User talk:PeterSymonds/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Happy New Year!

A cat to ease all of your troubles		Happy New Year!
		Hey there, PeterSymonds! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;) Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh. Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Many thanks for your comments! Fair use is reasonable as probably all other logos are copyright. The english wiki is particularly aggressive as exhibited by the image's 3 year survival on the german wiki. Would making a direct link from the english to the german image be appropriate? My tentative attempt can be found in the info box University of Zimbabwe. Part (talk) 13:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Please help - HAPPY 2009.

Unfortunately it's not possible to link images across Wikimedia projects without their upload to Commons. To upload fair-use, see Wikipedia:Upload, which will give you a guide to uploading fair-use images. The reason the image link doesn't work is because the software doesn't recognise the image. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear PeterSymonds,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Deleted article: Wonder Book and Video

Hello,

Just wondering why you deleted the Wonder Book and Video page, an independent book video store when things like Blockbuster, Barnes/Noble, Amazon etc remain as entries? I don't remember the entry but I believe it had a history of the store. What advertising was posted? If someone posted "blatant advertising" wouldn't it be better to just delete that portion of the entry? [[1]]

Thanks. Blindzero (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Since the entry was written by someone outside of the company to begin with and was deleted, is it possible to to fast track a request for the entry to be readded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.218.134 (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Input would be appreciated

Your input would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:DougsTech. You were the one to remove DougsTech's rollback access in August, so you might be able to add some thoughts there. Thanks, either way (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Sebastian Bonnet

Rather than take up a deletion review, the editor you explained deletion review to, on Julian Colton's page, has simply recreated the article, again witrh no sources. What's the next step? Who should take it? I'm trying to avoid drama. My first instinct was to blank the page and leave the editor a snotty note. So clearly I'm off balance on this. Would you please look into this and come up with, or at least suggest, a better approach than my first instinct. David in DC (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi David. Well, I only explained why it was deleted and what the next step should be if the editor wanted it recreated. I can't see whether it's an exact copy/paste of the original article, but if it is, it can be speedily deleted per CSD criterion G4, as a recreation after an XfD discussion. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It's substantially different, so G4 wouldn't apply. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

PeterSymonds (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so Much!

Hey, thans so much for protecting the page I requested. I know it's not the best or most important article, but I just saw so much vandalism on that page. Thanks again, Bbhinton15 (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks! and 'where do you want the border?'

Thanks for 'noindexing' the old page.

To answer your question on the border, I want it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Astral_highway

Someone put a COI tag on the Chemetco page and it's been suggested to me that it may alleviate people's fears if I disclose the nature of my relationship to this subject. I've now done this, but it's important that people actually notice it. (Actually, on this matter, should I move this to the Chemetco talk page instead? What do you think?)

To make this stand out, I wanted to include a border and light, translucent background. So it's not the main Wikipedia space, just part of my page.

Astral highway (talk) 11:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Peace

		The Barnstar of Peace
		Hey, I meant to post this a long time ago, especially after that whole Catherine Deneuve incident. I just wanted to award you the Barnstar of Peace, given how peacefully you seem to resolve conflicts. Take care. Luke4545 (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Glad it got resolved amicably. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Will you now start reconsidering

I spent a miserable hour at CSD earlier today, with just about no help, deleting - though it beggars belief - G1's and G10's that were a few hours old and G12's and blatant A7's from 5-8 hours before. Sometimes this feels like an uphill battle and Wikipedia needs you back with +sysop. You know how active you were with the toolkit, and we've lost a lot of active people recently. Please think about asking for the bit back rather soon. As I've said before you can guarantee my nomination. Pedro :  Chat  20:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah CSD is fun, don't you agree? hehe. It was tragic to see so many good admins resign/retire last month, and your extremely kind offer hasn't been forgotten. I suppose I originally thought that it would be a relatively easy decision, one way or the other after, after a bit of thinking. In reality it's not something I've been closer to making a decision about, but I didn't put off thinking about it. My answer now is, when you feel I'm ready, I'm happy to go back to RfA. Obviously the main stumbling block would be the August incident, and I'm fully aware of that. While it obviously won't happen again, a lot of trust was broken, and for some, it will take longer to repair than others; any opposes based on that would obviously be justified. Other than that, I feel my time as an admin was generally successful; I made a few mistakes, but most were one-offs, with no real pattern of bad judgement in using the tools (I personally feel, anyway). I'll leave it up to you as to when you want to go ahead with this or not. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's over four months, and in general that's seen as a reasonably long time on Wikipedia. I'll start putting something together and then we can look at it and you can make the final decision. Pedro :  Chat  16:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to co-nom should you accept. Just ping me on my talk page if you do. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I'd be happy and honoured to co-nom also if you do go on to RfA again. Yes, you were in a very tough position back in August during the incident, but I trust that you have learned from your mistakes, and of course you won't do it again. Everything you've done as an admin back then were all positive, and as an editor, you have done nothing but positive edits. Even after the incident, you decided to continue going about your business. You learned, and moved on. That's something I like to see in editors. So if you want another co-nom, just leave me a note. I'd be expecting opposes... so it won't be easy. The community is many things, so we'll just have to wait and see. — RyanCross (talk) 09:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the August incident and most of your contributions, and I would support. Enigma^msg 09:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm checking some stuff re:ARBCOM at the moment and then we'll see where we go. Pedro :  Chat  10:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't start the bandwagon without me! I'm all for this effort, too! Ecoleetage (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good god, stop whatever you all are doing and get this man a nomination. Way too valuable to be languishing around in content building! :-) Tan | 39 15:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Same here, you would have my support. I was gutted when you left Wiki. — Realist² 04:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, "languishing around in content building". I doubt I will ever understand your offensive attitude towards those who are not administrators Tan, and who are working hard to build what is supposed to be an encyclopedia. At least, I hope I never will. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll ask real nice like. Please, lets not turn this conversation into a mocking contest. If you must, may I ask you to take it you one of your talk pages, respectively. Synergy 00:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You can ask as nicely as you like, but it won't change my opinion. What is this, some private admin-only club where it's considered acceptable, an amusing diversion, to ridicule those who actually work to build this encyclopedia? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Looked more like a random joke to me. I think you're making this bigger than what it actually is Mal. And I never asked you to change your opinion, just the location of your argument. Synergy 01:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• support Ready for the bit. Synergy 12:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Still awaiting some e-mails re:ARBCOM. Just to let you know I haven't forgotten you! Pedro :  Chat  12:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Great candidate...oh wait, we are not at RfA yet? Ah well, I hope you are running again very soon, seeing that you got half a dozen people here willing to nominate you. ;-) SoWhy 12:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Über support! Majorly talk 12:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, wow, what a nice thing to come back to! Just a note to Realist (and anyone else interested) to clarify why I left. At the time of leaving, I had intended to take a wikibreak of some duration to devote my full attention to several real life issues at the time. Obviously it wouldn't have been anything "dramatic" like resigning my tools, but some sort of break would've occurred. After the incident came to light, I decided that, instead of getting in the way of things here, it would be better to stay away and think about why and how it happened, and not to return at all until I was comfortable that such a stupid incident would not reoccur. "Running away" from the drama wasn't really my intention, although I had to consider the best course of action for both myself and the project. Due to the real life situation, my conclusion was that it was best to have my tools removed, stay away, take a break, and return when I felt confident enough that there would be no repeat of such bad judgement. I guess I'm clarifying this now, because I don't believe I've explained it anywhere else. @Pedro, no rush! :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Flagged Revs

Hi,

I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Too big and imposing for my userpage. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Template

how do you place a template at your talk page's edit page? please tell me at my talk page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dont bite neutrals! (talk • contribs) 10:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You (anyone user) can do this by creating User:Dont bite neutrals!/Editnotice. See Wikipedia:Edit notice for more information. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

Delivered by The Helpful One for Garden and iMatthew at 00:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy PeterSymonds/Archive 14's Day!

User:PeterSymonds/Archive 14 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as PeterSymonds/Archive 14's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear PeterSymonds/Archive 14! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

You are very kind, thank you very much! :) PeterSymonds (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Perfect excuse to start drinking! Synergy 01:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Any excuse is a good excuse. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nomination

Any co-noms please remember no more than two co-noms to an RFA fellas!. i.e. please don't present the community with half a dozen noms and certainly no pre-transclusion voting. Thanks all. Pedro :  Chat  08:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for not attending to this sooner, and thanks for your kind words. I'll fill out the questions and see transclude it when all the paperwork's done. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Good luck. Let's hope the community agrees. Pedro :  Chat  20:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Good luck, Peter! Let us hope the community will understand the incident. I hope they'll look how great you were as an admin. It was one big mistake, but you still have my faith in you. --Kanonkas :  Talk  21:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

[2] Sign and transclude? Pedro :  Chat  23:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Fingers crossed I suppose. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So I the whole community noticed. Pedro :  Chat  23:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Stalk stalk. Synergy 23:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

After your slight on my mother [3] I am never talking to you again Synergy! She was very much married at the time! Pedro :  Chat  23:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. Starting... now? :o Synergy 23:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Starting 2012 - I might need to be rude to you in the meantime! He He (sorry Peter for the Orange bars) Pedro :  Chat  23:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Quite alright. First bit of entertainment on this ol' page for a while! ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck, Peter. As much as I'd love to close your RfA, I'm hardly neutral in the matter, so I had to support you instead. So sue me. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

:o I'd call a lawyer! ...If...I could afford one... ;) Thanks for your kind words. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Best wishes for your RFA , my friend -- Tinu Cherian - 10:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for seeing to the changes to the UK Copyright article. Any idea about the user's status? Orthorhombic (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Orthorhombic. That particular user (Mikeboiii) has been issued a final warning, but hasn't edited since then. If you notice the user vandalising again, feel free to report to WP:AIV for admin attention (I have his talk page watchlisted but I might not see his contributions). Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

My very regretful oppose

I'm glad you changed your mind and decided to run again, Wikipedia will be better when you get the tools back. Unfortunately, for reasons you can't control, I must oppose. The reason is the clock. When you were told to try again at RFA to regain the tools, it means you should wait at least the minimum time before returning. While there is no actual minimum time, my personal minimum is in the 9 month range. I'm willing to bend that to 1-2 months for an admin on another project, zero delay for an admin eligible for courtesy resysopping, and maybe 6 for a former admin who is not eligible for courtesy resysopping or a new editor who is out-of-this-world exceptional. My !oppose is nothing personal, it's completely procedural. As I said at RFA, I'll be happy to nominate you myself come September. Fortunately for Wikipedia, I'll be easily out!voted and you should have the bit in a week. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No, no, I completely understand your reasoning, and realise it's nothing personal. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, and if the RfA does not succeed, I will take your kind words on board in the future. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a bit of a silly oppose imo. If you know he's going to pass, and want him to pass, why are you opposing? Just to make a point? Majorly talk 02:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't get WP:POINTY often, mainly because it's usually disruptive and it's usually not an effective persuasion tool. This is one of those rare cases where neither applies: It's not disruptive as consensus is abundantly clear, and I'm not trying to be persuasive. The time to persuade was before the nomination was accepted, that time is long passed. I don't expect to be making statements like this very often.

In any case, it's clear the community wants him back now rather than later, and once he is confirmed by the crat-on-duty, I will join in welcoming Peter back to the broom closet. I do hope I'm wrong about this setting a precedent. Even more, I hope no admin makes a similar mistake again, making the "precedent" issue moot. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I never mentioned disrupting anything. It merely seems you are making the oppose for the sake of making it. I can't see the point in doing that. Majorly talk 04:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the point was that it would set a precedent: If you are a great editor and a great admin and you share your account, just apologize, continue editing like a super-editor, wait 5 months, and you'll get your bit back. Well, it will set a precedent only if another super-editor is foolish enough to repeat PeterSymonds's mistake, which I hope is never. Great editor, great once-and-future admin, but too soon. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the WP:100 club. It's very rare for someone to join the WP:100 club twice, both for RFAs, presumably both successful. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn. I am so sorry but I can't. I'm so sorry because you got FA'd articles very dear to my heart (on Princesses Louise and Beatrice - I'm under-the-radar slightly obsessed with Victorian royalty that has all to do with a tl;dr winter in Helsinki and the limitations of the British Embassy Library. I did a few bits on PL and could have sworn I was the one who pointed out her 1st-in-centuries commoner marriage but apparently no, it musta been elsewhere so I've stopped taking any incidental credit for the article). I want so to be neutral but, hell, you'll pass and you'll do fine but I can't get over that letting in just yet. That's my personal paranoia problem probably. Wishing you well (and do you do AP?) Plutonium27 (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) I totally understand your position, and that isn't just an empty phrase. Yes, I forget when/how I became interested in that particular era. I began writing about the Victorian female royalty in particular, as studying the history gave tonnes of information on the male role, but only small bits of information on the female role. I think in the case of Victoria's children, the Princesses were the more interesting of the clan of nine, simply because their lives were not as restricted as some historians suggest. All five daughters, in fact, had a role in politics as well as simply being wives/mothers (Beatrice, for example, spent most of her life as her mother's assistant, involving herself in political affairs in a far more superior way than her brother the Prince of Wales). But I ramble on. If you mean Princess Alice, the answer is yes (here). I hope to have that finished by the end of the month, and it should be featured some point next month (here's hoping!). Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kanonkas

Thank you Peter for voting in my successfully closed RfA! I'm sure you'll make it too! Best regards, --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Denbot (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on a successful Reconfirmation

This was what you call perfect timing. You can breath normally again. You deserve it. Synergy 19:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

zomg how dare you violate WP:CRYSTAL?!11!one!1 –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

\o/ Synergy 19:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What, you made it!? No one I support for admin actually gets it. ;) Congrats. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I haven't yet. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

{{sofixit}} –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Synergy is evil, he tricks us into prematurely congratulating you! SoWhy 19:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Whats another four hours between friends? Synergy 20:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Were I to hazard a guess, I would say it is the same as the difference between "friends", "good friends" and "someone you cannot look in the eye the Morning After", - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

See you around RFPP ;-) Tan | 39 20:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes you can! Yes you did! :P iMatthew // talk // 20:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You made it!

Time to get some champagne! Congratulations! --Kanonkas :  Talk  23:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Peter! I knew the community would see past the incident. You've come a long way from August, good job! Congratulations, and get ready to be my new admin pet help me out fairly often. iMatthew // talk // 23:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Heh, real congratulations now! The pleasantries are over, get to work already! :) The Helpful One 23:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) I won't let you down again. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

We were supposed to wait to start drinking.... oh boy. Synergy 23:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Why wait!? As I told you earlier on, any excuse is a good excuse! :) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA

Well done Mr College on your (re?)adminship. Simply south not SS, sorry 23:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. Congrats on WP:100 and almost 200! — Rlevse • Talk • 23:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, my sincere congratulations! :) *huggle* ;), — Aitias // discussion 23:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Rlevse and Aitias. :) I will do my very best not to let you down a second time. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats and welcome back! :-)

I guess you try RfB in 2-3 months then? ;-) SoWhy 23:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha. ;) Thanks SoWhy. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think you'd make a good crat - but I guess not this soon ;-) SoWhy 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, what about you and RfB, SoWhy? :P — Aitias // discussion 01:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Come on, Aitias, my suggestion was at least partly serious ;-) SoWhy 09:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, mine was meant not just partly, but completely serious (of course the “[...] in 2-3 months [...]” from your suggestion was included in mine as well). Seriously though, I honestly think you'd be an outstanding (I mean it) bureaucrat, SoWhy. :) — Aitias // discussion 10:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think everybody has the ability to be a good 'crat if they have a good ability to determine consensus, and have an understanding of the username policy. Also not holding any personal bias about certain things (for example if an RfB candidate had a userbox on the userpage saying "This user thinks NO ADMIN COACHED USERS should be admins" then I'd be sufficiently concerned that they would not be dispassionate enough to close a close RfA, especially if admin coaching came into the awkward equation). However, all RfB candidates should be an admin for a year before the RfB is run (see these RfBs which failed partly due to admin longevity. Just throwing my 2c into the equation. ;) PeterSymonds (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, not everyone, see Balloonman's RfB for example. You need a pretty clean track record with no or only very minor mistakes, lest those mistakes are taken as reasons to oppose you. Hence I fear you, Peter, will not be able to try it anytime soon, because that incident that lead to your desysopping will be in peoples' minds for a long time. Funny enough, I was pondering (in light of the current crat-loss/inactivity) which current admin would be a good crat. Unfortunately, I cannot think of anyone who I'd think wouldn't be too controversial for the job - because all those I can think of are admins for less than a year or disillusioned/inactive/semi-retired/retired. So either we convince people to accept candidates who are admins for less than a year - which is probably impossible or we have to wait for some candidates to show up. I'd nom you Peter, once you reach that 1-year-mark, but I fear you'll decline that.

PS: Thanks for the kind words @ Aitias, I appreciate them. And, although it might sound like empty pleasantries, I truly think the same about you. Unfortunately we both are too fresh for RfB, because you were one of those admins I could picture in the job.

PPS: I just realized that Peter shamelessly ripped off my talk page header and editnotice. I knew they were familiar somehow...^^ But hey, I feel flattered by that, so that's fine. Still, funny how I realized it only just now xD SoWhy 14:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

w00t! Nice job, Mr.Admin! Pop the bottle! Simon^KSK 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

YAY! Welcome (back) to the club! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

CLUB!? CABAL!? Oh no! iMatthew // talk // 01:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

:) Congratulations! I made 197, yay! Icy // ♫ 01:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats on your re-adminship! Have fun!--Res2216firestar 01:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm happy and proud you're an administrator again. :-) — RyanCross (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Congrats! :) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 04:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Welcome back. Now get to work! =) –xeno (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done on passing. I would recommend updating your edit notice when you have a moment. :) Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, will do. Thanks for the reminder and the kind words. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

*huggles* Congratulations man! That RfA was amazingly supported...definitely more than I expected, wow. By the way, you're back in the cabal—er, I mean group of backlog eaters. ;) Jamie^☆S93 20:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, backlog eaters...that's what we are...*shifty eyes* Thanks for your encouragement and confidence. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No cabal here. Move along please. Nothing to see. Pedro :  Chat  20:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had exams and wasn't paying attention to RfA, well done. — Realist² 05:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back to hell, Peter. I think it needs another clean-up guy. —Animum (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Animum and Realist! :) PeterSymonds (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

I just went out to play football and was going to contact you as soon as I got back to apologise for my comment on your RfA, so I will say what I was going to say before I saw your supportive comment.

I apologise unreservedly for the way I phrased my comment, it was intended in a light hearted way, since I felt the need to mitigate the fact that I was !voting oppose, something that I rarely do at RfA. If you are even 10% as upset about it as Neurolysis seems to be then I would feel bad. That said I stand by my point about abuse of process, I've made what I consider a fairly substantial contribution here and have never been close to being considered for adminship the idea that it can just be gifted to someone badly damages my faith in the project. I respect the fact that you admitted your error, I'm sure many other people have got away with it and many other abuses of the tools and still have them. Your comment has made me feel a lot better about my error of judgement after all the criticism from Neurolysis, and you have my respect, for what its worth. Regards King of the North East 23:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi King of the North. Thank you very much for your comment. The joke was probably just a bit surprising for some people. I for one did not find it offensive, though I personally choose not to joke about it, as for me it is no laughing matter (I'm sure you'll understand). But having said that, I saw the funny side, and chuckled myself. :) I completely respect your reason for opposing, and for what it's worth, you have my respect too, and I earnestly hope not to let you and others down a second time. Hope we'll see more of each other during editing, and keep up the good work. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi Peter - I recommended an article for speedy deletion Wikipedia:WikiProject Topical outlines/Draft/Topical outline of sustainability‎ because I set it up many months ago and no longer wish to work with it. No other editors have made any changes over this period. I tried to find any comments or references to your decision (as recommended) but couldn't find them. Could you please advise. Granitethighs (talk) 01:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The problem is that those types of WikiProject pages don't meet the criteria for speedy deletion. It should be taken to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, where editors can comment as to whether they want it kept or deleted. Unfortunately I know nothing about the subject, so I might not be the best person to help with references and so on, but if the page is eligible for deletion, MfD is the place to go. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Lovely.

Jolly good show. About time, too. //roux   05:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My word, you looked so dashing at your RfA. Don't let us have another though, what what? NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 13:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Was there ever such stuff as great part of Shakespeare? Only one must not say so! But what think you?—what?—Is there not sad stuff? what?—what? PeterSymonds (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Grats

Hey Peter. Sorry for not being around to give you "moral support" (or rather, making you freak out)... I've been sick. Congratulations on the RFA, you shouldn't have worried so much. You'll do great as you did before. Just DON'T SCREW UP AGAIN! kthxbai --Chasingsol^(talk) 07:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I won't. :) Hope you're better soon, and thanks for the confidence. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock removal requested

Lemon martini (talk · contribs) is requesting exemption from the autoblock you imposed on Eco3 (talk · contribs). They look legit to me ... long edit history and no blocks or warnings. But I am of course running it by you first. Daniel Case (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. It must be an organisation's IP address of some kind. I'll remove it now. Thanks for the note. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Monarch Airlines (1946-1950)

This page was just speedied for copyvio, but the creator of the article also created the webpage with the content. Can you restore the page? twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 19:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

RECALL THE BIT Tan | 39 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Was just about to point this out too, thanks for the speedy restore. the wub "?!" 19:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Oops, sorry. It would help if the author verified that through OTRS with a note on the talk page, but what the hey. ;) Apologies for the inconvenience. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha Tan, that was a fun few hours of admin'ing...Well, back to meta... PeterSymonds (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hell no. SoWhy and I can finally get a break from RFPP backlogs ;-) Tan | 39 19:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah! Let's punish Peter by giving him more work! :-P SoWhy 19:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh but you know how much I hate work. Oh wait, that's the point. Ha. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

COG logo?

Why did you delete the COG logo I had uploaded? I work in the Public Affairs Office at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments - the logo was supplied by us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millerlc3 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. The image was uploaded with the license "non-commercial use only", which is not an applicable license on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Licensing and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for further information. Please don't re-upload with that license. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Below the Belt (Boxer album) redirect

I thought I had redirected it to Boxed (band), where there is definitly a page now (ceated by myself last night).

Hmm, I can't find one. Are you sure the spelling is correct? When you find it, feel free to redirect it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hi Peter, I just wanted to congratulate you. I'm glad you made it back into the cabal (< poor attempt at humor) got your admin. back. I appreciate that you take care of the common folk, and know that sometimes it's more aggravation than it's worth - but I'm glad you're willing to do it. Guess that's all I really wanted to say ... have a good one. Ched (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) I try and help where and when I can, so if you need anything feel free to drop me a note. Hope the new year's going well for you so far. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Peter, congratulations on your RfA results. Turns out, the community has some shining moments. Happy adminning, Kingturtle (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Kingturtle. :) Best wishes to you as well. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

NPWatcher

Thank you for the access!--Cerejota (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Most welcome. :) Thanks for assisting. It's one place that definitely needs more eyes! Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nicole Marciano

Dear Sir, This is Nicole Marciano. I am asking you to please leave me alone. I am a private citizen and I am extremely uncomfortable with my personal information being posted online. I have not made the best choices in the past, specifically posing in Penthouse. I am a stay at home mother of 4 and lead a quiet life now with my children attending a private Christian school. Also, by including my real name, birthdate, the name of my sister and the high school I attended, my parents and sister have been harrassed by so-called fans. I don't mind my penthouse info being posted or any of the that, but PLEASE leave out all the personal information about the "real" me, specially my real name, DOB, and anything reguarding where I grew up and the high school I attended. I have been checking what has been written about me on here almost every day for months and it's always changed back and it's extremely upsetting.

There are many other Penthouse Pets on Wikipedia that has absolutely no information reguarding thier personal information, just which magazines they have been in and so forth, no real names or anything else. I would depesperately like to be one of them. Please! Please remove all refereces to my USMC tattoo as well. There is a reason I did not show it in photo shoots.

On a another note, I am fairly certain the user who is changing the info back all the time is a former disgruntled boyfriend who I have to deal with staulking issues in the past. If need be, I will contact the police once again to get him to stop harrassing me.

Finally, I am begging you to please leave me alone. I Have read through the rules reguarding living persons biographies and it says to do no harm. Well, sir, harm has been done and i truely hope this can be resolved without my having to contact an attorney.

Very Sincerely,

NICOLE MARCIANO

Huh? PeterSymonds (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Please remove all persoanl information about me. If you are not the correct person to help me, PLEASE help me find out who is. I cannot have my realname and hometown on here, it is causing major problems for my family. Please help me!

Thank you in advance, Nicole Marciano

Hello there. Please don't worry yourself about it; we have people who can help. Due to privacy concerns, I'm not going to take any action myself, as I assume you wish to handle this privately. Therefore I suggest you email to info@wikimedia.org, a private list on the Wikimedia OTRS system, where you can state exactly what the problem is with discretion and privacy. The list will then take appropriate action depending on what sort of problem you're receiving. Thanks, and good luck. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much. I'm at my wits end about it and every time I delete the personal info about me it returns immediately, sometimes within hours. And today I just got a messagge that I will be blocked if I erase anything again. I'm beside myself over this! Thank you for your help!

Nicole marciano

You're very welcome. I hope things work out. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ron Sword deletion

There are broken links all over wikiepedia concerning the page you deleted. I do not eunderstand why there cannot be a page about Ron Sword, his books, and his guitars he has hand built that do not exist anywhere else in the world, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronswordofficial (talk • contribs) 22:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. It was deleted because there was no assertion of notability. Please see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and bear in mind that sources must be provided in the case of biographies of living persons. Ask if you need further assistance. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I understand that, I had just created the page 5 min before it was deleted. Also, I did talk about Ron Sword's books, and his contributions to music theory. Did you not read the article posted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronswordofficial (talk • contribs) 23:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

ALSO, There are broken links on wikipedia referring to Ron Sword. Along with references to Published books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronswordofficial (talk • contribs) 23:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nicole Marciano

I saw that the personal info on my page has been deleted and I could not be more grateful! Thank you so much!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacoblauren (talk • contribs) 23:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. :) Pleased I could help. Best wishes, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter

17:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your approval!

Dear Peter,

Thank you so much for your approval to keep the article. I know that this is not the entry of a famous composer or anything, but I really do appreciate your help. YO (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics and Strategic Research help

I recently asked for a semi-protect for Kazakhstan Institute of Management, Economics and Strategic Research. It is due to User:Bushmills2000, who continues to re-insert a "Controversies" section that violates NPOV, RS, and OR. Basically, this is a school that has screwed over some employees (once of whome was Bushmills, it seems), and the disgrunteled employees have posted some blogs about the matter. The blogs, of course, don't work as sources for Wikipedia, and there aren't any reliable sources for anything in the "Controversies" section, so I removed it quite some time ago. I explained this to Bushmills in my first post on his talk page, after the first time he re-added the material. He continued to re-add it, however, and has shown no interest in discussing this. Additionally, he has now broken 3RR. I'm hesitant to change the page again (3RR for myself), but this is unsourced, original research, possibly conflict of intrest (not to mention potentially libelous) material which should be removed from the article. Additionally, and this goes back much further than the current situation, the discussion page for the article seems incredibly inappropriate, mostly full of personal attacks and discussion about the school itself, and very little about the article - should it be cleaned up, and if so, how? Thanks for your help with this. Otebig (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is still an on-going situation - now he is removing sources from the article. I've put up warnings on his talk page, to which he responds by calling me a "creep". I've never asked for a block before (and am not sure how to do it), but that this point User:Bushmills2000 is being only disruptive. It is clear he has no interest in learning about Wikipedia policies or discussing the matter. Something needs to be done here. Otebig (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Constance R Howard

What claims of notability are asserted in Constance R Howard other than that someday she may put out an album? AnyPerson (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Replied at the AfD; thanks for the note. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

thank you for protecting Yao Ming

youre welcome, and thank you for protecting the page. ps: would you tell me how you got the awesome smiley at the lo right corner of your talk page? (edited) badmachine (talk) 04:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) The smiley is generated through {{User:Mixwell/scrolling}}. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 12:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

Do you think that you could possibly leave any comments for me at my admin coaching page at User:Razorflame/Admin Coaching please? It would be very helpful. Cheers, Razorflame 14:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have much to offer you. I will give one bit of advice (perhaps a cliché, but one I happen to respect): Don't work for the sake of adminship; if you do good work, it'll eventually come. Something else that comes up sometimes are coachees rushing their coaches, or getting the sudden urge to run to RfA without the coach's knowledge or nomination. Just take it easy, and give it as long as it needs. Adminship shouldn't be a goal, after all, and while I know it has been seen as such, don't get into that mindset here (the community is much less tolerant of that mindset than elsewhere). Good luck with your coaching. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice! I will be sure to not rush my coach/coaches and I will definitely take it much easier on here than on other Wikipedias. All of the work that I do, I do for the Wikipedia, not for the goal of adminship. Cheers, and wish me luck! Razorflame 15:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Clandestine industries

Hi - I note you've removed the speedy deletion tag from this page with edit commentary "speedy declined - no evidence of previous XfD discussion". While this is strictly true, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clandestine Industries which I suspect is the same page with different capitalisation (as "Clandestine Industries" is protected against re-creation. So can it not be speedily deleted as recreation of deleted material? pablo :_{:  ... hablo ...} 16:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In case you want to comment, this is just to let you know that have added this to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clandestine_industries. pablo_hablo. 10:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm truly sorry I missed this thread. Hmm, I've had a look at the deleted version, and it looks very different. I'll have another look through and see if there's grounds for G4. Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of CripKiller1

Hello PeterSymonds. CripKiller1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 14:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. User unblocked. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Blocking and moving

A few days ago you blocked Total Drama Island. I was wondering if you could block Total Drama Action as many anonymous users are vandalizing it. I was also wondering if you could look at List of characters from Total Drama Island and see if you think it should be moved to something like List of characters from the Total Drama Series. I did but it was reverted as it was undiscussed. Lastly, I was wondering do I have or will I ever have the power to protect or delete articles? Sorry for asking so much! Thanks!!!-TDI19 (talk) 00:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

In order:

• Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.
• The page could perhaps do with a move, but it would require discussion. See Wikipedia:Requested moves for instructions about how to open one. There begins a consensus-building process to decide on an appropriate new name (if any).
• The ability to block, protect and delete are restricted to administrators, who are elected by the community at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.
• Fourthly, no problem. :) I'm happy to help. Feel free to ask anything if you're unsure about it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for answering everything and protecting TDA. Major vandalism was going on there. Thanks again!-TDI19 (talk) 13:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Teramaze

why do you keep deleting the teramaze page??????? it s pissing me off!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.9.242 (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. From what I can see, it was deleted four times between December 30 and January 3 because it was an organisation that did not assert notability. See WP:CORP, WP:CSD and your first article for more information and advice. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 09:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback Links

Turns out, you can just add this to your monobook.css. Cheers, — Jake Wartenberg 16:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting; thanks for the note. I think I'll keep them as they are for now, unless I accidentally revert someone... :) PeterSymonds (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My page deleted

You deleted my page because of copyright infringement with Tucson air conditioning. I would like to know how you came to this conclusion. Could you please let me know. Thanks much, Jeff JML2112 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Some of it was a word-for-word copy/paste of this document, which was why I deleted it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for input

Hi Peter, I got to head to bed now, could you provide a second opinion to this request for protection and take care of it? Regards SoWhy 00:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nvm, another admin took care of it. Regards SoWhy 11:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been out much of this week, so I haven't been able to respond quickly. Glad it got resolved. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Why did you lock the edit this page section of Hannah Storm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.232.143 (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research, suspected copyright violations and BLP issues originating from several IPs were making the page unstable. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Might as well be on the lookout, because he's doing this to a lot of female sportscaster articles (ie:[4] [5] [6]. And that's just for starters. ErikNY (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Aaron

Dear Peter ...

I am horrified that my "Raymond Aaron" page has been deleted. I see that "Blatant Advertising" was the reason. I really did not intend to do that. I can see that the section called "Services Offered" is the offending section. Please allow me to have my page without that offending section. I really was not intending to advertise. I was just carried away, adding different pieces of information, and I see that I went too far. It was my very first article. I'm sorry.

Can you reinstate it without that offending section? Or can you reinstate it and I will immediately delete that section.

I spent so many hours refining it and making it complete and it seems a pity to lose all that work.

Please tell me the correct protocol for reinstatement. I hope you understand that I am not a bad person and I was not attempting to do anything bad. I was just carried away a bit. Sorry.

Raymond Aaron <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondaaron (talk • contribs) 16:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. It was deleted because it was written in a blatantly promotional style. You probably didn't notice because I believe you have an affiliation with the subject, but it was unsuitable for the encyclopedia. I will restore it to your userspace here, on the condition that you read through WP:BIO, WP:YFA and WP:NPOV. If it's not changed in a reasonable amount of time, it will be re-deleted. Thanks for understanding. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry that I broke the "blatant advertising" rule

Dear Peter ...

I just wrote you an apology, a few moments ago, but I did not notice the subject line. So, I have entered a subject line in this message to you. I just wanted to repeat that I am really horrified that I broke a Wikipedia rule. I really do want a wikipedia presence and have no desire to skirt the rules in any way. Please allow my article to be reinstated without the offending section of blatant advertising.

I do not know the exact protocol. But, please allow my reinstatement.

Raymond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondaaron (talk • contribs) 17:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted; it's fine, we all have to go through the learning curve. See above for a link to the userspace article. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I am delighted and I promise to comply

Dear Peter ...

Thank you for understanding. I will read the rules more carefully and I will have a "pure" version done by 4pm EST Sunday Feb 1. Thank you again.

Raymond —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondaaron (talk • contribs) 17:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

No rush; take your time. I was thinking more a few weeks rather than a few hours, but if you can do it by then, that's a bonus for Wikipedia. :) Thanks for understanding. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

All but one correction has been made

Dear Peter ...

I have completed the task of eliminating all "blatant advertising" and in doing so I realized how many of them there were. Sorry. You were totally right.

I have read the sections you told me to read and have complied (as far as I can tell).

Finally, the header information did not seem available for editing. So, there is one change right up at the beginning that I still need to make. Specifically, the offending sentence is ...

He is listed on page 1 of the Canadian Who’s Who [1] for his lifetime of achievement.

and, I wish it to read ...

He is listed in the Canadian Who’s Who [1].

Can you make this change before reinstating? Or, shall I make it myself as soon as it is reinstated? I dearly wish to comply.

 Raymond  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondaaron (talk • contribs) 18:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC) 

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20