This is an archive of past discussions with User:H1nkles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, H1nkles, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --John (talk) 17:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
1896 Olympics
Please, take on the 2-3 remaining remarks of Giants. They are prose-related, and you are much better in prose than me! If there are any content-related remarks and you are not sure, then I'll also do some research to try to properly source the article. The article thanks you for all your effort and time you have dedicated to it.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll happily take on the last few sections and I appreciate your trust. I'm doing my best to take care of this article. It is the first one I've worked on. H1nkles (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks again for all your effort. And if you decide to "contribute more with actual article creation", and try to bring an Olympics article to FA status (such as 2004 Olympics for example) I'll be willing to help, and, if you want it, to work collaboratively with you. Cheers!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
For a quick count, your user preferences keeps a running tally of all your edits, including any that are deleted. If you want more details, run your mouse over my contributions userbox and you will notice a link. This takes you to an edit counter, where you can a detailed list of my edits, including my most edited articles. Type in your username in the search box and it will take you to a page with your edits. Of course, this all assumes that the tool is working, which is not the case now. In any event, thanks for the question and keep up the fine editing. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
As for how long you've been on Wikipedia, go to your contributions page and hit the Earliest link. Unfortunately, your account's creation isn't kept here. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads up, I know that the 2020 games have yet to be determined so I'm wondering if that was a bit of vandalism. I would really like to get this article back up to FA status so that is what my work on it is aiming towards. H1nkles (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I hope I am doing this right:
"London organizers arrived in Singapore with their bid still the expected runner-up to Paris, the longtime favorite. But while the Parisian organizers, including Mayor Bertrand Delanoë, could often be found during the past week in the hotel lobby bar..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/07/sports/othersports/07olympic.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Yes I think you're right, though it is hard to tell based on the context of the Wikipedia citation. I'll rework that section with this article's information. Thank you for your insight. H1nkles (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Firstly thank you for my barnstar. And secondly i'd like to add my thanks to those from Prince of Canada, the work you've done on Olympic Games (and elsewhere) was much needed. Thanks! Basement12(T.C)22:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Revithi
Hi H1nkles! I would be grateful if you could have a look at Stamata Revithi. I'd appreciate your comments regarding content, prose etc. I intend to nominate this article for GAC, and maybe later for FAC. Its major problem is the lack of sources. I think I did my best on this issue, but maybe there is something I may have missed! Thanks in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 08:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, 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:
Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
The project has a stress hotline available for your use.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Eurocopter (talk) 14:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This question was sent to User:SandyGeorgia for her opinion. Her response is below.
Hello, I was referred to you by Yannismarou regarding this question. My question specifically relates to the difference between the "work" and the "publisher" in web citations. I've been listing the work as the web site with the publisher being the larger entity that the website represents. For example, the IOC website is quoted often through the Olympic Games article that I'm working on. So I've listed the work as Olympic.org with the publisher being "The International Olympic Committee". Would this be correct? When there isn't a differentiation between work and publisher then I've listed the website as the publisher. Your insight in this would be appreciated as I prepare this article for official peer review. Thanks! H1nkles (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
See WP:ITALICS; periodicals (newspapers, magazines, journals) should be italicized. Corporations, domains, orgs, etc. are not.
In cite templates, there are two ways to italicize: 1) use the "Work" parameter, or 2) add italics to the name when using the "Publisher" parameter.
IMO, it is not necessary to list both Olympic.org and The International Olympic Committee, and neither of them would be in italics. It doesn't really matter which you list in publisher, as long as you use a consistent biblio style throughout the article. Don't worry about how the cite templates work, you don't have to always supply work and publisher, just make sure you end up with a source listed, italicized when it's a periodical, and not italicized otherwise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi H1nkles, I know your currently busy working on Olympic Games and a number of other GA reviews but I thought i'd let you know that i've nominated the above for GA review. As it is closely linked to Great Britain at the 2008 Summer Olympics, both in content and style, I was hoping, if you have the time and inclination, that you may be able to tackle its review it as well. I've taken on board a lot of your comments and suggestions regarding the Olympic article in this one as well so i'm hoping that there won't be too many further problems to pick up on. If you don't want to review it, or don't have the time at the moment, it's not a problem i'll just wait my turn for another reviewer to get to it :). Cheers Basement12(T.C)17:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Basement12–I'd be happy to review it. I'm just giving your initial article a little time for further edits, and since it sounds like this article is fairly similar so I'll add it to my list to review. I just took on another review but I'll work on them at the same time this coming week if that is ok with you. Thanks for trusting me with these reviews. H1nkles (talk) 20:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think its good for a reviewer to have some prior knowledge of what they're reviewing and your comments on the Olympic article brought to my attention a lot of things I wouldn't otherwise have noticed. Don't worry if you need to take your time with it, i'm going to be a bit busy for a week or two packing and then moving back to London for uni anyway. Cheers Basement12(T.C)17:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I see, my understanding of the "On Hold" portion of the GAR process was if the article was not up to par and the review had been completed, then it was put on hold while improvements were made. I've placed it on hold. H1nkles (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally i'd be tempted to split off most the section into a seperate Olympic Ceremonies (Olympics?) article and then link to it using the same summary style as for the rest of the sections, only keeping the most important elements in the main article. I think the information on things such as when teams have entered in an order different to alphabetically by the hosts language, the paragraph on doves, or the three different flags (in the closing section) are interesting enough to be included somewhere but too detailed/specific for an article trying to encompass the entire 3000 year history of the Games. A decent seperate article could be made using this info and would allow more scope for adding specific occurences in individual ceremonies and the history of the ceremonies (which can be done at a later date). Something else that comes up here is that the whilst the "medal presentation" ceremony should be mentioned in a "Ceremonies" section it seems a bit odd to have it disembodied from "Champions and Medalists". Perhaps moving it there and changing "Ceremonies" to "Opening and Closing Ceremonies" would be an idea. I'm also unsure if the "O"s and "C"s should be capitalised, but I guess it's the same as choosing to capitalise Games as long as we're consistent? Hope i've helped there and haven't just confused matters further Basement12(T.C)21:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
No I didn't forget. I've been away on a vacation for most of this week. I will get on it right away. Thanks for following up! H1nkles (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts, we'll see what comes of it. I'm always of the opinion that if something is done in good faith with a succinct and thoughtful rationale then let the debate come. If I'm wrong then I'll admit it. Again, what I love about Wikipedia is the tought-provoking back and forth. Again, I appreciate your support, if you can find some commentary from sports ethicists on this matter that could be cited to bring balance and "expert" points of view to the article that would make it better. I'll make further comments on the article's talk page. H1nkles (talk) 05:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi; and thank you for the kudo again, but given your role in WP:Olympics I thought maybe you might want to have a go-over this new article and also the 2010 Winter Olympics article and re the Village and Celebration Plaza (maybe Whistler Celebration Plaza would be a better title?) comments on Talk:2010 Winter Olympics and also maybe the particular controversy-of-the-moment over whether or not the death of Harriet Nahanee belongs in the controversies section of the main 2010 article, which is partly discussed in the section above your barsntar aware on my talkpage, and also on User talk:Scorpion0422. Also, re the same article, is the display of all the national flags really the norm on Olympics articles? I thought "decorative use" was a no-no....there appears to be a lot of COI on that article, but normally OG articles aren't my forte; I started taking an interest partly because I'm an ex-Whistlerite and also because of related geographic articles (Callaghan Valley e.g.) and also my opposition to "information control" by powerful ad/p.r. agencies on various issues/articles throughout BC's subcategories....I also integrated mentions of the Nemean, Pythian and Isthmian Games and tweaks associated with them....LOL as you're probably gathering I've been accused of being a demiurge or polymath, except I "don't have the math"....Gotta run (to the gym). Later, and thanks for your support; it's always nice to find osmeone else in the deep water when you swim far from shore....Skookum1 (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up, I'll roll over there and see what I can see. I haven't read through the 2010 winter games article, though I should have by now. I spent a wonderful year in the Coquitlam area of Vancouver and I personally celebrated when I learned that BC had been awarded the Winter Games. H1nkles (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for undertaking the review. If you don't mind, could you give me an hour or so to perform a copyedit. I wrote the article a few months ago and since then I've honed my craft a bit more. There is a few things I need to fix and cut down before the review and have not been able to do that since I have a bit of a busy schedule at the moment. It will only take a brief time.--WillC19:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course, I am going over the lead right now. I will post comments but if they are corrected by your copy edits then I will strike through them. Will that work ok? Also it is a long article so it will take me some time to review it as I review in spurts when I have the time. H1nkles (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Better, I'll give more specific feed back later on today on the GA review page so that other editors can respond. Thanks for the quick response. Don't feel as though I'm expecting fixes immediately. Your responses are refreshingly timely, compared with other editors I have worked with. Keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'm usually fast. The quicker I get the stuff done and passed, the quicker I don't have to worry about it. This will be my fifth GA if it passes.--WillC20:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I know wikipedia is not Myspace but your user page says you're an active Bible reader. Is that true and if so, what is your opinion on God?--WillC23:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I am an active Bible reader and have been a born again Christian for many years. Your question is of course rather broad but in a nut shell I believe God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and ever-present. I believe that God is one with three outworkings (Trinity), Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I believe that Jesus was more than just a good man, or a teacher or a prophet, I believe that He is God. Can I adequately explain this to remove all doubt and mystery? No I can't, but if we could completely understand God then He wouldn't really be God. That's my opinion in a nut shell. Why do you ask? H1nkles (talk) 15:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, good. I feel somewhat the same way. I'm a Christian as well and I have been saved, I'm just critical of religion. I see alot of people on here are Atheists or just want to learn about religion and nothing more. Just wanted to know what you fell under. It is nice to see someone else somewhat like myself.--WillC19:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I am critical of religion as well. I feel that a lot of people get caught up in the rules and regulations of Christianity (religion), and by doing so they miss the true relationship that is available. Wikipedia seems to attract people seeking answers, yet I have found that many people who seek answers don't really want to hear someone who claims to have answers, especially to questions like the one you pose. Stay strong and consistent in your faith and always be willing to give an answer for why you believe what you believe. Thank you for initiating the conversation and God bless! BTW it's fun to have a conversation about God with someone while I'm reviewing his Slammiversary article. There's something inherently cool about that to me. H1nkles (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I have more of a problem with the way things are done. Why people will not say what is needed to be said. We talk about how you should be like this. Though the people preaching it or listening and agreeing don't even do that. Like we talk about how Jesus died for us but when it comes down to it we just say that to ignore what is needed to be said. Why are we wanting to help people and tell them how to live when we ourselves aren't doing that. We shouldn't be having affairs and drinking, then turn around and say you shouldn't do that. That is my problem how today's Christianity ignores all the things that need to be said. It is in out values that we shouldn't do certain things but people are scared to say anything because it will cause probelms. I've discussed religion with so many people I can't count. I've read about multiple religions and evolution. I read about today's effects on society as a result of religion and science, but yet again people within the church want to act as if they don't exist. That is my problem with religion. I'm tired of the same message week after week while ignoring people becoming lost and dieing. But we like to say God is coming to rid the world of evil, as if we can't do nothing about the evil before that. Sure we will not get rid of all of it but we can at least save a few people from it.--WillC04:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for passing Slammiversary. I'm grateful. That now means I've gotten 5 articles to GA. Hopefully soon I'll get the Victory Road article to GA and then have a line from Lockdown to No Surrender GA or higher. Hopefully Slammiversary doesn't turn you off on wanting to review future wrestling articles. Though mine was a mess there are other editors who can write very well written articles from the project.--WillC21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts and your hard work. It wasn't a mess and I'm not turned off. Continue to work hard on those articles as they do make wikipedia a better place. Keep up the good work. H1nkles (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Oliverotto
Thanks for the GA Review! The primary purpose for requesting a review was to consider how to revise the article; I'm going to revise the article as you requested. BTW, a week might not be enough; I'll contact you when I've finished. Again, thanks for all your effort! Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk)16:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for responding, I was getting a little concerned that there was no input from an editor. The article needs quite a bit of work and it may take longer than I can keep it on hold. Usually a hold is supposed to last a week. I will extend it through the weekend. I will review it then and determine GA status. Happy editing.
Ugh...I've touched upon many of the aspects noted on the talk page, but I couldn't find any more sources! Books, Google searches, Google books...the data happens to be scarce. If you have any suggestions, that would be greatly appreciated. PS. Could you comment on my recent corrections? Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk)00:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll comment on the GA talk page for this article so as to keep all recommendations in one location. Thanks for your work. H1nkles (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your GA review at The White Bird. You are one of the best reviewers it has ever been my pleasure to work with, and I especially appreciated your kind and patient style. If I were ever to have a choice for who should review any other article of mine, you would be my first choice. :) Thanks again, --Elonka22:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow, thank you very much for your kind words. I am still relatively new to this and so to receive praise from such a seasoned contributer, I am honored. Continue the good work! H1nkles (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. To be honest, I'd forgotten I had nominated it. There really isn't much more information to add. I appreciate your time though. If you really don't see it passing, I'm happy to withdraw it. Grsz1123:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Honestly at this point I don't see it passing unless more work is done. I've reviewed articles that have minimal information before and it is a bit of a judgement call. How much is enough to adequately cover the subject? It just doesn't seem that there's enough there. If you disagree then one avenue would be to submit it to WP:PR for peer review. This could help add some weight to your argument (assuming the reviewer agrees that there is enough information to pass GAC), then you can renominate. If you do decide to withdraw then please let me know. Keep up the good work!! H1nkles (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
There really isn't much more information out there. I had a hard enough time finding what I did. Consider it withdrawn. Grsz1123:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Sure I'd be happy to take a look at it. I'll post comments on the article's talk page under a Peer Review heading. H1nkles (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Stone Age Poland/GA2
I would need more time than that. Still finishing correcting Poland in the Middle Ages article, and have also Poland in Antiquity with a shorter list of issues to work on. Appreciate your patience.
I tried to implement the indicated corrections of the article. I realize that it would be nice to find some English language references, but this project I leave for a future further upgrade of the article. Also more photos, maps. I have them in the books I used, but they are copyrighted and I haven't run into suitable free ones. The references inside paragraphs were included if they came from sources other than that "U źródeł Polski" book, which as you noticed is already mentioned many times. The information inside paragraphs referenced by that book came from that reference, and I thought it would be ridiculous to endlessly keep repeating the same source. Of course diversifying sources would be nice. Orczar (talk) 02:44, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Re:Withdraw
I've only had that happen to me once before, and I failed the article as a result. I believe that is the right procedure to take, since the GA page has already been created, so just deleting the GAN tags would mess up the bots if it was ever nominated again. Nikki♥31105:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, and thanks for the v constructive review 'on hold' page. I will do my best! It may be that much of the info required for a GA simply is not available in RS ... I will have a look. I realise that some use of primary sources is allowable. Springnuts (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, it is good to hear that you are on the job. It is difficult to determine how much information is sufficient for a GA. Really it comes down to a judgement call. I'll leave the article in your hands and check back in a week to see how it is going. H1nkles (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, quite understand the fail - my fault entirely but 'stuff' kept me from addressing it. Regards and thanks for the comments which I will get to idc before possibly renominating, if I feel they can be addressed. Springnuts (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
No hard feelings I hope, I understand "stuff" entirely. Keep up the good work and I hope to see it back on the GAC page soon. God bless. H1nkles (talk) 23:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I sure will, I've just submitted an article for FAC so I'm preoccupied with fixes but I'll certainly make time to finish off your review. H1nkles (talk) 03:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes how did you know? Anyway thanks for the well wishes, I'm reading your article as we speak. I'm fixing some prose and grammatical issues as I go. H1nkles (talk) 04:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem, I classified it under American Football section as the American College Football section seemed to only have college football games. If there's a better section to put it under then please move it. H1nkles (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I'm Hunter. I saw that you are participating in the GAN backlog elimination drive, and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind looking over my GAN, 2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver, if you get a chance. Judging by some of the others I see you've read, I thought you might be the right person to read over mine. Let me know what you think. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Hunter, I took a pause today from wikipedia, I'll jump back in tomorrow and I'll be happy to take a look at your article tomorrow. H1nkles (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Question for you: I realized this part of the article: "Tharin Gartrell, 28; his cousin Shawn Robert Adolf, 33; and their friend Nathan Johnson, 32..." could be problematic because they were those ages at the time, but obviously won't be that age forever. Should we maybe change it to something like "Tharin Gartrell, then-28; his cousin Shawn Robert Adolf, then-33; and their friend Nathan Johnson, then-32..." or some other variation? Let me know what you think, and feel free to make the change yourself. --Hunter Kahn (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Personally when I read ages in articles I assume that they are the ages when the event took place. I'm not aware of any directive in the MOS regarding ages, I'll take a look but I think that the ages are implied to be their ages at the time. I don't think any changes need to be made in that regard. If I find anything else in the MOS I'll let you know. H1nkles (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Userbox for GA reviews
The userbox {{User Good Articles reviewed}} has been updated so that it can now link to a page in your user subspace where you keep track of all your GA reviews, if you have such a page. This can be done by adding a | and then the name of your user subpage (or subsection of your regular user page) wherever you have the template called. For example, on my user page I am using
{{User Good Articles reviewed|6|User:Rjanag/GA reviews}}
What do you think of this? If you wanted, I could format it so that a lead image could be added as part of the template. Is there anything that could be added to it? -- Scorpion042217:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that's perfect!!! Can you add the Olympic flag to the top of it? I think that would be great, thanks a ton!!! H1nkles (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! The only problem is now the Olympic flag is replaced with a red x. It could be my computer that's the problem. When I click on it, it does link to the Olympic flag but it isn't showing for me. Does it come out ok for you? H1nkles (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I can at the moment, but I was having problems seeing the image earlier. The site has been acting funny today, so I don't think there's anything wrong with the page/template/image. -- Scorpion042218:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you sincerely for the barnstar. I'm doing my best to stay positive about the FAC process. I'll try to implement as many changes as possible and then see what happens. thank you again. H1nkles (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll say this here and since no one is likely to read it I can be candid about the FAC process. The Olympic Games article sits for several weeks the reviews bring up issues which are addressed, then there is nothing for days. All of a sudden someone brings up a laundry list of things to change in the article. And then two days later it fails FAC. No time to address them it just summarily fails. That's frustrating. Now it's like it starts all over again. I'm going to take a few days before I go back and make the fixes and then repromote. I'll get it to FA but the process is irritating. H1nkles (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I responded to your GA review notes on the page. I've made some comments/notes/questions and I'll work on cleaning it up either today or tomorrow time permitting. Thanks for the time.--Crossmr (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good, I'll be in and out of WP today so I'll check in on you and see how it's going. I still haven't quite finished the review yet. I should have it done today. H1nkles (talk) 15:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. Yeah I saw that one, I'm trying to get to ones that have been sitting for a little while longer. No offense just wanting to be fair. H1nkles (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:H1nkles. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
