User talk:Exemplo347/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Exemplo347, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 03:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to MILHIST

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Anotherclown (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sino-Sikh War

Hello, how are you?. Yes I edited the Sino-Sikh War because the Sikh Empire had a victory. I will send you the proof of that. Thank you Why do people not understand (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Sino-Sikh War ended in a Stalemate - if you have any reliably sourced and verifiable information that contradicts over 150 years of historical accounts about this event, please add it to the article with citations and references. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, how are you? If you think that it was a military stalemate, please search google: Khalsa from Wikipedia and go to: Khalsa as a military force. I know there are not so many information about the Sino-Sikh War. You can reply me back. Thank you Why do people not understand (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

As I have already said, if you have information that contradicts the information in the article you should add it to the article - but only if you have CITATIONS and REFERENCES to back up the information you wish to add. You cannot change articles based solely on your own opinion. I will not be discussing this any further on my talk page. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

deletion of the Aksumite kings from the list of Notable-Ethiopian-Tigrayan / Notable-Eritrean Biher-Tigrinya people

I have tried to delete the Aksumite kings from the list of Notable-Ethiopian-Tigrayan / Notable-Eritrean Biher-Tigrinya people, since they are not recognizable as Tigres / Tigringa / Amharas. The Aksumites are Habeshas who then all spoken the Ge'ez Language. Therefore, one can say that the Aksumites are Habeshas, but not to which subgroup they belong, because there were not these subgroups before the formation of the different languages. — Preceding Fitawrari (talk) 07:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)Fitawrari (talk • contribs) 11:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Exemplo347, I think Fitawrari has a point in that the "Aksumites" were not strictly Tigrayan/Tigrinya therefore adding all of those Aksumite Kings as Notable "Tigrayan/Tigrinya/Amhara" is like calling Emperor Nero, Augustus, Caesar, etc Roman Emperors as "Notable Italians" or "Notable Spaniards" or "Notable Germans" simply because these modern ethnic groups live or were once a part of an Ancient Empire. As for the Aksumites being "Habeshas" is also not completely validated either. Otakrem (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

As my edit summary states, I reverted the removal of content from the article as there was no edit summary that explained the deletion and no sources/references were added to the article that would justify the change. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Mey Chan related

You may wish to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mey Chan and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Adam Aflah II. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Robin Queen

Unquestionably notable under WP:PROF, regardless of who wrote it. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Dwen Gyimah

Just a very minor thing. Did you intend to use the word "delete" in your most recent comment when "keep" would have made more sense ? Cf "....but you keep adding delete to everything....". Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   22:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Velella: It wasn't me who added that bit - it was the author of the article. The discussion has turned into a bit of a jumble! Exemplo347 (talk) 22:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Oops sorry! I had my comments refactored too. This is a real mess caused by only one author. Ho hum, it shouldn't last long. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   23:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Username warning for User:AlexWithBravNextGenerationMediation

Hi there Exemplo347. I'm a bit confused. Perhaps I misunderstand username policy. You warned User:AlexWithBravNextGenerationMediation for having a username that ostensibly violates policy. However, in the templated warning, it says "However, you are invited to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you personally, such as "Jack Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA"...". It would seem to me that "AlexWithBravNextGenerationMediation" would meet those guidelines, even if it's a bit wordy. In fact, I think it's preferable as it explicitly declares their COI (in comparison to their new username User:Alex Mediator). Am I missing something here? I only ask because I'm concerned about confusing new users. Thanks for your time. Waggie (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Siege of Arrah


Chelsea Jyles

You shouldn't have marked patrolled on this page. Thanks --Marvellous Spider-Man 16:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:02, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Exemplo347. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Deus Vult Edit

Hello, to the best of my knowledge I provided a summary to the changes on the Deus Vult edit. The removal is due to the idea that the phrase is associated with the 'alt-right' movement is very poorly substantiated even by normally credible sources. On researching the link between the two, the only 'evidence' of Deus Vult being used as a "Code word" is unpopular reddit posts and tweets with 10 total favorites, not an "adopted code word of the alt-right movement". — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregDennings (talk • contribs) 22:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

@GregDennings: - Far from being just something posted on Reddit and Twitter, the information you removed from the article was in fact referenced from the Washington Post and the Portland Press Herald, both reliable sources. I trust this settles the issue. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Exemplo347: - The Washington post article substantiates it's reporting on the issue with those small scale twitter meme photos. The Portland Press article only reports a single piece of graffiti and the assumption that it had a racist intent. The phrase "Deus Vult" has been a semi-popular internet trend since its portrayal in the video game Crusader Kings 2, before the popularization of the alt-right movement. Neither of these sources indicate the phrase being "adopted as a code word" for the movement in any factual way. I really don't intend to come off as rude, but the current phrasing is sensationalized and unsubstantiated.
@GregDennings: If you have an issue with the standard of reporting at the Washington Post or the Portland Press then you should raise your dispute with them. The information in the Deus Vult article that you removed is referenced to two sources that Wikipedia considers reliable. Removal of this information from the article will be considered Disruptive Editing and treated as such by myself or any other editor of Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Exemplo347: The issue is not the standard of reporting from either of the sources. It is the interpretation and phrasing of said reporting by the original author of the statement. Would it be acceptable if this information in the article was restructured in a manner that is more accurately substantiated to the articles?
@GregDennings: I have changed the language of the phrase that offends you & added another reference that supports the original information. If you have any further issues please address your queries to an Administrator. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Exemplo347: Thank you! Not really an issue of being offended, just wanting to make sure the article (and therefore the phrase) is as accurate and correctly interpreted as possible.

November 2016

Information icon Hello Exemplo347. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Vishnupriyan. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Why you do so?

Why you do so?

please remove your edit on Al Almany Page!

Thanks

@Al Almany: Your page is eligible for Speedy Deletion under the criteria listed here: WP:G11 as it is an Unambiguous Advertisement - I will not be removing my edit from that page. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Vladimir Igorevich Gurevich

I have removed your A7 tag because the article credibly asserts significance, which is all that A7 requires. If you feel he is not notable, go to WP:AFD. —teb728 t c 23:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem. That info was added after I placed the Speedy Delete tag. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Arrah

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Arrah you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
I really love how you dealt with a compiracy theorist in the pizzagate talk page. Kudos for being so awsome! Lenkense (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:RfA

In case it gives you some perspective, or a laugh, back in 2004 six months of editing and 2500 edits got you a mop. TimothyJosephWood 18:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, well I'm glad times have changed. By that measure even a hot-headed fool like me would be eligible! Exemplo347 (talk) 19:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit History

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unless I'm missing something, my edit was posted first. You can check for yourself.[1] Maybe your computer has the wrong date-time stamp? Or the server you connected to didn't? But it's quite clear from the page's history that my edit was made before yours. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: Unlikely - I created the discussion and instantly posted my comment. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Here is where you created your RfC (11:51, December 17, 2016 )[2]
Here is where I responded - two hours later (13:19, December 17, 2016).[3]
Here is where you changed the order of responded, an additional 3 more hours later(16:35, December 17, 2016).[4]
I'm not sure what went wrong, but I will assume that this was an honest mistake. Perhaps you should do the same? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@A Quest For Knowledge: Thank you for proving that I'm right with the first diff - [5] - my comment that you keep moving is right there! Oh, and yes, I did assume you'd made a mistake - because you had. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
How do you figure? I never said you didn't create the RfC. As I already said, you did.[6]. The issue is whether my response (13:19, December 17, 2016 )[7] occurred before or after you did. As the diffs clearly demonstrate, you changed my edit 3 hours after I made it.(16:35, December 17, 2016).[8] Do you now agree that you changed my post 3 hours after I posted it? The time stamps don't lie. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@A Quest For Knowledge:I'm not sure why you're not understanding this. In the diff you just posted, my comment is visible, already there in the article, below yours. You've mistakenly inserted your comment above mine. That's not my fault, it's yours. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Despite the blatant and obvious mistake you've made I'm going to assume that no apology is forthcoming. I'd ask you not to comment on my talk page any further unless it's to admit that you've made a mistake. I'm not saying for a second that it was deliberate, I just think you didn't look when you posted. This is my final word on it, as I said please don't bother replying unless it's an apology. Exemplo347 (talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of tag

Im not the only one that proposed its deletion, did you read the talk page? Duqsene (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Duqsene: Yes, of course I did. As I said in my comment, you should resolve your disputes on the talk page. If you cannot resolve them, start a Request for Comment discussion to get input from other editors. If, after you've done that, you still can't resolve your issues and are determined to get the article deleted then you should start an Article for Deletion Discussion - that should be a last resort though. Wikipedia does not delete articles just because two editors are unable to settle their differences. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI

This might mess up archiving and keep the thread on the page forever, though actually I'm not too sure. Thanks for your support during all this disconcerting stuff. Sagecandor (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

That's no problem - if it does mess up archiving, let me know and I'll manually archive it when the time comes! Exemplo347 (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Yeah I'm really not sure what else can be done about all this stuff. Sagecandor (talk) 08:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
My personal suggestion is that you should request a voluntary ban on interacting with each other, which might not sound ideal but Admins have enforced bans like that before & it'll stop him from following you around. Just a thought for you to consider! Exemplo347 (talk) 08:48, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah maybe, perhaps an admin will just think of that on their own. Not sure at this point. How does the case presentation look? Sagecandor (talk) 08:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
It all looks fine. Admins are usually very good at resolving these things quickly! Exemplo347 (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay thank you I hope so. Sagecandor (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I have asked you to redact your unfounded personal attack on the page in question. SashiRolls (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
If the WP:AE finds that you've done nothing wrong and gives you no sanction then I'll strike it and give you an apology. If not, I won't. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Umm... what?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why do you think Template:RPA exists? Off-topic, baseless personal attacks that serve only to inflame discussions, and are made by users who do not want to contribute to the discussion but are only commenting because they dislike one of the participants are normally removed. Did you actually read the text you restored, or my edit summary? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Of course I read it. The fact is, only administrators should remove users' comments on the ANI noticeboard. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The thread had already been closed by an admin, so no one but the one against whom the attack was aimed was likely to remove it, and removing it could not have adversely affected the closing admin's decision since said decision had already been made. There is no policy that says that only admins are allowed blank personal attacks (please read WP:RPA), even on ANI. It seems incredibly unlikely that in the ten minutes between my removal and your reverting you read through the entire thread and fairly assessed that the comment was neither off-topic nor inaccurate, and you would need at least a day or so to examine the entire history of hounding between that user and me (even if all the diffs were presented to you directly). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I did note what was said - and then I noted that in your edit history you made an identical comment about the person who had added what you consider to be a personal attack on you. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Umm... again I must say, what? I said that he wrote a lot of off-topic commentary that needed to be hatted off for that reason? Or that he had been criticized for that by multiple users? I don't even remember that. Let alone that such comments, if accurate, would not have been personal attacks and wouldn't merit blanking: context is everything. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
He said your comments were incendiary. In your edit history you said his comment "served only to inflame" - it's the same thing. You can't complain about someone being discourteous to you if you're going to use the same language to them, even edit histories count. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Again, if someone says my comments were incendiary but do not provide evidence thereof, that is a clear violation of WP:NPA (Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.). I stated in my edit summary that it was not only without evidence, but was untrue. Removing a comment and calling it inflammatory in one's edit summary does not require further evidence because the removed text itself is the evidence; indeed not specifying in my edit summary that a comment was inflammatory while removing it as a personal attack would have been a bad idea, if not itself a violation of policy.
And that is not "my edit history"; that is just the edit summary of the edit you reverted. You clearly did not read either the discussion in question to verify that what I had said was untrue, or any of the previous interactions between me and that user. On top of all that, it had already been alleged that he had followed me to that discussion as a form of hounding and he had been unable to plausibly deny it.
New users like yourself can be forgiven for good-faith mistakes, but please do not reinsert comments that other editors have removed as personal attacks, and if you still do not see after reading our NPA policy how my actions were appropriate then I suggest you ask an experienced editor like Drmies (who knows my history with that editor) or KrakatoaKatie (who closed the discussion and so might have had a legitimate bone to pick with my retroactively altering it, even if it had been just to remove a couple of personal attacks that had been snuck in immediately before her close) to explain it.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Look, don't get yourself all worked up. If you don't want your edits reverted in future, don't make personal attacks (or what can be perceived as personal attacks) in edit summaries. Let's leave it at that, I have no interest in arguing with you. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not worked up. I just think you don't understand our policy. But if you have any questions you can always feel free to ask me. Just please refrain from saying things like "don't make personal attacks (or what can be perceived as personal attacks) in edit summaries"; the word "inflammatory" is not an obvious personal attack in and of itself (it clearly was about the comment and not the person), and in context was clearly accurate and uncontroversial. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Got you - so "inflammatory" is a personal attack when someone else says it but not when you say it? Understood. If you could refrain from commenting on my talk page in future that would be far more helpful than anything else an experienced editor like yourself can do for a "new" editor like me. End of discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cannot thank you enough...

...for this absolute demolishing of the Pizzagate ridiculousness. PLEASE keep it up, they seem to forget that even FOX NEWS has come out and called it out as fake. Gatemansgc (talk) 06:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Ha! It had to be said. If someone brought a reliable source to the discussion I'd add it to the article myself. Instead, all we have are people calling themselves "professional internet investigators" copying & pasting things from 4chan - like I said, it's all a bit pathetic! Exemplo347 (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
No idea why this didn't ping me. But yeah, the sources were about as anti-reliable as you can get. There has been documented evidence of pages made to look as fake as possible, but with a right-wing bent, and the masses still eat it up as real and spread it everywhere. Things like this are we we don't allow blogspam "sources" on Wikipedia, anyone can fake it! Gatemansgc (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Arrah

The article Siege of Arrah you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Arrah for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Krishna Chaitanya Velaga -- Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk) 13:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank You

For catching and promptly tagging the G10 attack page. The vigilance of editors like you helps keep things running smoothly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

No problem! Exemplo347 (talk) 23:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!

 

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Lucy Perry

Thanks for your help. This was my first bio edit so I am trying to do it properly. I didn't mean to remove awards and publications, but I don't think they are formatted correctly. Should the awards go in the career section and the publication be included in a bibliography? If the awards/publications are included do the other edits seem acceptable? (Also, note that I also removed an unsubstantiated negative claim about Perry's testimony in the Knox case) Whatbitme (talk) 12:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Whatbitme: If you don't think the section is formatted correctly, you should correct the formatting. Removing relevant, cited & referenced content from an article is generally not a good idea. Removing unreferenced content is fine (only when dealing with Biographies of Living Persons), but be careful that your edits don't introduce a perception of bias into the article. By all means, add the "Controversies" section as it's just as important as an "Awards" section - you will need to make sure you provide citations and references from Reliable Sources, however. Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy is pretty strict about that. As for the Publications section, it's already in a standard format. Good luck with your future editing! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 12:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Exemplo347: I understand. It was a mistake to remove the awards. I only added one piece of information to the controversies section ("Poverty Porn") which is backed by several reliable sources -- the other item in the section was moved from the current article. I tried to keep it brief. The current bio reads a bit like a press release and seems a bit much for a low importance bio. I'll have another go at it. Should I post it here when I am done so you can have a look? Whatbitme (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Whatbitme: No, feel free to go and edit the article! You don't need me to check your work first, be bold and go for it. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
@Exemplo347: I've just reverted the edits I made, but kept the awards and publications section. I didn't really know how to address the awards section because I wasn't able to verify that the Kindness Award was granted as there was no source, or that the Social CEOs award was a "real" award. I figure I will leave as is and let a more experienced editor tackle it. Thanks for your help, I think I'm getting the hang of it! Whatbitme (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GBA Google Boys Arimalam GBA

Some of the articles you've tagged for deletion are also eligible for G5 as the creations of sockpuppets of GBA Google Boys Arimalam GBA who is a blocked user. A quick look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GBA Google Boys Arimalam GBA should give you a flavour of his obsessions. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 12:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep my eyes open for more! Exemplo347 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

SvG clean-up

In the recent discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941#User:Fram you supported mass-deletion of all BLP articles created by SvG. The closing decision was that this should be done. I have started a page at User:Aymatth2/SvG clean-up for discussion / coordination of the deletion job. Your comments or suggestions would be welcome. Also, we urgently need volunteers with the technical skills to create a useable list of articles to be deleted. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Given the fact that the complete list shows over 18,000 articles created (which is just insane) I'm not sure enough people can be found to go through all of those articles by the deadline! Exemplo347 (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

New Comment

The article Robert M Dunn meets, as this Sgt. Was implemental for the conflict in Korengal In 2012 where he was awarded the third highest US Military honor. This man also served and was awarded his silver star by General Mattis.

Bringingvalue (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Hi there. The article have 11 refs which are not working. it does 30% from all refs. I had put comments in summary and am going to comment more clearly second time when I undo. Thanks for the challenge!

@Bringingvalue: The correct procedure to follow, if you find references that don't work, is to find references that DO work - or to replace with a Citation Needed template if you're unsuccessful. The mass removal of large amounts of information in the manner you did - that's never acceptable. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Calling an action "racist"

Banned as a Sockpuppet. No surprise

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If an editor deletes a page based of ignorance of a culture that is different from theirs, it is "unintentional racism". An action can be racist, and not being allowed to call it out as such is even more racist. Please reinstate my comment or I'll be forced to elevate these discussions to a higher level. Racism cannot be tolerated. JuliaCameron (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@JuliaCameron: Calling someone "Racist" is a personal attack, which can lead to the loss of your editing privileges. If I were you I'd delete your comment from the Administrator's talk page and leave an apology in its place. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@Exemplo347: I never called anyone a "racist" I said that the action of deleting a major African news source as not being "notable" has racist undertones. Calling someone a "racist" is different than defining an action as "racist". Racism cannot be tolerated, especially the censorship of those fighting against racist actions. JuliaCameron (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@JuliaCameron: I've told you what you're doing wrong. Repeating it again here, and on your own talk page, isn't the most sensible move. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hi Examplo347, Iwas pleased to get a welcome message from you. I could finalize my article.This is my first contribution to Wikipedia Encyclopedia. I apologize in advance for incorrect Paragraph syntax. This article describe a vital part of warship which are ISCS. This system have already been cited previously. I hope you will find it valuable. Kind regards 1wikipseudo1 (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
@1wikipseudo1: Welcome to Wikipedia. The message I left you actually concerned Copyright Infringement. The article you created used large sections from this copyrighted publication - Wikipedia does not allow Copyright Infringement of any kind. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag on Steam Automobile Club of America article?

Hi, you left a message on my talk page saying this article was nominated for speedy deletion, but I don't see the tag on the page itself.

I've replaced primary sources with secondary sources (sorry -- newbie mistake). Basically, I'd just like to let people know that change was made before the final decision on the article is made. TimInHamilton (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

@TimInHamilton: Don't panic, that Speedy Deletion template was placed yesterday and then removed as the article developed. Good luck with your future editing, and welcome to Wikipedia! Exemplo347 (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

AfD

Hi Exemplo, thanks for all your efforts at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The People's Cube. I wanted to suggest, maybe it would be helpful if you could take a bit of a break from it and let some others evaluate the new version of the article. It looks like you have more than a dozen edits to the AfD, I believe more than any other user. There's a lot of Wikipedia experience among those involved in the discussion, maybe it would be helpful to give some others a chance to evaluate the new work. Just a thought. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Hiya, yes, I'm going to let it run its course now. I tried to help but there's only so much you can do! Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 02:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Edits on Lehman Brothers

Hi Exemplo, thank you for informing me of my misuses of citation in the edits on "Lehman Brothers." I am new to Wikipedia, and I inappropriately thought I had to link a book to its website to make a citation. Sorry about the confusion and any inconvenience that this may have caused . At the same time, I have carefully read the Conflict of Interest guideline, and I am certain that I am not violating any policy to my knowledge. I do believe that the edits I made are valuable contributions to the Lehman Brothers Wiki page. Can I still make edits if I use the right format for citation? I appreciate your answer! Alice2017 (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

If you don't want other editors to think you're just spamming links to that book, my advice is to find other sources for the information you're adding. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Xxxtentacion

Do you think this qualifies for G10 (wholly negative, unsourced BLP) based on the reference? The single reference is actually a link to a mugshot (and arrest record). The article itself isn't negative but there's something hinky about that being the single ref... Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

@Chrissymad: - I honestly wasn't sure about that, which is why I went for the PROD to be on the safe side. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comment

It was a mistake I did not mean to send it twice.

Jack8434 (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Jack8434: No worries! Good luck with your future editing. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank You.

Jack8434 (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

ygm

ygm  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

COPYVIO Radar

Just FYI, if you find a new article that has exceptionally odd formatting, especially if it's a long one, it's often because they've copy/pasted it from another website or a book. Just take a random string of words, it doesn't have to be a full sentence, and actually works better sometimes if it isn't, try to avoid any Wiki-type formatting that they may have inserted after the fact, and do a Google search in quotes. Just be sure the site isn't a Wikipedia mirror. There are a lot of them, but you'll learn to recognize them after a few searches. TimothyJosephWood 00:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I thought it was dodgy, I ran it through Earwig's Copyvio Detector and it was inconclusive. Oh well! Exemplo347 (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I've not really used Earwig, but I do know there have been at least a few times when good old fashioned verbatim searches have been the more accurate of the two. TimothyJosephWood 13:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Promo Editing

Happy to declare that I am a connected contributor. And that the person I was helping is as well – she is new to editing on Wikipedia and didn’t know to mention it. But after reading the conflict of interest article, it doesn’t prevent me or my friend to edit a page. It’s because she’s affiliated with the company that she knows a little more about it, but there was nothing promotional about the intent here, just fixing the facts and polishing a page that isn’t well formatted. With that being said, what can we do to edit this page without having the work deleted?Digatron (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Digatron

@Digatron: Please read through the rules at WP:COI - in short, you should not make any edits at all to this article. You can suggest edits on the article's talk page but you must not edit this article directly - or get your friends to do it on your behalf - as it is a violation of Wikipedia's terms of service. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Once the edits are made on the talk page, who will review and publish those edits?There is outdated information on the page that needs to be updated. I would like to make the edits as the information needs updating. This is all very frustrating. The information is all public record and facts-based. I am simply trying to make a community contribution at this point. Digatron (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Digatron

As you have declared that you're working on your edits with an employee of the company in question, your edits may not comply with WP:NPOV and they definitely don't comply with the Conflict of Interest policy. Any edits you make to the article directly will be reverted by myself or another editor. I've made it as clear as I can - you have a conflict of interest here. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

G4 and drafts

Hi Exemplo347, thanks for keeping an eye out on our drafts - your work is appreciated. I've removed the G4 tag you added to Draft:People's Cube as although the content is almost identical to the deleted version, G4 cannot apply to content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement. I personally view the creation of the draft as a good faith creation for explicit improvement - however, I can also appreciate that the editor has submitted the near identical draft for review, suggesting that perhaps they do not mean to improve it. I will keep an eye on it, and can assure you that I will not allow this to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy. Again, thank you for your work and please feel free to contact me if you have any questions -- Samtar talk · contribs 21:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Samtar: No problem, that's an honest mistake on my part - I wasn't aware that WP:G4 excluded drafts. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The People's Cube

Dear reviewer,

Please be so kind as to review the new third party and notable sources added since the last version of the page. If you cannot read the foreign languages or do not have access to the books I referred to, I can send jpegs of the mentioned pages (of the ones I own that is, some of them can be bought online or found in libraries but are no longer in my posession). Please base your decision on this rather large new amount op third party sources.

kind regards

Powderday (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If you could review WP:G4 you'll see exactly why your Draft is liable for speedy deletion. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment,

The link you provide does no such thing. Did you send the wrong link? The new draft has many new notable and neutral sources. Can you elaborate why the new sources I list below are not notable or neutral? Thank you very much in advance.

1. https://deutsch.rt.com/inland/43173-trump-today-us-medienplattform-breitbart/ Mentioned as part of the new right-wing "alternative media". 2. http://web.archive.org/web/20140803114111/http://rln.fm/arhiv/politics/foreigner/1474-pamyatnik-besplatnomu-syru.html Article about the assistance (with visual Art) of the TPC community and it creator in the Norman mayorial campaign (Oklahoma). 3. https://euroislam.pl/search/cube One of many polish translations of articles on the cube, showing its international notability. 4. https://web.archive.org/web/20120118145225/http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/editorial/story.html?id=47798a07-e084-4ef3-8140-f832d4a18d10 Syndicated columnist bases an article on the TPC website. The old link is dead, so only the archive antry is provided (jpegs/pdf's of the old site can be provided if necessary). 5. http://web.archive.org/web/20130527142118/http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/peoples-communities-cube/ Once more, an old web archive, but this link shows that the TPC website (and its creator) once maintained an informal column on the online versoin of the washington times (major, independent news source). 6. https://snob.ru/magazine/entry/3692 Printed magazine (50.000 copies) from Russia. The entry is old, admitted, but that should be no problem. It's a review of the website essentially calling it a succesful startup. 7. https://philosophynow.org/issues/101/The_Righteous_Mind_by_Jonathan_Haidt Acclaimed book. The TPC owner Atbashian (and the TPC contributors) helped create artwork for it. 8. The september 2013 issue of the NRA magazine (first freedom) featured a printed version of a TPC article created by one of its contributors (Ivan Betinov). This magazine has a 4.000.000 (!!!) copy reach.

Powderday (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Powderday: The link I provided (which definitely isn't blank) says:

G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion[edit source] This applies to sufficiently identical copies, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.[2] It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement (but not simply to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy). This criterion also does not cover content undeleted via a deletion review or that was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion (although in that case the previous speedy criterion, or other speedy criteria, may apply).

By the way, simply adding more references does not negate the fact that the Content is still substantially identical to a deleted article. There's nothing more for me to say on the matter - I have no intention of reviewing the article as it's already being reviewed by a more experienced Wikipedia user. As a side note, posting all over the place implying that I have some sort of bias is not really good form. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Another Comment

The article Robert M Dunn meets, as this Sgt. Was implemental for the conflict in Korengal In 2012 where he was awarded the third highest US Military honor. This man also served and was awarded his silver star by General Mattis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptowens (talk • contribs) 23:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cptowens: So have you actually read the guideline HERE? Which specific criteria are met? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Section 4 without Sgt. Dunn the korengal conflict would not have been successful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptowens (talk • contribs) 23:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Can you provide reliable sources for that? Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Indeed I can, I will upload a statement of citation from POTUS IN regards to his contributions to the work done during OEF — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cptowens (talk • contribs) 00:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
No, it needs to be from Independent Reliable Sources. You should read WP:GNG. Also, can you please reply at the BOTTOM of the page in future and SIGN YOUR POSTS with 4 tildes? Exemplo347 (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

New Section

hello,

why have you nominated our page for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tauseefakhtar (talk • contribs) 11:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

"Our"? What does that mean? Who wrote the page? Exemplo347 (talk) 11:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Changes to Franklin Street Financial Partners

Hello,

You recently nominated the Franklin Street Real Estate page for speedy deletion. I am a Franklin Street employee who is merely trying to update our outdated page with current factual info. I am trying to avoid using any "promotional material" so I only included info that is similar to firms currently listed. Please help me to understand the problem with the info so I can make necessary edits. Thank you. Junoguy111! (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. Firstly, let me point out that I did not nominate that page for Speedy Deletion at all. What I actually did was remove promotional language from that article. Wikipedia has rules against advertising - after all, this is an Encyclopaedia, not a directory. Secondly, let me direct you to Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy. As you've stated that you're an employee of the company in question, you have an inherent Conflict of Interest. Please follow the steps that are listed in the Conflict of Interest policy. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 17:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Curious

So I am curious. Why do you keep re-adding uncited information to Maryland Green Party? Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Because it's not a Biography of a living person, and you're edit warring. If you think election results need a citation, use a Citation Needed tag. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tractors India Pvt. Ltd.

Joydip.B (talk) 11:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Hi Exemplo347, My article Tractors India Pvt. Ltd. has been deleted under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, however i updated the article with reference links, & participated in "contest the nomination" also, i am new to Wikipedia & want to keep this article live, please suggest

Greetings @Joydip.B:. My advice to you is to use the Article Creation wizard, then submit your new article for review. The main issue with it was that it was purely promotional, but the editor who will review your new article will be able to give you some pointers. Good luck with your future editing. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted Page

Hi Exemplo347,

I work over at the Nick Graham company and would like to update my boss's wiki page...You have wrote not to add "this promo nonsense" when it's actual history. I'm a bit confused. Can you please explain to me what it is that I did wrong?

ThanksChucktalbot (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. You need to read WP:COI - it lists the steps you should take if you wish to update information on pages about people you work for. It will answer every possible question you may have. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

Hail and well met! I am dropping you a quick note because I have created a new Wikiproject - WikiProject Green Party to help expand and improve on the vast number of Green Party articles on Wikipedia! I hope you will consider joining so we can collaborate together instead of disagreeing. Have a great day! Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

BACK OFF!!!!!

LOOK!!!! I DONT KNOW WHAT I AM DOING AND I DIDN'T MEAN TO PISS ANYONE OFF!! SO LEAVE ME ALONE!!! Kimmiekay74 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Kimmiekay74 If you don't know what you're doing, surely you should be asking for help, rather than telling an experienced editor to "back off". Just a thought. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Zephyr Headwear

I would love if you could proofread the article that I created at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zephyr_Headwear. I disclosed my relationship to the founder under the talk page, on my own talk page, as well as did my best to use only neutral language. I only referenced the articles that were sourced at the bottom and didn't add any additional information.

My account does not belong to the company however, it is my personal account and does not have multiple users. Also, I'm trying to figure out how to create a userspace draft. I thought that the way I did it was the best way to make a draft for others to view and proofread, but maybe not. Thanks for your input. Pwgormley (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I posted a message for you on the talk page of the article HERE that you need to have a look at. Your questions will be answered at WP:COI as I've said. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Information with no proper source

The page that I edited has lot of claims as information. Even if you check the source, they are either blogs or articles written by a person who has no background of researching. Most of the articles just claim and the source article themselves have no source. For instance one article states, "it is claimes to be kannada" then how can it be a source? Another article speaks about someone, who says he saw a word similar to his language and without researching he says it is his language only. What is the best to do in such a case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saigovind95 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

What I actually said was that the information you removed was removed without explanation. If you remove information from articles you need to leave an explanation in the edit history. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Dianne Houston - please cease reverting edits to links

Hello. You have been reverting the edits to Dianne Houston's page. The links that were removed do not work, so it is unclear why you are reverting them. One link to the IMDb page was simply exchanging the incorrect link for the proper one. Please provide a viable explanation for your actions or leave the accurate corrections. Thank you.````

Greetings. I reverted your edits and tagged the links with templates - the correct procedure. I then made sure the IMDB page was correct, and it was correct before you changed it. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Your outgoingness to reach out to others and achieve resolution to problems on Wikipedia is a true mark of diligence. Thanks for your contributions! JustBerry (talk) 00:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions

Please don't delete i beg you. sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilmMakers20210 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your articles are all hoaxes. None of your films were directed by anyone famous and none starred anyone famous. If you lie in your articles, they'll be deleted. It's that simple. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Sandbox 1

Sorry for being disruptive — Preceding unsigned comment added by HazzaBondage (talk • contribs) 09:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia always needs editors who can provide a constructive contribution to articles. If you're here to do that, then welcome! If you're just here to disruptively edit articles, then you may find yourself blocked from editing by an administrator without further warning. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 09:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Seriously

That photoshop job tho. TimothyJosephWood 19:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I don't know how you could think it's anything less than a 100% genuine photo of a book! Exemplo347 (talk) 19:56, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
You can tell it's real, because Perspective (graphical). TimothyJosephWood 20:04, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Lymphedema Medical and Social updating

I appreciate your help in making sure I do not delete useful information, but please stop deleting redirects. The intention is to help anyone who is searching for medical reasons, as opposed to specific old research.

I will continue to nominate for deletion any incorrect redirects I encounter. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

New Section

Why is my page up for deletion? My band is legit and has a website. What can I do to keep it up? Thirty3 1Third (talk) 01:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Your article has been nominated for speedy deletion under THIS criteria. The subject of your article does not meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. Regards Exemplo347 (talk)
I will read through everything and go through the correct avenues. Any way that you can please save my page or email to me for future reference? Thirty3 1Third (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I have copied your article to your sandbox HERE. Should your article be deleted, the person to contact with any further queries will be the administrator who carries out the deletion. Good luck with your future editing. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Exemplo347/Archive_1&oldid=1139698416"