User talk:Wee Curry Monster/Archive 6

Take a break
I know what I'm about to say might sound cliche to you but here goes... RELAX~! Go take a short break to de-stress yourself, okay? Please don't take it to heart and there's no need to pull out your hair over something so trivial, right? Regards. --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 04:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC) (PS: Those who play with fire will get burn by it eventually, but I'm sure you knew it already.)
 * There's a saying: "Winners don’t quit, and quitters don’t win…" And I'm not gonna rouse you with big statements here but if you run away from this, chances are you're gonna be running away from things for the rest of your life. Still, I would wish you well and best regards to you. Lastly, I'm gonna end this with two quotes; one from W. Clement Stone: "Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe, it can achieve."; and the other one's from T. Harv Eker: "How you do anything is how you do everything." Adieu~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 17:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmm, you're probably right in that. Justin talk 13:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! And you might also want to read up on this → WP:OWB ←, it's a serious essay but it pretty much sums up things around here, with a bit of laugh added (of course! v^.^v). --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 13:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stay
Dear Justin, I wish you would reconsider. Your participation is very, very important in guaranteeing balance and objectivity here, especially in Falklands, South Georgia and Gibraltar related articles. I know what the situation was before you joined (not much different from the present one in Spanish Wiki), and most probably that would prevail once again if you were to withdraw. That would be а most unfortunate development indeed. Apcbg (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks but this is goodbye
Thanks for those messages, I used to enjoy wikipedia and it was interesting working with the like of Darius and even Jor70 when we'd worked through our differences. But it hasn't been fun for a long while, I've tried to get admin support to respect policies of WP:NPOV and others. One determined editor can single mindedly work the system, if you can work the system then the admins will back them over writing quality articles. Whats going on with Gibraltar right now is really shameful and I can't work with a project that would back that anymore.

Darius and Jor70 I take away a lot of respect for you guys who can put aside national pride for one second to try and find the middle ground that respects both sides. Guys I really do admire you for that, even putting up with my cranky temper sometimes. Narson, I admire your patience and the maturity on those young shoulders and for telling me to wind my neck in some times. User:Pfainuk, why you never bothered to put yourself forward for adminship I'll never know, because I can't think of a better candidate. However, I do have an inkling why. User talk:Ryan4314‎ keep up the good work, I wish I could have spent more time on article writing but if you need anything Falklands related you have my email.

Anyway adieu.

Justin talk 14:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see you go Justin, I always felt you were a rather reasonable and fair person who edited in a very charged environment, not an easy thing to do. I hope you come back someday. --  At am a  頭 16:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can imagine how you feel mate, but if you do decide to comeback, you won't of lost any respect in my eyes. You're a huge wealth of knowledge on the Falklands and our patriarch too lol ;). Ryan 4314   (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I can understand why you feel like this. If you decide you want to come back, though, of course you're always welcome - you'll be missed on Falklands articles in particular. Pfainuk talk 18:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey
Hi Justin,

We probably don't see eye to eye on the Gibnews business, but I still think you are a valued editor here. Would you reconsider leaving? This seems like a pretty stressful time for you, so have you considered making it a wikibreak?

Even if you do decide that you want to retire, I just want you to know that there is nothing stopping you from coming out of retirement. Heck, I did and they gave me my admin bits back without too much concern.

Anyway, if you do decide to have left completely, I wish you the best for the future :-) But always feel free to come back, because retirement banners don't necessarily mean that you can't return.

Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 13:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Dear Justin, your return is most welcome indeed! Best, Apcbg (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll second that! The Gibraltar article has been chipped away piece by piece by editor(s) who have had almost a month of free reign! Willdow (Talk) 14:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Cheers but I have no intention of being as active as before. Justin talk 14:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Saves me e-mailing you about the latest Falkland silliness ;) Great to see you back old chap. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 14:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Great to see you back! Pfainuk talk 17:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sleep
Go get some, eh? In the morning the debate will still be there and Hugo Chavez will still be spouting bollocks. You are going to burn yourself out if you stay up late to argue the toss with hardliners. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 00:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ovid: "Take a rest. A field that has rested yields a beautiful crop." My sentiments too, toodles~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 03:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews
Hi Justin, it's not the person you suggest. I don't know whether the VOGG has had several spokepersons (I don't care, really). Here the case is rather simple: a person, called him X, is or has been the spokeperson of the VOGG, is the local representative of the Conservative Party, the owner of gibnews.com, gibnews.net ant maryceleste.net. Is it a COI? Yes, it is. Should it be declared? Yes. Has it been declared? No. Hope it explains it better. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 13:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for assuming a sincere concern, as I have it :-) Don't worry, I don't wish any outing. The "evidences" are solid and I simply wish to comply with wikipedia policies. That's all. Thank you for your confidence. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC) PS: BTW, Tunbridge resigned in 2006

Yes, you were right. He is not the local representative of the Conservative Party. I was talking off the top of my head. But I've double-checked it. Thank you --Ecemaml (talk) 13:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd add this to the ANI thing about gibraltar if I were you. WIth difs. It is troubling and if I had the diffs, I'd be reporting it, because that shit isn't on. I really am not a fan of Gibnews, but even he deserves his privacy. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 15:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Justin, thank you for posting your concerns in my talk page before the block was lifted. As I've told you many times, I'm not interested at all in the identity of Gibnews (in the same way as I'm not interested in knowing your identity). As told to EyeSerene, I've fully acknowledged that even if the COI is damaging for the project it cannot override the privacy guarantees that protects to all of us. And I've committed not to cross such a line (an obvious thing, as I'm fully committed to the project). So you can relax as no further "outing" will take place (even if it was triggered by your endless questions) Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC) PS: as told you, all the information I have has been voluntarily posted by Gibnews, but again, this issue is over for me.

DGAF
Justin, per WP:DGAF... please learn to disengage (mentioned in WP:OWB, point #60). No point fighting and getting frustrated, as it will only attract more negative, angry people/comment. You are better than them, just take it easy... yeah? --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 06:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Got trout?
As requested, a trout for you... Cheers~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 09:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Pesky Elephants
I saw this and thought of you, hope it's not too late! WillDow (Talk) 09:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdow (talk • contribs) 09:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

gibnet.com
The unanimous view across several noticeboards is that this is not a RS. If you persist in readding it, I will post at WP:ANI. I am yet to find something on gibnet.com that cannot be found elsewhere in an actual RS. So please, help wih that rather than readd it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Posted at ANI. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page Winter Olympics
Congratulations, you've pipped me to silver ;-)   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC) ps the smiley means I hope you take this message with the humour it is supposed to convey....
 * Bahh! A lowly 16th... I'm not impressed. I shall have to edit war or something to get my stats up! WillDow (Talk) 15:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom case
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, EyeSerene talk 13:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wordy and constant responses
Some friendly advice - I would curtail the verbosity and inclination to "have your say" in response to anything anyone else says. It really doesn't go down well wih uninvolved editors and if this does go to ArbCom you will find it counterproductive to the point you are trying to make. Ignore or heed as you wish. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ps I have to stop myself doin this too sometimes. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Units of Measure and the Falkland Islands
Hi Justin,
 * I notice that you revoked my revoke. Please read my comments on the Falklands Islands Talk page and you will see why I did the revoke - nothing to do with the metric-imperial argument, but rather to do with bad editing caused by people on both sides getting carried away - I did it to get people to think first.
 * Martinvl (talk) 23:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Statements
FYI Justin, the statements there are only regarding the merits of the case. We will have an opportunity once accepted to provide our full statements and evidence etc. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I too came here in response to your note on the case requests page. Not being able to make your case in full yet is nothing you should worry about at the moment, especially with family concerns (that's far more important than a mere website, after all). It looks like the Arbs have been convinced to hear the case, so at this stage there's no need to add more (unless you really want to, bearing in mind the 500-word limit for statements). You'll have plenty of opportunity to put your arguments in full without being rushed or needing to feel conflicted with RL priorities if/when the case moves to the evidence stage. I hope this helps put your mind at rest, and hope your family concerns are nothing serious and all is well. All the best, EyeSerene talk 15:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case has opened
An Arbitration case involving you 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/Gibraltar/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/Gibraltar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 16:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Removing other editors replies
What on earth made you make this edit? . Niteshift36 (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also like to mention that your use of rollback there is completely inappropriate. –Turian  ( talk )  22:37, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that he wasn't involved in the discussion I suggest you AGF and put it down to a fat finger. I've done this myself a few times on my iPhone - it is very easy to do. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that I didn't make an accusation of anything, just asked "why on earth would you remove it", I don't see where I assumed bad faith and why I got the mini-lecture. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom
There is a big banner at the top of the page stating "This case is currently open; as such, no changes to this page should be made. Any additions should be reverted: if you have evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider, post it at the evidence page" so I reverted it. Please post your comments on the evidence page instead. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar
Hello Justin. Please be aware that once a case has opened, only arbitrators and clerks should edit the main case page - I've therefore fully protected it. If you wish to make a statement, put it on the talk page, but you will be better served providing evidence on the evidence page and putting forward proposals in the workshop. Regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Believe it or not, Justin, but regardless of what I think of you as a wikipedia editor, I feel sorry about your personal situation. This summer I was at hospital for almost a month, recovering from surgery, and saw the suffering of my family. I hope everything will be OK and your mother recover soon. Take care of her, and of course, of you. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence
Hello. Your evidence on the above page stands at over 1500 words. The limit is 1000. Please refactor it within the next 24 hours or a clerk will do it for you. Regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 20:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Falklands
Cool down Justin, 3 reverts is right at the limit and it is nothing so important as to get blocked over. Step away if needed, plenty of people watch the article. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 18:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, on the History of Gib article, I hope you don't mind but I reverted your good faith attempt at putting English Bobby's stuff in. An encyclopedia is not really a great source, and many many many books place him as the head of a British fleet in that period. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Not in the slightest, plenty of reliable sources also say British, so it is a moot point to my mind. Hopefully it may serve as an example of how to cite things properly as he has a pronounced tendency to avoid learning how to do so.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 10:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: ArbCom question
Oh, nothing too consequential. It's just that ArbCom cases are divided into principles, findings of fact, and remedies. The principles are what might be described as project-wide truths ("Edit-warring is prohibited"). Findings of fact are truths specific to the case at hand ("Bob has edit-warred"). Remedies are what you're going to do about it ("Bob is placed on a 1rr restriction"). Your suggested finding (something like "the issue of user conduct has been raised repeatedly at ANI, but has been blocked from going forward by walls of text and thread-hijacking by a former admin"), would be a finding of fact, not a principle. It's not a big deal at all, and probably wouldn't even be an issue to one less anal than I am. Steve Smith (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Spanish template
Hi Justin, I would like to know your thoughs about the following, very  often we have users deleting the lang-es falklands template from different pages. If really it is a consensus about using this I think we should create something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Falklands_War/Spanish_Template (or whatever) where we could explain this in an easy way. Of course Im not suggesting adding the template on the Sea Dart or HMS Ardent articles, that not really necesseary but yes on articles such as the Learjet 35, Carballo etc where the argentine action is really relevant. --Jor70 (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that would be useful. A great of my vandalism repairs revolve around repairing exactly that sort of vandalism and as you know I went to a great deal of trouble to ensure all names receive equal treatment on Falklands Articles. I would do it myself but real life is getting in the way at the moment.  Justin the Evil Scotman talk 12:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Re your note
Thanks - replied on my talk page. EyeSerene talk 15:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Skype
You might note that at least one of your recent edits also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you. This edit in particular --Rumping (talk) 17:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

RSN
My post at RS/N was to get opinion of the sources reliability, not to bring the discussion from Falkland Islands talk page. Please don't post there, as I want to get other opinions from wikipedia criteria, not to people involved with the article. Just in case you haven't read carefully my messages on the talk page, I agree with your comment on RS/N about the three issues. I'm only asking about the first one that is being discarded as POV/primary/OR. You have your sources 1000 sources for political declarations, and your we have yet to discuss the international position in the talkpage. Let me get verification to the only sources that talk about Argentine law, is a fair petition, isn't it?. Don't interfere in RS/N with comments about the content, only about reliability or verifiability, or usage per WP:PRIMARY. Thanks.  pmt7ar (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVILITY
Hello Justin, I reverted your change to the WP:CIVILITY page. I don't think that it's a good idea to be making modifications to pages on policies that you are being accused of flouting in an ArbCom case, especially so given that your addition appears to be a bit of a dig at some of the other editors in the case. Perhaps a better route would be to propose to the arbitrators that you feel this needs a mention, or post something on the talk page? Then someone uninvolved can update the page accordingly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree in this case, it might be seen as a bit pointy to at least imply a complaint about other editors when you're involved in arbitration. Really, you just give other people ammunition. --  At am a  頭 17:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As Justin said before, the trout for him when he goes out of line. Now get back here this instant~! --Dave ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 17:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Trout award time again
Per above, fry it if you can. :) --<i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™ 17:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

OK it wasn't intended that way, the sentiment behind it was genuine and I believe it is a suitable addition. I rather suspect that it makes arbcom's job harder, that was all. Justin the Evil Scotsman talk 18:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Your request
"I would like to go into this further with you if I may." Please, in whatever venue you like. Steve Smith (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture issue
Hi, right, thanks. I am not super strong about this and am willing to seek some outside opinion but, the article is about the naval base, in the picture is a submarine and some people. Undue weight as regards BLP. It is my interpretaion of guidelines, the individuals in the picure in question by the pictures insertion are being given an appearance of imporance beyond their involvement in the subject of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats right I have said it before, thats it, if you dispute my position, and as there are more than two editors involved open a rfc on the article talkpage to seek some feedback and consensus. Off2riorob (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest with you, I don't like your tone and I have made my point, as I said presently you are in a minority of one in favor of your position. Is it very important to you, its just a silly picture? I prefer not to talk to you about this issue on personal talkpages anymore please keep your discussion on the article talkpage, thanks. 13:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Off2riorob (talk)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Minor Point
Justin, minor point and just to avoid anyone with a grudge bringing it up against you. Techically putting in heavily POV material isn't vandalism. I know twinkle is a bit of a blunt tool and people toss around those vandalism tags a bit but the devil is in the detail and public perception. Ask David Laws. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably the same guy, same ISP from Buenos Aires. And you know that Caesar's wife must be beyond reproach. Well, hello Mrs Caesar. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Fairness and POV
With all due respect, please avoid knee jerk reactions. Please read and understand proposed changes in contents before reacting and mass-undoing them. You will see that are well intentioned and are adding value and fairness to the articles. Esquierman (talk) 15:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I've left a message at Talk:James Cook. 96.52.53.138 (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied again. Connormah (talk &#124; contribs) 19:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Replied again. Connormah (talk &#124; contribs) 19:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Connormah (talk &#124; contribs) 19:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Commons
Justin, the procedure to open a deletion request in commons is in here. It's just for your information. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Justin, with regard to images in commons, there are two different issues (in a broad sense). First of all, whether the image is acceptable according to commons rules and guidelines (basically, whether the image is free and complies with the Commons scope. Only (in a broader sense, there are other not so important issues) if the image does not meet such requirements it has to be deleted. The second point is whether the image is usable in a given article (and that's actually your complain). The fact that an image fails to comply with the policies of a given project is not an argument for deletion.
 * Is the image we're talking about a proper realization of Cook's coat of arms? I don't really know. But that's something you have to sort out in Cook's article, not in commons. My personal opinion (without a deep knowledge of the issue) is that, if the CoA is a valid realization of the CoA description (and by valid I mean according to heraldics), I think it can be used in the article. But, it would require possibly a legend of the like "Modern realization of James Cook's coat of arms", providing a reference to the CoA description. But that's only my opinion. You know, I'm not really interested in James Cook. Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 12:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC) PS: talking about images, I have a problem with this image, uploaded by you. It's not a photograph, but a painting, so photograph provisos do not apply. Furthermore, Emilio Biggeri died in 1977 (see here), and applicable laws state that the rights of their paintings does not enter into the public domain until 2027 (fifty years after his death), see here

Justin, I've removed the image from commons, as it is a copyright violation (I thought it was only in the en.wikipedia). It's up to you adding or not a FUR, but regardless of that, such FUR would be only valid for Heroina, not for the rest of articles. Would you mind adding such fair-use rationale? Thanks --Ecemaml (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2010 (UTC) PS: I can do it myself, if you wish, of course


 * Done. Regards --Ecemaml (talk) 10:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Comment
Hello, Firstly I would like to apologise about the comments, it was not meant for anybody personally. But it was an attack anyhow, and there is no excuse. I should not have stuck my nose into someone else's issue, I promise I won't say anymore on the business. Really sorry for all the unpleasantness, I was being sarcastic (hence the pomposity), so please don't get upset, I certainly would not have made the same comment if I could go back now (after reading it again). Sincerely, Sodacan (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

AQ
Hi Justin, hope all fine, could you please comment here Talk:Antarctica --Jor70 (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Timeline article
I've just warned AndeanThunder of 3RR - so in the interests of fairness I think I ought to mention that you're also on 3RR on that article. By the looks of things, you're not still reverting anyway, so that shouldn't be a biggy. Pfainuk talk 17:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

re: Link
How is it a wiki mirror? Where does it say so? Justin talk 21:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Scroll to the very bottom of the page. "This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer." It is an old version of Offensive terms per nationality which was merged into List of ethnic slurs by ethnicity some time ago. Thanks, The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)