as I know it from Germany where, If I remember right, spelled it "Mokka". "Mokka" is strong and condensed similar to espresso but has a very soft taste to it. It also is taken with lots of sugar, very sweet. Thanks for the link, wiki esclavo numero 4024 :) . Will watch it when I have time to relax. Thanks again y saludos, TMCk (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you E. I've just watched the clip and I loved it. It put me back in time, the time I was served that tea, not in Turkey but by a Turkish family in Europe.TMCk (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Not sure if I deserve it but thanks. TMCk (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette
Hey I have asked apollo for their image and Rok is a company that charges people subscription packages. The ppc package is updated also. This is not advertising what so ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donotedit (talk • contribs) 09:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Your image is a copy-vio and was deleted as such.TMCk (talk) 17:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It does not violate any copyrights, as I have permission from the owner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donotedit (talk • contribs) 17:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not enough for WP/Commons. The copyright holder needs to release the image in written form by filling out the proper license. Please see Image copyright tags.TMCk (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I will get that done, in the meantime I have removed Rok for the same reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donotedit (talk • contribs) 17:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the image shows the brand but neither-the-less helps understanding the subject as PCC chargers are discussed in the very same section the image appears. Your image was, (besides being a copy-vio), random and out of place.TMCk (talk) 01:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My point regarding electronic cigarettes within a tobacco harm reduction category is that it is a genuine branch of valid harm reduction. If there is simply "no catagory" one should be made.

As I understand it, wikipedia is edited from a neutral point of view.

Within the definitions of tobacco, related harm reduction alternatives and the true epidemiology of the same. Wikipedia should be giving correct information not attacking and denormalizing an alkaloid that with proper use within recognized "safe dose" ranges is on a par with caffeine.

To not show all the facts is to pander to a Big Pharma mindset. (Samuelmunro (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2012 (UTC))

Not an expert on wiki editting - could you check and verify
http://www.eccauk.org/index.php/ecca-library/22-introduction-to-electronic-cigarettes.html - This fits well as a reference for info regarding electronic cigarettes, but as stated I'm new to wiki syntax, would you be able to look over it and see if it fits with the wiki policy of reference and citation, and perhaps include it accordingly :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelmunro (talk • contribs) 20:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"Mass blanking"
Hey, not sure if you were just gnoming the recent changes, but this wasn't a blanking you reverted earlier, but a restructuring into prose. If it was deliberate, can you let me know what information you feel was blanked improperly? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Your revert removed several unrelated edits made since July.TMCk (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I didn't think I had removed extra stuff, but I'll make sure I fix that.  Thanks for the heads up! Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

We only stick with what is official
Please do not delete sourced, relevant material to censor one viewpoint. There are a substantial number of official statements from reliable press that express the viewpoint that Fort Hood was an act of terrorism, and these are balanced by material which shows that, incredibly, some other official sources concluded otherwise. NPOV means neutral, not one-sided POV. Thank you.Redhanker (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Relevant is relative and there is no "censor ship" (which is usually an excuse to add content of undue weight and your edits made those a dominant feature within the article). And NPOV doesn't mean to slant it to in part undue opinions, especially in the lead. Feel free to inquire at the NPOV notice board to get a second opinion on this.TMCk (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not Spam
Hi Magnificent Clean-keeper,

I made an update on the Porsche page in Wikipedia which you took down and flagged as spam. The link that I added to the Porsche page was not spam. If I put it in the wrong section tell me where to put it instead, but do not take it down as it is not spam.

Regards, Travis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbuck2012 (talk • contribs)


 * Another editor already responded on your talkpage and there is nothing to be added on from my side for now.TMCk (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
220  of  Borg 09:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Please give constructive feedback
I edited the following page, only to be told my name cast doubt over the quality, which was never the case, but I took the advise given and created a new account and re-added it, only to be told a very useless reason, by yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_website_linking

I have no problem if contribution is removed, but a real reason why, rather than your very short 6 words.

You also have to look at the page which is full of old content that is no longer correct and when I add something in that has been tested, it gets removed? This doesn't seem like it is being done with Wiki readers in mind! — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyDrinkwater (talk • contribs) 00:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Reasons were given in previous editsummaries, on your talkpage of your first account, and Barek just explained it further on your new account's talkpage. Additionally I'll post you a welcome banner which has several useful links to help you on how to edit on WP. Happy editing.TMCk (talk) 00:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Making sure it gets noticed. Vincent Liu (something to say?) 14:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. He's on my watchlist.TMCk (talk) 21:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caterpillar D9, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page D8 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Purported
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word Purported, otherwise you would not have made your snarky edit comment. That word is used several times already in the article, and it is being properly used in this instance as well. Arzel (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We don't use words that could cast any doubts about common knowledge of facts. "Purported" is one of those words and while possible that it is used properly in other parts of the article, the use in this instance is weaseling just as other editors have pointed out. You, being the only one so far warring against several editors might want to start a discussion at the article's talk page if you haven't done so already. Just came in and didn't check anything else but my talk page.TMCk (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Party (United States)

 * Reverting my edit in that article, you refer to "synth/OR". WP:SYN reads: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The addition suggested by me includes a link to NPR stating the conclusion.
 * Your additional comment that "speculation that doesn't reflect the party in his whole" is not supported by any references. Did you mean the obvious fact that most Democratic voters aren't religiously unaffiliated? That would make most of the subsections of "Voter base" meaningless (LGBT, Jewish, Arab and Muslim etc.). Stable support by most Jewish American voters doesn't "reflect" the Democratic party in its whole, too, but it means them to be Democratic base. Satiksme (talk) 21:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Legal action and the Ambler
Hi. I'm slightly concerned because the threat of legal action was made against me. I acknowledge that I should have chosen my words more wisely instead of saying they were lying. I was shocked that they would threaten legal action over such a thing. Do you have any idea where I stand legally?--Jcvamp (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't worry much but then again, I'm not a lawyer so don't trust my advise. It also would depend on the country you reside.TMCk (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I can't believe it's degenerated to this kind of thing.--Jcvamp (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what this relates to. But if there was a legal threat, I would suggest reporting it to a sysop for advice.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It was posted at ANI at the time.TMCk (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sensible.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Continuing issues on the Amble page
There is still a COI debate on the Amble page. It seems evident that user:AmbleNorthumberland has been sock puppeting. They have accused me of being 'heavily involved in the Ambler', which is unfounded and out of spite. Can someone step in to resolve this? I don't want to end up being blocked as an interested party based on the ravings of someone who most definitely is.--Jcvamp (talk) 15:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't going to lower myself to comment on here ever again BUT in the light of such outrageous allegations I feel I have to respond. There is no debate on the Amble page - all references have been removed and will never ever be re-instated and I have not been active on the site for a couple of days. However I feel I have to make a response on your talkpage as Jcvamp has raised the matter yet again and seems unable to let things lie. 1. The AmbleNorthumberland account name was created in error as we were not aware of the Wikipedia policy on COI - we are now. 2. There has been no sock puppeting - and to allege that there has been is an outrageous slur. 3. Despite his protestations, Jcvamp IS heavily involved with The Ambler and is listed on the inside cover of the print version as one of the Editorial Team. I accept he doesn't edit solely about the Ambler but it doesn't alter the fact he is involved with them. 4. Raving? I don't think so - merely responding to some pretty unpleasant comments made against me personally. 5. Please DO NOT block Jcvamp as an interested party - he obviously enjoys editing the page and I don't want to prevent him from doing so in the future.

Many Thanks.

Finally - This matter IS now ended because I have no intention of ever posting or editing on Wikipedia again.

Please accept my apologies for the way that this issue has been blown out of all proportion.

United2013 (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I raised it as an issue because of the accusations against me. I have been concerned about your intentions on here, and the all the arguing. I wanted someone neutral involved.


 * Anyway, I appreciate you requesting that I not be blocked. If you were to stay on Wikipedia to edit, without it being COI, I don't see why anyone would have problem with that.--Jcvamp (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Boat Page - PDRacer Not Spam
Hi Magnificent Clean-keeper,

The link to PDRacer from the Boat wiki page is very useful with many explanations that help the boat page. That link has been on the boat page for a long time which proves it is a useful link to help the topic. Recently a spammer added a link to the page and you removed spammer and also removed the PDRacer link at the same time. The PDRacer link is useful and should remain, I do not know what you have against them, it is a non-commercial organization and a grass roots effort to bring boating to the masses with free plans and free resources. It appears as if you are simply removing links without examining the usefulness of the links, also it appears from looking at your contributions that you are not a boater, and do not have a command of the boating subject. Please explain why you are removing the pdracer link and threatening me on my talk page.

Regards, Buthsop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buthsop (talk • contribs)


 * Hi there Buthsop. Please read our guidelines for external links. Your link might be not commercial in nature but serves only as promotion at the ext. link section at boat. Furthermore, your talkpage history shows that you were made aware of this (and the editwarring) before. BTW, it was another editor who rightly removed your link and others per our EL guidelines. There are, besides me, 2 more editors who don't concur with your rationale so please don't try to editwar your link into the article. Thanks.TMCk (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I replace the external link with the pdracer wiki link in the see also section. Figure that is a compromise that will allow you to remove an external link, but also allow me to contribute to the topic by providing more info that is directly related to the article topic and help people that are interested in learning about boats, specifically finding how they can build their own boat.  Buthsop  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buthsop (talk • contribs) 01:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Puddle Duck Racer Andy Dingley (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Also WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring Andy Dingley (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Man I tell ya, this sure is frustrating. I know boats and I am trying to help others that are new to boats discover a quick, cheap and free way to get their first boat by pointing out a free grass roots movement, the puddle duck. I am not that technical, don't know how to properly do stuff here at wikipedia, but I am trying to do what I can, to help the people that come to view the wikipedia pages. For the time and effort I have invested, Andy Dingley is now trying get me removed along with the wiki page for the duck club.

I sure would appreciate some help trying to improve the information at here wikipedia, specifically help people find out about a way to make their own boat and get into the hobby of sailing. I emplore anyone reading this to see for themselves, google for "puddle duck racer" and you will see what I mean, they are a great club, have done a ton to help new boaters and its all free.

Figure with my pending removal from wikipedia, I'd try to do a shout out incase anyone who knows how to navigate here might be able to help out. If you don't here from me again (cause I got removed), then I'll look for you on the water. Fair winds, sawdust and spray !! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buthsop (talk • contribs) 05:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Parenting
In which page should we write about the ethical issues of parenting? --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Philosophical questions like antinatalism should be kept at the corresponding article. A "see also" link is appropriate at the birth articles.TMCk (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The ethical issues about parenting should be kept at another article!!?Ali Pirhayati (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Antinatalism is not an ethical issue about parenting.TMCk (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Antinatalism and natalism are based on ethical issues about parenting. --Ali Pirhayati (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge and our articles it's about pro/anti birth. Parenting is what happens after the fact. If you disagree, please provide sources that make the connection of antinatalism and parenting ethics. Also the article's talkpage would be the place to do so.TMCk (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes
Nothing at WP:TPG forbids me from transcluding comments. I didn't delete them. I didn't move them from their original position. I didn't change their meaning. I merely copied them, and posted the new copies created in the "Survey" section. Please identify the section of WP:TPG that forbids this harmless and entirely constructive practice. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * "Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."... followed by examples of how and when to appropriately editing others' comments. Get permission from the editors in question or ask them to place their "vote" (something DGG already made clear he had no intent to do.)TMCk (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Editing—or even removing—others' comments is sometimes allowed. I didn't edit anyone's comment. Nor did I remove anyone's comment. I've asked DGG on his User Talk page how he would like to see the survey broadened so that he would want to participate. And I'll point out that I didn't initiate the survey. But I'm dealing with an editor who would take the survey's results and chisel them into granite if they go his way. So I'm forced to participate, rather than taking DGG's approach. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:35, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion
Hi. Just a couple of thoughts about move discussions. If you want to discuss whether a move may or may not make sense -- just open up a thread, saying you were wondering if a move made sense.

Contrast that with a move request. A move request presumes that you have done the appropriate work to have a rationale for a move. And that you are in fact requesting and supporting a move.

I would suggest you not open a move request unless you are prepared to support it, with wp-relevant views. Ignore all rules is not what I would base most of my wp arguments on at the project.

Opening up a discussion uses up the time of editors. Time that could often be better spend editing.

Similarly -- saying "I wonder what scholars say" ... when a quick google search indicates that they disagree with your suggestion ... makes it seem as though you are not putting in any effort to find out yourself whether a move request would be in accord with wp's move rules.

I don't think that is a sign of bad faith. I do think it is a sign of not being familiar with the process, or not caring about it.

Discussion is not constructive if it is needless. If it is needless, it wastes the time of editors. A precious commodity at the project. If you were to open up afd's without doing a wp:before search, for example, you would hear loud and clear over time that that is not helpful.

Also, please understand that POV is "editor POV." If the world thinks that green is a color, and the RSs all say that, and you say it is not a color and that is just the pov of the RSs ... well, then, you are missing the point.

I hope that clarifies where I'm coming from. I'm not assuming bad faith. I am seeing what appears to be waste of the community's time. And that is a cost. And can be avoided by a little work prior to a nomination, just as we require a wp:before search before an afd. For precisely the same reasons. So that the time of the community is not wasted, unnecessarily.

Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes, Chapter 2
The IP editor made an edit that added sales figures to the lede. Then Wayne reverted him. Then the IP editor posted in the GA Review section: "North8000, please take a look at the edits I've made to the article lede and to the caption of the first photo. Edits to the lede are attempting to treat Deckers and the Australian manufacturers as equals, while Wayne wishes to devote the first 6-7 sentences exclusively to telling the Australian manufacturers' version of the story." Diff: Then North800 responded, "#3 Vaguely speaking, I think that sales numbers are useful because they communicate the order of magnitude of the things being discussed." Diff:

Therefore North8000, the IP editor and I all support placing the Deckers sales figures in the lede. That's consensus for such a small group of editors. Kindly stop running all over Wikipedia and reverting me without researching the entire back story. Your edits are starting to resemble tendentious editing and harassment. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Besides those edits are not at article talk, odly the IP is typing from near Phoenix so this post of yours comes into mind.TMCk (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For many years I've lived in Illinois, which is nowhere near Phoenix. I've been Checkusered several times. One more wouldn't hurt. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You have your roots in Phoenix and it's more than likely you're visiting friend and family there. Of course, a checkuser can't make any connection by checking IP's but a duck test passes easily.TMCk (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're grasping at straws. I have my roots in Arizona, not Phoenix. It's a very big state. Deckers has an e-commerce division headquartered in Flagstaff. I think it was probably someone connected with that office. It wasn't me. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * (ec): What a "coincidence" that is. Tell you what: If you can explain your EXTREME interest in that subject you might be able to convince me of having no connection what-so-ever besides your ex-wife once having bought a pair of sheepskin boots (Deckers I assume). You can e-mail me if you can excuse a delayed reply. TMCk (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have no doubt that a Checkuser would not connect you to 24.248.1.3 in any way, shape, or form either. Don't forget, however, that behavioral evidence was used with Linda1997, Youngteacher, and Bigdog2828 on Uggs related articles, along with IP 63.171.91.193 that geolocated to the Chicago area and other accounts at the case page. You had no edits in January 2013 and one in early February before 24.248.1.3 showed up and made 17 edits on the Uggs dispute issue, followed by going silent after 14:02 UTC on February 25.  Twelve hours later, your account went hot again on the issue at 04:30 UTC on February 26.  As the IP geolocates to the Phoenix, Arizona area, TMCk is understandably concerned that perhaps you simply visited near where you're from originally, made some edits for a few days, then flew home to Illinois in the 12-hour gap between the time the IP went silent and the time you returned to continue the edits.  Now it's April, and you're claiming the IP counts as an independent editor along with yourself and North8000 as consensus for adding the sales figure to article lede.  You might want to rethink WP:DUCK, as clearly TMCk is not grasping at straws here.  Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The "straws" are of solid gold. And thanks for the further inside, AzureCitizen.TMCk (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Timely related: TMCk (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

George Tiller edit and addition deletion.
I added a section of information that occurred subsequent to Tiller's death in 2009. I've been editing and adding content for years at Wiki without any controversy or problems. Someone, I presume, deleted all the added information. You sent me a message saying it was all deleted because none of it was cited and that citing was especially important since I was editing and adding content on a living person.

As you know depending upon content added or edited some definitely requires citing and some does not.

First off, Tiller has been dead for well over three years. Since his death there has been substantial public record proceedings and other major media information as well as other public events relevant to Tiller's life that has been revealed.

You stated that if I had any issues with the deletion that I could post a message on each of our talk pages and you respond. That was sometime between April 9th and April 11th. I left messages on both your talk page and mine but I never received a response.

Subsequently I made some minor edits that were deleted that included statement that were de facto true, for instance that consensual sex between a minor and an adult is by law statutory rape. That was deleted. (There is more to that issue but that is the relevant part.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranger2000 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Ranger. This is the first post you made on my talkpage. Maybe you posted before and forgot to save it? Happens to me at times. As for your edits, besides that BLP still is valid for dead people to a certain degree, Neuhaus clearly is alive.TMCk (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion
A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you have contributed to the article, your involvement in the discussion may be helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  08:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Improper RfC closure at Talk:Ugg boots trademark disputes
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wayne (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2013 (UTC)