Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 24: Difference between revisions

 

|-

! width=60% align=center | [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Archive|Deletion review archives]]: [[Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June|2008 June]]

|}

</div></noinclude>

 

Add a new entry BELOW THIS LINE copying the format: {{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ -->

 

This article was deleted less than an hour after I created it, with no warning! I created it because I saw the band's video on TV (the LOGO channel) and couldn't believe they didn't have an entry. What more does one need that major TV airplay?? <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luminifer|Luminifer]] ([[User talk:Luminifer|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luminifer|contribs]]) 00:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

*The article was correctly deleted because it did not assert [[WP:BAND|notability of the band]]. Nothing prevents the creation of an improved article (hint, with independent [[WP:RS|reliable sources]]) that does assert notability. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

**This may be a stupid question, but I've been using wikipedia for a while and I've never seen any real guides for how to assert notability - I know a lot of people who are very disenchanted with wikipedia because they don't understand this concept... Is there such a guide? I thought mentioning the MTV LOGO airplay, and linking to amazon selling their CD was enough.. Apparently I don't understand notability, so any help would be appreciated.. [[User:Luminifer|Luminifer]] ([[User talk:Luminifer|talk]]) 21:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

**Best thing when it involves bands is to look at [[WP:MUSIC]] - those are the generally established guidelines for inclusion. [[WP:N|There's also notability in general]]. [[User:Tony Fox|Tony Fox]] <small>[[User_talk:Tony Fox|(arf!)]]</small> 21:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

***The question is whether "has been featured of MTV's spin-off network LOGO. " is a plausible assertion of importance. I think it just might be, though I know the subject so little I cannot say if it is of even plausible significance. There's a difference between notability enough for Afd , and the assertion or indication of some importance that is enough for speedy. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 11:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

 

|-

! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

 

*<s>'''Overturn'''</s> At least two of those who contributed to the AFD believed that there were sufficient sources available to meet the [[WP:CORP]] notability guideline. I cannot see any consensus against this opinion in the AFD. The nominator seems to have used their belief that the sources were insufficient above that of those who contributed to the AFD. No matter how many of the keep opinions that did not comment on notability you ignore, there is still definitely no consensus for deletion. [[User:Davewild|Davewild]] ([[User talk:Davewild|talk]]) 20:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Changed to '''Keep deleted''' per copyvio found. [[User:Davewild|Davewild]] ([[User talk:Davewild|talk]]) 06:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

*A tricky one, most of the Google news hits linked to by Shoessss do not refer to Host.net, those that do link to this company seem to be press releases mostly. Still, to delete when there was a clear keep opinion, albeit most of the keeps weren't based on policy or guidelines, is dodgy. I'd favour an '''<s>Overturn & relist at AfD</s>''' then those editors that believe there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources can supply them. [[User:RMHED|RMHED]] ([[User talk:RMHED|talk]]) 21:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

:If it is a copyvio then keep deleted obviously. [[User:RMHED|RMHED]] ([[User talk:RMHED|talk]]) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

*'''Overturn and relist''' (edit conflict) per RHMED. Most Google (and Google News) hits do not refer to Host.net, but nine keep !votes can't be ignored. <span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">&mdash;[[User:Paranomia|paranomia]]</span>^{<span style="color: grey; font-family: Calibri;">[[User talk:Paranomia|happy harry's high club]]</span>} 21:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*'''Relist''', especially since the article changed substantially from when the "delete" opinions were made. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 22:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*<s>'''Overturn and relist''' to allow a more in-depth discussion now that the issues have been clearly identified. It is helpful that this action now has the support of the closing admin. [[User:Smile a While|Smile a While]] ([[User talk:Smile a While|talk]]) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)</s> Good catch. Obviously must remain deleted until a non-copyvio version can be produced. [[User:Smile a While|Smile a While]] ([[User talk:Smile a While|talk]]) 01:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

*It was a copyvio of <nowiki>http://www.host.net/index.cfm?id=27</nowiki>, just like the version previously deleted. Doesn't anybody bother to check google anymore? (Admittedly, the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Host.net&timestamp=20080613010020&diff=prev diff between the December 2005 and June 2008 versions] doesn't format well cuzza the infobox stuck in front, but the same text's still all there.) Endorse, and if someone feels motivated to start an encyclopedia article from scratch, instead of a press release, they should go right ahead. &mdash;[[User talk:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

:::About the only difference between the cached version and the deleted one (other than formatting) was the <s>Press Releases</s> News section:

:::<nowiki>* Host.net Acquires WebUnited & Expedient Florida from CBB <ref>Host.net Acquires WebUnited & Expedient Florida from CBB [http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070919006078&newsLang=en]</ref></nowiki>

:::<nowiki>* Palm Beach Post Article on one of Host.net's On-Net Buildings <ref>Palm Beach Post Article on one of Host.net's On-Net Buildings [http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/business/epaper/2008/06/15/sunbiz_thesource_0615.html?imw=Y]</ref></nowiki> &mdash;[[User talk:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 00:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

*'''Endorse Deletion''', the right thing was done for the wrong reasons, maybe, but this is a clear copyvio. Gonna have to start from scratch if we want an article about Host.net. --[[User:Stormie|Stormie]] ([[User talk:Stormie|talk]]) 00:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 

|-

|}

 

 

Lack of Citations... I understand the reason for speedy deletion, and that was for lack of citations. i guess i did not truely understand that the citations needed posting immediately, for that i apologize. The Record label and the digital store exist and would appreciate another shot to create the page with the proper citations. Thanks. [[User:Amaldigi|Amaldigi]] 19:28, June 24, 2008

*:'''Comment''' maybe one of the seven speedies had to do with citations, but I doubt it. User has been blocked, I think SALT might be applicable pending this DRV. _{[[User_talk:Travellingcari|TravellingCari]]}^{[[Special:Contributions/Travellingcari|the Busy Bee]]} 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

::::See that now, I didn't when I was looking at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Amalgam+Digital the logs]. My bad _{[[User_talk:Travellingcari|TravellingCari]]}^{[[Special:Contributions/Travellingcari|the Busy Bee]]} 20:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*'''Keep deleted''' I think the latest version should have been deleted under [[WP:CSD#G11]] instead of [[WP:CSD#A7]]. I see one incarnation was deleted under PROD, but it wouldn't have survived AFD. [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

***Ah, but what are the general criteria of [[Wikipedia:Significance]]? "Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". The article failed to claim such coverage. Further, in my judgment, "first genre-specific digital download store specializing in hip hop with a strong focus on independent labels and artists" was not a sufficient claim of specific importance under [[WP:CORP]] - especially since "first" could be stricken if it was not verifiable. Nonetheless, G11 was a fallback deletion criterion, as noted in my log entry, which would still get us to the same endpoint. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 21:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

****I'm sorry, but assertions of notability are all that's required. There's no requirement to have sources backing them up &mdash; if the article says first, but doesn't have a source, you don't get to strike "first" when deciding if it asserts notability or not. Failing [[Wikipedia:Significance]] is not a criteria for speedy deletion; it may be a deletion criteria but those aren't the same thing. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] ([[User talk:Haemo|talk]]) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

 

 

academic eminence [[User:clive sweeting]]

*'''Rewrite''' Here is the full text of the article, as edited by you only: "Geoffrey Hugo Lampe, Ely Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, edited the Patristic Greek Lexicon." [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 16:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*'''Overturn''' Restore and rewrite-- to say someone is professor of Divinityy at Cambridge Univ. is an unmistakable assertion of significance. its not much of a stub, but its time we stopped deleting articles for being a stub. It does not have to show significance to pass speedy, just say something that indicates it. If sufficient importance doubted, that's why we have PROD and AfD. If not enough is said that's why we have {expand} and {uncited}. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*'''Allow recreation''' - As indicated by [[User:DGG|DGG]] this didn't meet the A7 criteria. However, an immediate restoration could easily result in a rapid AFD causing unnecessary extra work. I am with the pragmatic approach of [[User:Lifebaka|lifebaka]] that the simplest approach is to rewrite it with rather more content and a source. [[User:Smile a While|Smile a While]] ([[User talk:Smile a While|talk]]) 22:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*'''Restore''' - A professor at Cambridge Univerity is not a mere lecturer. I appreciate that theology does not enjoy the academci eminence that it once did, but this sounds like a worthwhile potential article, whcih should thus be permitted. [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 12:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

*'''meh'''. Go on, just go and recreate the article but please try and add some content if you want it to survive. [[User:Spartaz|Spartaz]] ^{''[[User talk:Spartaz|Humbug!]]''} 21:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

 

 

I am confused as to why this page was deleted given that it is an organization parallel to many others within the same field of Jewish Outreach Organizations e.g. Aish HaTorah, Ohr Somayach and more. I had emulated their editorial style and used sources no different than these pages.

[[User:Claudbaker|Claudbaker]]

 

*'''Overturn''' 13,000 for a religion based organisartion is an assertion of significance. In fact, it might be for anything else also--the standard is not "world-wide significance". '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 17:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*'''Weak Overturn''' probably just barely asserts enough significance to escape speedy deletion. [[User:RMHED|RMHED]] ([[User talk:RMHED|talk]]) 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*'''Userfy for improvement'''. Per [[WP:ORG]], "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered." May is permissive, so I endorse the deletion as appropriate and within the guidelines. I think the best approach is to allow the concerned editors to improve the article in userspace; it can be moved to main article space once notability is clearly asserted. —'''[[User:C.Fred|C.Fred]]''' ([[User_talk:C.Fred|talk]]) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*'''Overturn and list''' - this was a tight call but I think that there is just enough here to escape an A7. This is a division of Torah Umesorah, a notable organisation. Consequently, if it is determined that there is insufficient notability for a stand-alone page then the solution would be a merge into [[Torah Umesorah - National Society for Hebrew Day Schools]]. [[User:Smile a While|Smile a While]] ([[User talk:Smile a While|talk]]) 22:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 

|-

! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

 

Unusual procedure of deleting,no warning or adding speedel tag,and didn't examine the deleting policy carefully [[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 12:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 

:Its [[IPO]] on the [[NASDAQ]] do signify the '''notability''' even for a layman reader.--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

:::[http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:SPRD Yahoo Finance NASDAQ:SPRD]--[[User:Ksyrie|Ksyrie]]([[User_talk:Ksyrie|Talkie talkie]]) 15:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*[[User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Please_restore_Spreadtrum_Communications|See this thread]]. My thinking was more or less close to Lifebaka's in that I saw it straight off as an A7, then, seeing the nom's A1, for me the single sentence was not enough to give the business ''context'' so I let the nom's category stand. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 13:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

|}

 

|-

! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |

|-

| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |

 

admin closed debate stating that the consensus was 'merge' which has stirred up a new debate on the article's talk page. Some additional admin and other opinions on this closing result and the process used would be appreciated. [[User:Rtphokie|Rtphokie]] ([[User talk:Rtphokie|talk]]) 11:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*The closing admin closed as no consensus and said 'I think that a selective merger of this article to Tim Russert would be an appropriate editorial consequence'. A merger is an editorial decision as he says. I can't see what there is for deletion review to review here. Quite correctly a discussion is taking place in the appropriate place - the talk page of the article - to reach a consensus there. Any discussion of a merger should take place there. [[User:Davewild|Davewild]] ([[User talk:Davewild|talk]]) 12:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 

 

'''Comment about this process''' ''admin closed debate stating that the consensus was merge'' which they clarified [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=221364821&oldid=221363334 here]. There is NOTHING for this DRV to rule on - A merger discussion is ongoing on the talkpage, the outcome of this administration process will have no basis to influence or inform ''that'' editorial process. If at the talkpage, the consensus is that the article should be merged, it will be merged - ''regardless'' of what decisions are made here. --[[User:Killerofcruft|Killerofcruft]] ([[User talk:Killerofcruft|talk]]) 12:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*'''Wrong forum'''. Consensus to merge was not clear. Appropriate place to debate merger is on the talk page. --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*'''Clarify the meaning of consensus''': we seem to have a majority who favor deleting or merging the article, with a non-trivial minority opposed to it. The closing admin at the AfD appeared to suggest merging, although I'm not clear on the purpose of this statement if it carries no weight. In the absence of unanimity, is the default supposed to be "keep without merging", against the will of the majority? I realize it's not a vote, but it's not minority rule, either. We have discussed the future of the article extensively at the AfD and on the talk page. I believe it's time for there to be some resolution. I was bold and attempted a good faith merge ('''not''' simply a redirect), which was reverted and began a brief edit war. The edit warrior on the "keep" side of the argument now claims to have retired from Wikipedia in frustration, which is too bad, despite my disagreement with him. A clear judgment, one way or the other, would be better for the project and less frustrating to editors. [[User:Fletcher|Fletcher]] ([[User talk:Fletcher|talk]]) 13:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 

 

|-

|}

 

 

This article was marked for speedy deletion for non-notability immediately after I posted it and then deleted shortly afterwards without regard to my comments on the talk page.

[[User:Jkolak|Jkolak]] ([[User talk:Jkolak|talk]]) 07:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 

 

*I deleted this, since their were no independent verifiable references to support what was claimed. I have no objection to '''recreation''', although as indicated above it needs to make clear why he's notable, preferably with references. [[User:Jimfbleak|jimfbleak]] ([[User talk:Jimfbleak|talk]]) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*Sorry I didn't get back to you Jim. I couldn't get back to this right away and your ID is no longer tagged on the recreate/deletion page. Part of my delay was in a computer crash which has kept me offline for a while, and in which I lost my document. If someone could please undelete it, I would be glad to rewrite to better suit your suggestions.[[User:Jkolak|Jkolak]] ([[User talk:Jkolak|talk]]) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 

*'''Overturn''' &mdash; I can't believe we have admins deleting articles who clearly don't understand the criteria. --[[User:Haemo|Haemo]] ([[User talk:Haemo|talk]]) 03:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

 

 

I am concerned that the decision that no consensus to delete had been reached (see [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 June 8#Category:British Occupations]]) did not reflect the debate concerning this category. My interpretation of the deletion debate is there was a consensus to delete. This category was created by [[User:DonaldDuck]] as an ''attack'' category and originally included wildly inappropriate articles such as the [[BAOR]] and the [[Falkland War]], I reverted many of those changes resulting in a category that was watered down compared with its original formula. In addition to creating the category, he has also been deleting a similar category from articles related to the Soviet Army; namely Soviet Occupations. Its clear that he is acting with a POV agenda and the creation of this category is part of that. Of its own right, it doesn't seem worthy of categorisation since it contains very few articles. Its vague and ill-defined, could I for instance legitimately add [[Tinker]], [[Tailor]], [[Soldier]], [[Spy]]? On several policy grounds its worthy of deletion, there was a consensus to do so even if you ignored at least one comment which was for a weak delete, there was several arguments why it should be deleted, there was no real argument for it to be kept - at best it should be renamed. I can accept, with qualifications, that if properly used it could become a legitimate category but not in its current form ''[[User:Justin_A_Kuntz|Justin]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Justin_A_Kuntz|talk]]''</small> 22:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*<small>All other participants in the discussion now notified with the same [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Johnbod&diff=prev&oldid=221536771 message]. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i>^Talk</i>]] 23:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)</small>

 

 

*I think that it certainly should be renamed and, as I said, it has potential if it is used correctly and there are enough articles there. I still have my doubts how many articles there are that are suitable for the article. Occupations are a relativly modern idea as a term (I think the 'legal' definition is from the late 1800s or early 1900s?). Though yes, as I said at the deletion, it could be given a chance. However, if it remains an attempt by an editor to forward an agenda, it should definatly be deleted until such time as someone is willing to acctually do it properly. [[User:Narson|Narson]] ([[User talk:Narson|talk]]) 23:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

 

There was only one real comment for keeping it unaltered and that was DonaldDuck who created it. All of the other participants noted that it was ill-defined and that it should be either renamed or deleted. If it were renamed or deleted I would have no problem with that, since that '''''was''''' the consensus. Keeping it unaltered is what I have an issue with. ''[[User:Justin_A_Kuntz|Justin]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Justin_A_Kuntz|talk]]''</small> 09:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

:::Now I'm confused I thought an editor couldn't rename a category, looking at renaming takes me to [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion]]. I suppose I could create a new category from scratch and move the articles to that, then nominate it for deletion when its empty, is that what you mean? If it can simply be renamed I'd happily withdraw this nomination. ''[[User:Justin_A_Kuntz|Justin]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Justin_A_Kuntz|talk]]''</small> 11:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

::::Renaming categories is an admin power. Editors have to go through CFD or [[WP:CFDS|speedy renaming]]. ''[[User:Pfainuk|Pfainuk]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Pfainuk|talk]]''</small> 12:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

*I can certainly see where "no consensus" came from based on the discussion - I still think it should be deleted, but there are legitimate arguments to keep (as I said at CFD). If it is retained here and continues to be used for POV purposes - as it certainly has been previously ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Falklands_War&diff=217889597&oldid=217330224]) - then it should be relisted and deleted. One thing that seems abundantly clear at this point is that if the category isn't deleted there is a consensus for renaming. ''[[User:Pfainuk|Pfainuk]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Pfainuk|talk]]''</small> 10:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

*The problem is that the category is ill-defined, and only has two entries at present. However, I think it could be converted into a useful category. "Occupation" is potentially a POV category, since it could be applied to any colony (or other territory) seeking independence, something that I would deplore. On the other hand, any succesful military invasion (even temporary) involvesd the occupation of the area behind the front line, but such articles would be better descriebd as "invasions" than as occupations, which suggests something more enduring. The term could however properly be applied to the occupations Iraq for some years after WWI; of Palestine (1918-48) under League of Nations Mandate; of the Caucasus under a British general called Thompson after WWI; and of the British military governement in the British zone of Germany after WWII, in the period before the [[British army of the Rhine]] became a mere garrison there. In none of these cases was there any real attemtp to establish a colony. This is not my period of history, so that I am reluctant to start making the requisite adjustments, quite apart from considerations of time. [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 11:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

::::If you're going to suggest that the [[Falklands War]] and [[British Forces Germany]] and similar articles are put back simply because there is a deletion review then I will object most strenuously. The category was created by the originator to make a point and many of the articles included in it showed that clearly; the same editor who at the time was merrily removing Soviet Occupations from other articles. There were legitimate reasons for removing the articles that have been removed. Some ''may'' have had article titles that sounded legitimate but if you looked at the article itself, it was in fact inappropriate. For information I have removed 2 articles, the other articles in there were the two deletion reviews added accidentally by muself which I believe were removed by [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i>^Talk</i>]] when he kindly corrected my formatting. I suggest you check before bandying accusation of mutilating the category about. ''[[User:Justin_A_Kuntz|Justin]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Justin_A_Kuntz|talk]]''</small> 16:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

:::The Falklands were not there - as I remember it had articles on Japan & Germany post WWII. You should take your own advice! [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to comment if I may. The forces in Iraq and Palestine were there under a League of Nations mandate, the purpose of which was to ''to administer parts of the recently defunct Ottoman Empire..."until such time as they are able to stand alone."'', occupation implies the seizure and holding of territory by military force and doesn't seem appropriate in this case. Also we already have the category "Allied occupation of Germany" for the post-war occupation of Germany, adding yet more to a topic that is already over-categorised seems inappropriate to me. Your comment that the category is ill-defined at present hits the nail on the head for me, leaving it open to the potential of its abuse for POV reasons - the reason for its creation in the first place. This is why I believe leaving it unaltered is a mistake and ignored the consensus that it needed attention. ''[[User:Justin_A_Kuntz|Justin]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Justin_A_Kuntz|talk]]''</small>

**tl;dr? ''[[User:Justin_A_Kuntz|Justin]]'' <small>''[[User Talk:Justin_A_Kuntz|talk]]''</small> 07:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

***[[wikt:TLDR|tl;dr]]. [[User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]][[User talk:Bencherlite|<i>^Talk</i>]] 07:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)