User talk:Xymmax/Archives/2010/April

Soleil Moon Frye
Can you take another look at this? The IP-hopping vandal is not only changing the information, but actually changing the text of the citation to support their position. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done for a month. I didn't protect Goldberg, but I keep my eye on the article to see if the IP heads over there. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a very patient and dedicated IP vandal who attacks the Soleil Moon Frye article, usually on the very day that protection expires. See the protection log which shows this has been going on for two years. Recently protection has been renewed for six months at a time. Would you object if I extend your semi from one month to two years? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I do see the pattern, and I agree longer protection is warranted. Two years seems a bit much though. Sarek last protected for six months. Can we split the difference at a year? Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  18:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. I do wonder how this vandal shows up so punctually, unless he marks his calendar whenever protection is applied to show the expiry date. EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I suspect the answer is probably a bit disturbing. In any event, I've extended the protection to 1 year. Take care. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  20:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for protecting the article again. I'm often online when they strike and I do admit that it's uncanny the way they show up exactly when the protection comes off the article.  Thanks for protecting it again, Dismas |(talk) 20:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem :) Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  14:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection of 2009 Chinese Grand Prix
Thanks (no need to reply). DH85868993 (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Re: Gonzoe deletion
Hi, I am responding to your recent deletion of the page GONZOE, and in reference to my request for undeletion. Ronald Moore (professionally know as Gonzoe) is a recording artist signed to our label Blocwize Ent. He is a prominent west coast rapper and a billboard charting artist. He is an official member of the Outlawz who recorded several tracks with Tupac Shakur and appeared on the 'ALl eyes on me' Tour, and he was signed to Ice Cube's label Lynch Mobb who released his Gold Selling group album Kausion. Not only is Gonzoe an important figure in west coast hip-hop, but he is extensively verifiable. He has various projects available on http://itunes.com/gonzoe and much information that verifies his identity can be found across the web in forums, blogs, and websites. He is CURRENTLY on the cover of two prominent west coast magazines (murderdog and ozone), and i would be happy to provide links to these if necessary. He has also appeared on several hollywood movie soundtracks such as Jackie Chan's 'Supercop" and "Blue Hill Avenue". Gonzoe is by no means 'unverifiable' and this deletion is very upsetting to both our label and ROnald Moore who has spent over 15 years contributing to the music industry and making his mark. He is also mentioned in many wikipedia articles including:  The Regime (group), Yukmouth, Kausion, Tech N9ne, Outlawz Discography, and the list goes on.  Please reconsider this deletion.  We have received a barrage of emails from Gonzoe fans worldwide wondering where his wikipedia page went, which is what inspired this investigation. Thanks again, and I apologize if this is improperly formatted, It's our first time using this system.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blocwize (talk • contribs) 19:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, here are the two recent magazine covers:

http://twitpic.com/1dcgdn

http://www.ozonemag.com/2010/01/07/issue-81-opposites-attract-a-wax-x-gonzoe/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blocwize (talk • contribs) 19:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. I will grant that being on the cover of two magazines is an indication of notability. However, I don't know enough about this area to say whether these magazines constitute the type of coverage in independent, reliable sources that we generally accept as an indication of notability. I deleted the article because the unanimous consensus of the deletion discussion was that the article did not meet the criteria for inclusion. As such, what I normally suggest is that you create a draft article in your user space that includes the sources you think show notability, then list the article for deletion review. The one quibble I have is that it sounds as if you could have a potential conflict of interest|, so please read that section closely. You may want to see if you can get any help at WikiProject Hip Hop, as you may find experienced editors with the knowledge and interest to assist you. I recognize that this is a daunting number of steps, so don't hesitate to ask me (or really, any experienced editor) for help. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  13:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OTRS verification
Hi there Xymmax, as a OTRS volunteer, I was wondering if you could run a check for permission of the file File:JeremyFallbyDirkMai.jpg. It's been sitting there with OTRS pending for a few weeks now and hasn't been updated. Regards. — ξ xplicit  00:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey there. I was able to locate the email, but I'm not in a position to verify the permission for the photo at this time. My impression is that things might resolve themselves if we give it a few more days. Or delete if you wish, and we can always bring it back if we're able to get proper permission. Sorry for being a bit vague. Take care, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The current Salwa Judum page has 20 required changes. Please remove the lock.
Hello, I have outlined in detail 20 reasons why the current facts are incorrect. These have not been addressed by the person who is reverting my edits. Please mediate. Either remove the lock and let me put in the edits, or ask the person who has requested the lock to respond to the concerns I have raised in the 20 points in the discussion page.

For your reference, I am enclosing the 20 points below.

Thanks, Jahangir Salim

These are the itemized edits that I suggest should be made.

Change #1.

• The first line “Salwa Judum (meaning "Peace March" in Gondi language) is an anti-Naxalite movement in Chhattisgarh, India, which started in 2005 as a people's resistance movement against the naxalites, a far-left movement in some states in rural India that is designated by India as a terrorist organization on account of their violent Maoist activities in the state[1]”

Reference 1 is an article by Ramchandra Guha written in 2006.(http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060627/asp/opinion/story_6402011.asp)

I suggest this line should read Salwa Judum (meaning "Purification hunt" in Gondi language) is a state sponsored and supported anti-Naxalite movement in Chhattisgarh, India, which started in 2005. [1] “ For the reference, we can use the petition signed by Ramchandra Guha, who is the author of the current article used for reference #1. This petition (http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?231861) was written shortly after Mr. Guha wrote the article. The petition has the line “From what we have seen, Salwa Judum is not the "spontaneous peoples’ movement" it is made out to be. It appears to be fully sponsored and supported by various government agencies.”

Change #2.

• Please remove the sentences “The Salwa Judum movement later received bi-partisan support from both the opposition and ruling parties.[1][2] A few years later the state government adopted the salwa judum movement in order to restore democratic rule to the regions where the naxalites had established themselves by force[3].”

These are largely based on references from the Pioneer newspaper. This newspaper is not one of India’s well known and reliable news source like The Hindu, Hindustan Times, Indian Express or the Times of India. Incidentally, this newspaper is also edited by Chandan Mitra, who is the member of the upper house of parliament in India (the Rajya Sabha) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3613884.stm), and also is a well known BJP supporter (http://friendsofbjp.org/2009/05/30/chandan-mitra-interview/). The BJP party is the ruling party in the Chattisgarh state, so this newspaper can hardly be deemed impartial and be used as a reference. To maintain neutrality, only reports from unbiased news sources should be included.

Change #3.

• Please modify the sentence “Naxalite forces had come to power in parts of the Indian state of Chhattisgarh by claiming to wage a "people's war" against the Indian state allegedly in favor of neglected tribal minorities in the region.” By dropping the words claiming and allegedly, or remove this sentence altogether. They give an impression that this movement does not have the supports of the grassroots, when this is not the case. The Government of India's own Official Committee (led by D. Bandyopadhyay) to explore the Maoist insurgency admits that the Maoist movement purportedly supports the rights of the tribals and the villagers in the region and that made it popular and strong. See http://planningcommission.gov.in/reports/publications/rep_dce.pdf. Since this a government source, it could be considered reliable.

Change #4.

• Please delete the sentence “They have been heavily criticized for violent revolutionary activities and vicious campaigns of terrorism, including forced sterilization and cannibalism[4].” There is no evidence provided for the supposed “sterilization”. Also, the reference given is biased. This report about “cannibalism” depends on the statement by a police officer over the phone. This officer is a functionary of the state which officially supported the Salwa Judum and was fighting the Naxalites. Also, this incident was not verified by an independent body or the press or any human right’s organization. Change #5.

• Please remove the italicized part in the sentence “Chhattisgarh state has over the years trained a number of SPOs or 'Special Police Officers', from amongst the tribals, who are part of Salwa Judum in the state, also with its formation the state witnessed a marked rise in success against Naxalite action [4],.” This is untrue. Firstly, the reference (Ref #4) does not support the statement. The article referred to in the reference talks about the Cobra battalion going to Bastar. The Cobra is a specially trained unit within the Indian military that is specialized in counter insurgency operations. They are not a part of the Salwa Judum. The only mention of Salwa Judum in that article is that “The Bastar region, in the southern part of Chhattisgarh, has emerged as the epicenter of Maoist activists with the rebels stepping up violence in the region since June 2005 following the launch of anti-Naxalite movement Salwa Judum by the locals which enjoys the support of the state Government.” So this article does not indicate that Salwa Judum was successful in putting down the Maoists. Secondly, by the state of Chhattisgarh’s own admission, the Maoists have been strengthened by the actions of the Salwa Judum (http://us.rediff.com/news/2008/jun/19guest.htm ends with - Was it an experiment for India Inc to get tribal land vacated or a counter-insurgency strategy gone horribly wrong?). The fact that Salwa Judum made the Maoists stronger is also borne out by the next statement “as a result in 2008, Chhattisgarh along with neighboring Jharkhand accounted for over 65% of the total naxal violence in the country”, which is the majority of the Naxalite violence. Another recent article (Jul 2009) shows the increased strength of Maoists in the region. (http://ibnlive.in.com/news/more-naxal-attacks-feared-in-chhattisgarh/96985-3.html - "They are striking now as per their will and we have lost an SP rank officer in a Maoist attack for the first time," a senior official at the state police headquarters in Raipur told IANS.

Change #6.

• Please remove the italicized part of the sentence “With success of counter-strikes on Naxalite hideouts in south Chhattisgarh, Maoist activities in the bordering districts of Orissa saw a rise in 2008, thus in Feb 2009, the Central government announced its plans for simultaneous, co-ordinated counter-operations in all Maoist extremism-hit states - Chhattisgarh, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Bihar, UP and West Bengal, to plug all possible escape routes of Naxalites [7].” There is no evidence provided for the above statement, in fact the very opposite has happened, as I showed earlier. Also, the reference given (#7) does not have any mention of this supposed “success”.

Change #7.

• Please remove word “enslaving” in the sentence “Here the Maoist terrorists (Naxalites) have continued to enlarge their base by enslaving the local tribals over the past two decades”

While there is evidence that coercion was involved by the Naxalites in making people join them, for the most part the movement was fuelled by grassroots supports among the poor. This is borne by the government of India’s own report (http://planningcommission.gov.in/reports/publications/rep_dce.pdf). So the generic term of enslavement is misleading. At the same time, Salwa Judum have also been accused of forcing people to join them (Ref 29, the Human Rights Commission report, Page 5 (Majority of the inmates have also been forced to join the camps. )and Page 25 (Whenever a Salwa Judum meeting takes place, people from neighboring villages are forced to attend it. Those who refuse are attacked by the Salwa Judum cadres, the police and the paramilitary forces stationed in the area. Alleged Maoists’ sympathizers are hunted down and handed over to the police or killed. In the course of the Salwa Judum campaign, villages that refused to participate had been burnt, their goods and cattle looted and crops of the villagers were destroyed)).

Change #8.

• Please remove sentence “they had formed a parallel government like the Taliban in the region” This comparison is incorrect and misleading. Taliban is an insurgency operation that is also directed against the foreign forces in Afghanistan. There are no foreign forces in this region inside India. The Taliban are well-known to have repressive policies against women. On the other hand, women are also part of the Maoist movement and there are women commanders of their battalions. They enjoy equal status as men, something that certainly is very unlike the Taliban.

It is true that the Maoists impose their own laws in parts of their control; but that can be expressed without applying such incongruent adjectives. The Salwa Judum, incidentally also imposes its own diktats. This can be seen in report of the Asian Centre for Human Rights Ref # 29. Pg 39 para 2 begins “Members of the Salwa Judum are involved in illegal checking of all vehicles passing through their area, levying of illegal tax like the Naxalites from the drivers or occupants of the vehicles.” Is not then the Salwa Judum also like the “Taliban”?

Change #9.

• Please remove sentence “The first rebellion against the Naxalites was the 'Jan Jagran Abhiyan” The People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) report shows what the Jan Jagran Abhijan was in reality. It was not a “rebellion”. (http://www.pucl.org/Topics/Human-rights/2006/salwa_judum.pdf)

The method of the Abhiyan was to threaten a village to hand over those most active with the organization, or else face an attack. Such attacks involved looting and sometimes the consumption of grain, poultry and animals, burning of houses and household goods, beating and rapes. Those associating actively with the sanghams (village organizations) were arrested. In case of a surrender, before or after the attack, the surrendered were made part of the Jan Jagran Abhiyan and were required to participate in attacks on other villages.

In this context, I would like to mention that the current article casts a negative light on the PUCL, which is a well-respected civil liberties organization in India. There is a sentence the section “Controversy” that the PUCL is “affliated to Maoist”, whatever that means. This allegation is not founded on any reference. I understand that the current authors might not agree to have a consensus on the PUCL report, but I request that they should bring forth their objections on this respected civil rights organization of India before rejecting their report.

Change #10. • Please remove sentence “So when another uprising occurred against Maoist diktats in 2005” The word “uprising”, like the word “rebellion”, is misplaced. The People’s Union of Civil Liberties again shows who the leaders of the uprising were. They were not the tribals, as in implied in the sentence. The report says “The fact is that the Salwa Judum is being led by sections of local elites, contractors and traders, that it is officially part of anti-naxal initiatives, and that it is being actively supported by state agencies to an unprecedented degree. It.s far from being a .spontaneous. response to Maoist.tyranny. by the local populace at large, as the government is making it out to be.”

Again, if the current authors dispute the PUCL report, this correction could wait for the consensus. A consensus can be reached when the current authors list their objections to the PUCL, or give references that show that the Salwa Judum was indeed a movement of the tribals at the grass roots level.

Change #11

• I request a reason be provided why this happened. “this time the government supported it.” It might be relevant to provide the necessary backdrop of the other important event in the state that happened at this time. The Salwa Judum was officially formed the day after the Chattisgarh government signed a Memorandum of Understanding (Mou) with the behemoth of India mining, the Tata steel company, for setting up a 10 thousand crore Rupees worth steel plant in the state. Since the Naxalite movement was viewed as a potential impediment to the development and functioning of the mining interests, the state had a strong motivation in crushing the Naxal movement after signing the Mou. Though no direct connection can be established, this at least provides a possible reason why the state might have supported the movement the second time around. There are articles that explore this connection. Like http://www.minesandcommunities.org/article.php?a=9457 (Havoc And The Dogs Of War). I understand that this is a reference that consensus might not be reached upon, but I suggest that suggest that a sentence be added in this light “It is not clear why the state supported the movement this time around.” Otherwise, the above statement implies that the state spontaneously supported it while did nothing the first time, something that seems otherwise inexplicable. Change #12

• I request the statement “10,000 villagers from in Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh had to flee home fearing Naxalite action.” Be modified to say “10,000 villagers from in Dantewada district of Chhattisgarh had to flee home fearing Naxalite action and violence by the Salwa Judum.” In support, I cite a statement in Pg 42 of Ref#29, the Human Rights Commission report. The section “9. Deplorable conditions of the Internally Displaced Persons” states “Thousands have fled their villages and abandoned their paddy fields fearing retaliation either by the Naxalites for opposing them or by the Salwa Judum forces, consisting of Adivasi villagers and the security forces, for supporting Naxalites.”

Change #13

• I request the following statement has the italicized portion dropped, as there is no evidence for it. “As on 4 March 2006, a total of 45,958 Adivasi villagers from 644 villages in 6 blocks of Dantewada district have come under Salwa Judum program, showing the popularity of the movement. Intelligence agencies strongly support the movement as front line of defence against naxalites.”

In support, I cite the article by Ramchandra Guha http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070716/guha/2.

which states ” As a means of saving Bastar from the Maoists, the Salwa Judum and the state administration have uprooted more than 40,000 villagers and placed them in camps along the road”. Most of the villagers who came under the program had to leave their village, but since it was done forcibly, it does not show the popularity of the movement. The report of the naxal conflict monitor, which is an initiative of the Asian Center of human rights, states “While majority have been brought to the Salwa Judum camps by force, many joined the camps because of the inducements provided.” http://www.achrweb.org/ncm/salwa-judums.htm The report also goes on to say what these inducements are. These are the recruitment of the people as Special Police Officers (SPO’s) and Rs 1500 and free ration. However, minor girls are also recruited as SPO’s in these camps, as stated in the report. That is a clear violation of human rights.

And there is no evidence provided for the statement regarding the intelligence agencies. There does not appear to be any report in support.

Change #14

• I request the statement “salary of a SPO was Rs 3300 with the govt. of India contributing Rs 1800.”be provided with a reliable reference from the government of India.

The government of India never gave any salary to the members of Salwa Judum. That would have conferred legitimacy to the Salwa Judum. The state gave the Rs 1500, and that was their salary.

Change #15

• I request the reference #21 be removed from the sentence “In 2008, there were 23 Salwa Judum camps in Bijapur and Dantewara districts of Bastar region where almost 50,000 tribals from over 600 villages had settled”.

The Reference # 21, the article from the Hindu, it titled: “Hearing plea against Salwa Judum, SC says State cannot arm civilians to kill”. While the reference does not even seem relevant to the sentence, it certainly does not cast the camps in a good light. The article states that “The petitioners also alleged that conditions in the Judum camps were bad and people involved in the movement should be allowed to return to the forests in view of the approaching sowing season.”

Change #16

• I request the italicized portion be removed from the following sentence “Some human rights organizations affliated to Maoist such as the People's Union for Civil Liberties”.

There is no evidence for the italicized portion, for it makes an unsupported allegation, it has incorrect spelling, and is grammatically incorrect. What is Maoist? I assume the author intended to use the noun Naxalites (which is a Maoist organization) and not the adjective.

Change #17

• I request the statement “In its report released in 2007, the Committee Against Violence On Women (CAVOW), linked significant increase in incidences of violence against women in Chhattisgarh's Dantewara district to Maoist, and called for a review of the Government's counter-insurgency strategy” be changed to say

“In its report released in 2007, the Committee Against Violence On Women (CAVOW), linked significant increase in incidences of violence against women in Chhattisgarh's Dantewara district by the Salwa Judum, and called for a review of the Government's counter-insurgency strategy”.

The reference given in support, (Ref #36) it titled “Report recommends withdrawal of Salwa Judum “. The article states that “In a report `Salwa Judum and Violence on Women in Dantewara', the group has documented cases of violence and abuse against women in the State. The report, submitted to the National Commission for Women, highlights the atrocities perpetrated by the Salwa Judum activists.” There is no evidence for saying that this is related to “Maoist”, again which is also a grammatical incorrect. The Naxalites, the Maoist group, is not linked to the violence against women in the report.

Change #18

• I request the statement “Later In September 2009 the government of India defended the Chhattisgarh government’s Salwa Judum strategy of arming tribals to attack Maoist insurgents and their sympathizers. “I think the Salwa Judum was a genuine people’s movement and the naxalites were frightened by it. But thanks to NGOs and other extraneous elements, it was undermined and completely destroyed.[40]” be removed.

The reference in question, Ref #40 (http://www.thehindu.com/2009/09/24/stories/2009092450140100.htm) states that the statement originated from “sources” present in the Prime Minister’s aircraft. The government of India has never formally made any statement of this nature. It is incorrect to attribute statements made by unnamed sources as something that the government has officially stated.

Change #19

• I request the statement “Encouraged by the highly positive results of the movement in the region” be clarified to state what these highly positive results are.

The movement has resulted in many deaths, displacement, escalation of violence in the region, and the strengthening of the Naxalite movement. Is this the success that the author is referring to? If so, can he / she explicitly state it, since it indicates that the government is planning a similar movement in Manipur? Again, there is no reference is given in support of the statement that the government is planning a similar action in Manipur, can one be provided?

Change #20

Lastly, I suggest that the picture of the tribal with bow and arrow be removed and instead a Salwa Judum member with a .303 be shown. As is mentioned in the article (The development of the SPO’s section) that the Salwa Judum members were “given general weapon handling training, mostly .303 rifles”. This also explains how the Judum was so effective in committing the brutalities as is outlined below. They could hardly have been expected to succeed if they used just bows and arrows.

Jahangir Salim (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Need to add more references from neutral sources as suggested. --59.92.237.93 (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC) The references I have used are the ones that are listed in the current version of the page. If my references are not neutral, neither is the ones of the current version, which is incorrect (the text does not reflect material in the references).

--Jahangir Salim (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello. Thanks for posting, but this really belongs on the article talk page. I am not inclined to unlock the article when there has been no discussion of the issues that brought about the protection in the first place. If you post your points on the talk page, and get consensus there for these edits, I would unlock the article. You also can use the template on the article talk page to get attention for an agreed-on or uncontroversial edit. If no one will engage you on the talk page, you can start a request for comment on the article talk page to attract outside attention. Please let me know if you need help with any of these. Best regards. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  13:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Xymmax for pointing me to the correct course of action. I have posted my concerns on the talk page with the template. I did not repeat the 20 points again, for they are present in the talk page a few lines above my current request that those be answered. My question is, in case no one responds to the 20 questions, and I do start a request for comments section on the article page, would these questions get addressed at all? Is it possible that the people who comment are not interested in the issues I have raised, and as a result that article remains uncorrected and in a locked state for an indefinite time? I will look forward to guidance in this matter.

Thanks! Jahangir Salim (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Xymmax, I hope you do not mind me for giving this reminder, but I have not heard from you regarding my question. Could you please advise me on how to proceed? I would greatly appreciate you can let me know how I should proceed, as this is a very sensitive issue and needs to be addressed urgently. Thanks, Jahangir Salim (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Butter (2010 film)
Would you please userfy Butter (2010 film) to me at User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Butter (2010 film). I can fix it up, add sources as filming nears, and then move it to incubation for a review pending a possible return to mainspace. Thanks,  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you were aware or not, but I've already incubated the article here. Let me know if you still need a copy. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. I missed seeing it was incubated.  Thank you very much. I can work on it there... and even easier with assists from others.  Good job.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 03:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Timothy A. Wilkinson
MSgt Wilkinson isn't some random solider from the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu. He is a Air Force Cross recipient, the second highest decoration a service member in the USAF can receive. If you take his article down you might as well take every AF Cross, Navy Cross, and Distinguished Service Cross recipient down. If the reasoning was well he is only famous for that battle Shughart and Gordon's article also should be deleted.Feickus (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)Feickus
 * Hi there. I don't question MSgt Wilkinson's bravery in any way - almost by definition, someone who can distinguish themselves in combat is a remarkable person. Still, when I closed the AFD discussion, I didn't have the option of doing whatever I wanted - I had to look at what was argued in the discussion, weigh it against policy, and make a call. Here, I feel comfortable that the weight of that discussion went towards deleting the articles, including MSgt Wilkinson's. Now if you think you'd like to have a copy of the article to work on further, I'd be happy to restore a copy to your user space. You also can ask for a review of my close at deletion review. Take care. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  02:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes put a copy of the article back on my page.
 * Done. It's in your user space at User:Feickus/sandbox/Timothy A. Wilkinson. Note that a bot may remove the picture at some point if it isn't used in an article that is in main space. Kind regards. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review of EHCP
Hi, I am still trying to figure out the Wikipedia process, and so I apologize for incorrectly posting on your talk page.

I do have a question that I hope you will help me with. Now that I have listed a review for EHCP, should I put a "keep" comment below it? or do I not partake in that portion of the discussion since I posted it? If I should, may I ask what the markup is to insert a "keep"?

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiZZiK (talk • contribs) 17:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Xymmax, I've already responded to this user at his talk page, since I think what he really wants to do, rather than appeal the deletion, is to start a new, better article about EHCP. —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)