User:23skidoo/Archive15
| Welcome to the Archive! Please do not edit this page. |
| If you'd like to leave me a comment, a criticism, a question or whatever please Click here. |
| Archive: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
Thankyou 23skidoo
Dear 23skidoo, Thankyou very much for your message, and for taking the time from your semi-retirement to send it - I appreciate that. I am feeling a bit exposed and silly about this article and wish I hadn't started it. I have improved the referencing but (looking at the project page) have little heart to carry on. I wish I could delete it all but now it has been DYK I suppose that would be out. It is not so much POV as the expression of a concern which is not central to the novel's effectiveness qua novel, more to do with worries about muddling historical data. For that reason it would be nice to get it away from the actual novel's site to some other place perhaps? Thankyou again, Dr Steven Plunkett 00:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Murder of Joseph Didier AFD
Please consider changing your comments to strong keep because Joseph Didier has already been deleted. This is truly a regionally notable event and we should not get rid of all traces of Didier. I see why you favor the article of the person instead of "murder of ..." but now there is no choice. It's either "murder of ..." or get rid of him entirely (and keep thousands of really frivolous articles...which can't be deleted or accusation of WP:Pointy will surface. Thank you. Presumptive (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
This article has been improved but they are trying for the 3rd time to delete it at AFD. I wish they would help me look up sources. Presumptive (talk) 03:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Taser
Please see my response at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Taser_controversy. Reggie Perrin (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Taser controversy AfD
Thank you for your input on the recent AFD on Taser controversy. The editors involved with that article would like to continue the discussion on how to proceed and invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Taser controversy. The latest discussions include Talk:Taser controversy#re:Globalise and Talk:Taser controversy#Renaming this article?. Flatscan (talk) 02:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Angelina Jolie
I gave a part-reply on my talk page regarding permanent semi-protection. Unfortunately the protection policy makes it very easy for someone to request unprotection. Generally it's not carried out; most unprotection requests are from edit warriors who want to get their version back! However, the protection log is the most telling part of the tale. Because it's so long, an admin won't unprotect; or if they do, they'll keep a close eye on it. The thing with celebrities is that they attract more vandalism than normal, which is unfortunate (the protection log for J. K. Rowling backs up that claim), so the admin will take that into consideration when deciding to unprotect (or to decline the request). Just as a note, though, after a page is permanently semi-protected, requests for unprotection are rare. It should be fine. Let me know if that's helped. I tend to give my views as I would do at RfPP, but because protection is based solely on judgement (and judgement is very individual) it's hard to say what other admins would do in the same situation. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed your note. I hadn't protected the talk page, but sometimes the {{sprotected}} banner is used on the talk page to indicate that the article is protected. It's the same on a number of high-risk pages like celebrities, but some people don't like it. I believe it's been removed now. Sorry for the confusion. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Vegan nutrition
Hello. In the talk page for veganism, it has been agreed that the article Vegan nutrition should be deleted. It has been a candidate for deletion since 5 July. Will you, or another administrator, be so kind as to delete it? Thanks. --n-k, 04:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Polish Americans, etc
Thanks for your message. Does Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States help? Regards, BencherliteTalk 07:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Bot crazy
Yeah, feel free to let the owner know, some of these I have had to remove because they don't really relate to video games. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Airports
In what policy does it state that airports are inherently notable? If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. The before sentence is the basis for all articles in wikipedia. I don't see how anything can fall outside of WP:N and still have an article. I don't get how a private airport, that has recieved no attention, is able to keep a page on wikipedia. Undeath (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- I already know their position and I don't agree with it. They are trying to put their project's rules over the wikipedia guidelines. I do understand that not all private airports are non notable, but I will weed out the non notable ones. Undeath (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
See my reply to your comments here. Thanks, Dalejenkins | 12:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Airport notability discussion
You have shown interest in an airport AfD in the past at [[Chadwick Airport] You may wish to visit Stoney Point Airfield and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoney Point Airfield to participate as well. This message is being sent to editors who participated at Chadwick but have not participated at Stoney Point, regardless of the editor's opinion. Thank you!--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections
Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I have it licked. Found sources to indicate the film has wrapped and cited and sourced the article per film MOS. Your input would be appreciated. Regards, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wow. Thanks for the support! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Pinacotheca
Heya - Christopher Bidmead has asked (!) where we got the title 'The Last Adventure' from for his script Pinacotheca. Looks like you added the title along with this edit and gave The Handbook: The Sixth Doctor - The Colin Baker Years 1984-1986 as the reference; I wondered whether you could confirm that for him. Hope all's well. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Calling all active WP:NOVELS members
WikiProject Novels Roll Call
 WikiProject Novels is currently holding a roll call, which we hope to have annually. Your username is listed on the members list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active within the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:Novels editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. Also feel free to join any of our task forces and take a look at the project's Job Centre to get involved! Next month we will begin the coordinator election selection process. We hope to have more involvement and input this time around! More news will be forthcoming. Thanks, everyone! María (habla conmigo) 14:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC) |
Please return to WikProject Media franchises
Dear 23skidoo...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You need to add the AfD notice to each of the nominated articles for proper notification. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Several of us have recommended speedy closure of your AFD due to improper use of the bulk nomination process. You can't nominate a group of unconnected motion pictures because it creates a real mess. I recommend you request closure of the current AFD and renominate each one separately. I know it's a lot of work, but every motion picture has different issues when it comes to establishing notability. Cheers. 23skidoo (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks for the information you two. Normally i never need to nominate articles in a group wise fashion though i have seen it happen before. I fully agree that the only connection between these articles is that they were all contested by one and the same user. The nomination of all of those together was more to keep things organized by allowing one place to discuss all of them; But i agree that the group AFD makes it rather hard to comment on them as the issues with the articles is not the same.
- It seems the articles have already been nominated for AFD separately so i closed this AFD as a procedural keep. But seeing this entire situation i think the PROD template needs a haul over; Either removal of it should be limited to valid reasons, or we should just stick with AFD templates. Watching each and every page to see if a prod remains in place is simply not a time saver. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I noted your comment at Alice about Shrek. Farley was to be more than the voice... he was to BE Shrek... with both voice and motion-capture movements. When he died, they brought in Mike Myers as voice (and a terrific choice), but when they needed the movements of a fat man, and because of the contacts I had made over at Sony Pictures by being the reference model for the Harry Potter mountain Troll, they brought in me to DreamWorks in Burbank and hooked me to their machines. Trivia, sure... but I was wired up with sensors for nearly 12 hours. I wish they had brought me for Shreks 2 and 3... but they had all they needed from that first long session. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
INRE your reply: In conversations I had had with the creation staff and animators at DreamWorks, they shared that Farley had been first choice because of films likBeverly Hills Ninja, Black Sheep and Tommy Boy, they had loved the idea of a lovable goof on a mission. It would have been awesome. One of my favorite stills: [1] Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
![[1]](http://mqschmidt.com/82537fa0.jpg){kind=link}
Keele University Halls of Residence
Hi 23skidoo, please see my reply to your comment on the AfD page for Keele University Halls of Residence. Bongomatic (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Cell
Cell (Dragon Ball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD) I thought you would like to know why this AfD has been closed prematurely.JJJ999 (talk) 01:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, it looks like the move to unmerge will come from the talk page of the list of characters.JJJ999 (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Female_protagonists_in_Disney_animated_films
An article that you have been involved in AFDing, Female_protagonists_in_Disney_animated_films, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female_protagonists_in_Disney_animated_films (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? (you had expressed an opinion on this AFD back in 2005. Thought I'd let you know it has been nominated again in case you cared to chime in a 2nd time.) Cheers! SpikeJones (talk) 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Can you look at my document, and advise?
Could you look at THIS and advise if I am preparing it correctly, as I have never done such before. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Were you referring to the article presently in AfD, or the one that came out of the first AfD as sourced and notable? And with respects, might you be able to tell me how it is that the first AfD's consensus can be ignored... as well as WP:NTEMP and WP:ATD? If the guidelines are changing, I'm gonna have to brush up on the new rules. - Best Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Very much appreciate your insights. Of course, that puts WP:NTEMP on a slippery slope, as any accepted notability is then subject to a later possible deletion if any editor feels that a notability no longer exists and does an AfD nomination. I do not envy the headaches the Admins must have. Best, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Second Attempt to Delete Donna Eden
You made a comment the first time someone attempted to delete Donna Eden. Someone is trying again to delete it. If you want to comment again, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Eden 2. --Mbilitatu (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
William S. Burroughs
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, didn't I remove the "Queer Burroughs" paragraph in this edit? Anyhow, my revert was merely for technical reasons, since User:Insearchfortruth's edit changed the article back to this version which, incidentally, was also the last time he edited the page. He reinserted deleted images and typos along the way, while removing references that have been added in the meantime, etc. If there's anything you'd like to remove from the current version of the article, feel free to, I don't have any objections. --Conti|✉ 12:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Whew. This was the most work I have ever done on any one article and boy... are my fingers tired. I am not asking for a vote at AfD, as I think I saved the article... but would like your input as to my work and suggestions for possible improvements. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Replied to your post
Hi. I've replied to your post at Wikipedia talk:Assume good faith#Bias against IPs. Just thought I'd let you know, since it's been many months, and it's not likely that you're checking back there daily. Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
RfD nomination of Monster House (2006 film
I have nominated Monster House (2006 film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. JaGatalk 06:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Deletion Review
Thanks for the info 23skidoo. I've put my article for deletion review here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_November_6
Could you have a look at it and put it back online? Your effort is much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I'm not disputing the original AfD - I have redone the page in the last 8 months to meet the objections from last time. I have also taken your suggestions and put detailed reasons in the discussion. If you have any advice for me, I'd appreciate it, otherwise, thank you very much for your time. Camera123456 (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you gave your input in the deletion discussion of this article; however, the problem remains on what exactly should be done with this article and the relevant featured articles. There is currently a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Eight featured articles to be demoted. Please stop by and participate. Thanks. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Re:Dakota Blue Richards
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Made some improvements on the article... adding some critical response (good and bad for balance), and expanding it a bit and filled out the infobox. I think we can do without a song listing... unless it a offered in a much briefer format as a soundtrack. Opinion? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
I took the assertions of notability in a different direction and think I did okay. Opinion? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Help me!
Hi there. I have this problem that I've register the user name as Penulis at Wikipedia Malay version but I can't register to Wikipedia in the English version and the user Penulis in wikipedia English version does even exist. Can you help me with that. I will check you discussion page again later. 60.50.169.223 (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
You blocked this user for adding incorrect information to the Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio articles, however it looks like the user was correcting the information. Although the IP's edit on Flagship does not appear to be constructive, it was a few days ago, and unless there is something I can't see (for example, any deleted or oversighted edits by the IP), I don't think the block is needed. —Snigbrook 20:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- on Leonardo DiCaprio, the IP changed "won" back to "nominated"[2], it was User:68.165.191.93 who had changed it to "won" earlier[3] (the other changes had already been reverted by another IP), and on Kate Winslet, the Golden Globe nomination for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind was in 2005 (see Golden Globe Award for Best Actress - Motion Picture Musical or Comedy and http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Golden_Globes_USA/2005). —Snigbrook 23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...
This somebody you recognize? See the deleted user page. Wikia A.d.m.i.n.i.s.t.r.a.t.o.r. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Admin to Admin question regarding AFD renominations
About 6 weeks ago, you closed an AFD for New Brooklyn with a Keep decision. Another user is either unaware of this or has chosen to ignore the outcome and has renominated the article here. Of course, when an article is deleted and someone doesn't like that, they can take it to deletion review. But do you know if there is a similar process for people to appeal Keep decisions they don't like? The reason I'm asking is I'm considering putting forward a proposal for just such a mechanism to perhaps cut down on the number of repeated AFDs. Although I'm unaware of a particular "time frame" policy and WP:NOTAGAIN doesn't really give a time limit, I'm constantly seeing AFD renominations for articles that have been kept, sometimes as recently as a few days earlier and more commonly a few weeks. (I'm talking about AFDs closed with keep decisions; as far as I'm concerned "No consensus" decisions are fair game to reopen). Thanks for your time (I prefer responses on my own talk page as I'm trying to cut down on my Watchlist). 23skidoo (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- It has been known for keep closures to be brought to deletion review, although any such closure brought anything later than a week or so after the AFD tends to get met with "just renominate it". Equally, articles which are kept at AFD are often renominated later and there is no rule or policy against this (WP:NOTAGAIN is an essay). If the consensus seems to be that it is too soon or that a nomination is disruptive, there'll usually be a quick snowball close. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- It seems, though, that there is increasing consensus to reject AfD nomination after a keep within the prior month. I would advocate changing that to 3 or, better, 6 months (in the absence of additional evidence), in order to prevent deletion by the mere reliance on statistical fluctuation in participation. As for appealing keeps in the absence of very clear blatant error, the balance of the procedures is already tilted very heavily towards deletion. DGG (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree 100%. I have been advocating a "minimum time" between nominations for awhile now and I think I even posted a comment suggesting same at one of the "town pump" discussion pages, only to have it ignored. Certainly any AFD that passes with a clear "keep" decision within 4-6 weeks prior should be closed because most recent issues would have been addressed in the prior discussion. 23skidoo (talk) 15:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- It seems, though, that there is increasing consensus to reject AfD nomination after a keep within the prior month. I would advocate changing that to 3 or, better, 6 months (in the absence of additional evidence), in order to prevent deletion by the mere reliance on statistical fluctuation in participation. As for appealing keeps in the absence of very clear blatant error, the balance of the procedures is already tilted very heavily towards deletion. DGG (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I invite you to take a look at the pre-Schmidt article. There is an amazing amount of notability I have found on the ball itself, and after correcting the "trivia" list to make it encyclopedic, I am currently going through the article and sourcing the informations. Youch. So much to do. I will be posting requests on the pages of the various contributors to the article, asking them to provide specific sourcing for their additions to the pre-AfD article. That one film device has been so imortalized in other works is amazing. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- You're right. Daily Motion was overused. Now fixed. More to do, more to do.... Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
WP:FILMS Questionnaire
As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I hope you don't mind, I've gone and replaced this cover with a copy of the original woodcut (file:Ubu-Jarry.png). A cover of the first edition is also available (file:Première Ubu Roi.jpg), if you think it more appropriate. Cheers, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 03:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note, I'll make sure to elaborate in future deletion summaries. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Futaba Channel
Hi there. You were a participant in the AfD discussion for Futaba Channel, which I closed as "delete." I have decided to relist the article at AfD; the discussion is here. Your further input is welcome. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Keep
Hi 23skidoo
Please see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Shorthands for the definition of "Speedy keep" in an AfD discussion (which current definition does not appear to represent a consensus view) and Wikipedia talk:Guide to deletion#Definition of "Speedy keep", a discussion I initiated explaining why (despite the original use of the shorthand) the consensus view is that your usage is what should be denoted by a "Speedy keep" opinion in an AfD.
Bongomatic 15:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I have rewritten this article and fully cited it. I hope you can read over it and share your thoughts. • Freechild'sup? 15:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Danger Man
I note you keep an eye on Danger Man and you are not averse to Trivia. I have started a Trivia section on Danger Man and made amendments to Edwin Astley re his music to Danger Man, The Saint, and The Champions. I think you know my main edit is to Queen Of Swords which I have expanded threefold over the last 3 months. I hope it meets your approvalREVUpminster (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
A centralised discussion which may interest you
Hi. You may be interested in a centralised discussion on the subject of "lists of unusual things" to be found here. SP-KP (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Vandal
There's a discussion on catgut's talk page here about a user who keeps adding spurious information to select pages. I bring this to your attention because the user keeps adding "French Inhaler" to John Griswold's chronology in James Bond novels. Oddly, I can see that as a Fleming title. We can continue this discussion either on your talk page or on Catgut's. Fanthrillers (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
user
I will take a look today & email you. DGG (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Moving Mission Impossible
See recent findings and proposal on Talk:Mission: Impossible#Moving the article. I plan to move the article if nobody objects over the next week. I you do have concerns, please note them on the talk page. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- My formal attempt to move this article ended in failure. It seems to be stuck with its current name forever. Maybe I didn't try hard enough ... Aymatth2 (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I do not see that I owe you an apology for pointing out a fact. I even explained in detail how this was so. Consequently, there will be none unless you defend your statements to which I was referring and justify an apology. At least for now, I stand by my comment as completely justified in its context. I have explained in many discussions that interpreting the "No Personal Attacks" rule so strictly that if an editor points out irrefutably bad behavior of one sort or another by some other editor, he is faulted for doing so rather than the other be properly disciplined for his behavior, is to the detriment of the encyclopedia as it not just condones but encourages such bad behavior. --Ted Watson (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
A deletion review discussion you may wish to contribute to.
Hi. I've listed two deleted articles at Wikipedia:Deletion_review, following the discussion on "lists of unusual things" which took place earlier in the year. As a contributor to that discussion, you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether the two deleted articles should be restored. SP-KP (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The above article is being re-assessed as part of the GA Sweeps project The re-assessment has been placed on hold.
It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass; otherwise it will fail. See Talk:James Bond for things needing to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
GA reassessment of The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)
I am conducting a review of this article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have delisted the article. There are several concerns which have been left at Talk:The Man with the Golden Gun (novel)/GA1, which need to be addressed if the article is to regain GA status. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Novels - Coordinator Election
Hello. To begin, every member of WikiProject Novels will be getting this message (the joy of macros) so if you wish to get in touch with me, please post a message on my talk page. I would encourage anyone who so wishes, to stand in the Coordinator Elections. If you wish to stand, please do so by 23:59pm, June 27. Voting will the continue to 23:59pm, July 21. Can everyone please check-out the Coordinator Elections page. Also, the collaboration of the month is The Tin Drum, so if you have any spare time, please check it out. And I apologise to the seven of you for whom this will be a repeat message. Regards, Alan16 (talk).
Don't leave yet!
Don't just turn and run. We've got "a last ditch effort" so to speak.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Socionics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Coordinator Election
Hello. The Coordiantor Election has begun. All members are encouraged to vote by the deadline, July 28. To vote simply add support to the comments and questions for.. section of the member of your choice.
3 users are standing:
- Alan16 (talk · contribs)
- Kevinalewis (talk · contribs)
- Pmlinediter (talk · contribs)