User talk:Mitchazenia/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive1
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents

Welcome!

Welcome to the Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject. I'm glad you finally decided to join ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you were being bugged because a lot of your work is one the articles. How come you're making your own newsletter? You should just join in on the existing newsletter. Good luck with Erika. Be sure to add a lot of info in it before publishing it, and let me know when you're done. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It's still pretty short, but you can find some storm history in the NHC report. Hurricanehink (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'll go point by point. First, I've asked you hundreds of times, so one more can't hurt. Why don't you concentrate your efforts on an article that needs improving before publishing a low-quality article? If you must publish Erika, and I mean must, here's some things you can do. First, learn how to spell. The spelling and grammar is poor throughout, and not just articles. I'm sorry, but you need to start typing better. Many times I can't understand what you are saying. By that, you need to give the article a thorough copyedit and improve phrasing throughout. Imagine if you were writing an English essay, and you had to use your best spelling and grammar. When articles are written with a lot of errors, it takes away from what the storm actually did, and makes merging much more tempting. Next, consider following the suggestions I gave out a few weeks ago. I'll post it after this post. The areas affected is too long, the intro is too short, the storm history doesn't flow well, the impact section doesn't have enough, and the naming and records is pointless. Trivia, by definition, is useless information, so anything in a trivia section is not needed. You should integrate that information more into the article. For example, when Erika became a major hurricane, you could say, "Erika continued to intensify and attained major hurricane status, the first and only major hurricane of the season". That fact could also be mentioned in the intro, and could be expanded further to say that the last season with only one major hurricane was the 1993. Everything else in the naming and records section isn't really needed. Please read all of this, as it's important to your writing, and please don't just respond with a one sentence answer. OK, here's the suggestions. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand you're 15, but this is an encyclopedia. You need to be able to write well. This place isn't a hobby. This is a professional place for writing. If you can type well, you should do it. There's no need to rush. Simply put, you need to make a better effort in your writinh. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, two sentences is hardly a paragraph. You don't need to list every single island. Simply say Lesser Antilles, or even Leeward Islands. In addition, there's not really enough information in there to justify an article. Look at the seasonal article. Would a separate article for Erika really be needed? Is there that much useful information that is not in the Erika section? Hurricanehink (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Nice job with those two articles. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You know what, why don't you just publish Erika, and see what people think of it? --Hurricanehink (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems like you are listening to me, but you should talk to others when creating articles. I still don't think it is that good, and I think it should be merged as it is, but we'll see what others think of it. I have very high standards for articles, and anything below them should be merged in my opinion. Others think differently, so we'll see. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

2005 AHS Card Game?

What's with that thing that sounds like a card game, with each storm of the 2005 AHS having its own card? It looks kinda cool. íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 18:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

huh? Also, I added my name to the newsletter list of yours. Thanks for mentioning me :) About those cards; are you gonna make cards and scan them onto your computer and then post them on your userpage so people can print them out and use them? I don't get why you wrote about them on your userpage, but they look cool. I want to play :P íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 19:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Cool. But I still want to play! íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 19:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Your newsletter

It looks great so far. Maybe add a graphic of Matthew in the newsletter? :) -- RattleMan 19:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Matthew Article

I was looking at your LNBS page and when I came upon Matthew, I realized that the storm history you have for Matthew is more complete than the actual article. I wouldn't completely copy and paste your storm history into the article, but if I were you, I would add a lot of the detail in your article that the real article is missing, particularily the origins of the storm and the remnants and how they split up and remerged. Good luck with that! íslenska hurikein #12(samtal) 22:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #2

The July issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: SS1 (1982)

Yea, that would be an interesting article. It would be the first article for a subtropical storm. Hopefully there is enough information out there, though. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If you want, you can just put the references like this. [www.wikipedia.com] Just be sure to find a lot of information on it before publishing it. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
It's needed. Also, Tito said you needed more references in general to use in the article. That means that you need more information, which is what I have been emphasizing for quite a while. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Simply put, more is needed. You have to find a way to expand what you have, and find what's not in the article. Do you notice how hard it is to find good information? More notable storms have more information. I'll say it again, why can't you put your efforts towards bettering an existing article? What you did for Iris was great. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Iris pic

Please add a source for the aftermath pic for Hurricane Iris. The current source doesn't work. --Hurricanehink (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the URL on the images description page. A much more serious problem though: You tagged the image page to say it is licensed under the GFDL. However the site does not indicate the copyright policy. Did you contact them and get permission to use the image as such?--Nilfanion (talk) 09:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Iris article is too disorganized to be B class. It needs a preparations section, impact section by area, inline sources, etc. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: 2005 Season Chart

I agree with Cuivienen, inHg is not needed. The formula for mbar to inHg is mbar / 33.86389 = inHg. References I'll work on. The other things I can look into, but the table is pretty wide as is. --Ajm81 00:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ana

Cool and thanks, I guess. --Hurricanehink (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why it's taking so long. Nominations normally take a few days... Hurricanehink (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Track-One-1887.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Track-One-1887.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yea, just to let you know, all of the images for the 1887 season are not available for usage. Unisys is a copyrighted website, so all of those will have to be deleted. --Hurricanehink (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pennsylvania sign photos

You have uploaded a number of photos of termini of Pennsylvania Routes that you did not take, and falsely claimed they were released under the GFDL. If you do this again, you may be blocked from editing. --SPUI (T - C) 21:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for most of the other images you uploaded. --SPUI (T - C) 21:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:MC676Shield.GIF

Thanks for uploading Image:MC676Shield.GIF. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions

Hi, there. You said you wanted feedback on your article, County Route 676 (Middlesex County, New Jersey). To be honest, much like the list of 600-series county routes you created, while it provides valuable information, the formatting leaves a lot to be desired. I encourage you to read the Wikipedia Manual of Style and various other guidelines you can find throughout the Wikipedia namespace.

While anyone can edit Wikipedia, it is important to note that it is an encyclopedia, and must maintain a certain standard.

One thing you may want to try is rather than making a series of minor edits to a page, is to use the Wikipedia:Sandbox or use a user subpage. This way, you can make as many edits to a page as you like and determine what seems best, without disrupting the main article namespace.

On a tangentally related note, I highly recommend you also read Wikipedia:Uploading images and familiarize yourself with the image copyright tags, as presently many of the images you have uploaded are either not tagged, or tagged incorrectly. The proper way to tag Image:MC676Shield.GIF is with either {{PD-self}}, {{GDFL-self}}, or {{NoRightsReserved}} in the licensing section. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for more on what each of these mean.

I have put {{PD-self}} on Image:MC676Shield.GIF for you; however, I am also going to nominate it for Images for deletion, as it is not up to standards. You may want to try creating a better one using Image:County blank.svg and the Roadgeek fonts. Alternatively, you might want to try asking SPUI or someone else at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads to create one for you. (I myself lack good imaging software.)

I hope this helps, and I hope to see you around Wikipedia! -- Northenglish (talk) -- 23:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 Long Island Sound Plane Crash

Help!, other useres are trying to delete my article but I objected saying that the plane crash is notable. Please vote keep on the vote page in order to save this article.Storm05 14:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

County Route 676 (Middlesex County, New Jersey)

Hi again. I'm curious as to what your source is that the route was formed "pre-1888", as well as much of the history section. Automobiles were just being invented during the 1880s, New Jersey's state highways weren't numbered until sometime in the 1910s, and Middlesex County didn't adopt 600-series numbering until the 1950s.

The infobox for numbered highways is for the year the highway was established as a numbered highway. -- NORTH talk 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. That gives the history section you wrote a little more context.
However, per my comment above, I removed that line from the infobox. Also, the "Date last inventoried" at the bottom of the straight line diagram does not mean that's when it was designated. That's just the last time someone from NJDOT went out and studied the road. You'll notice that for all the roads, the date last inventoried is sometime in the late 90's or more recent. -- NORTH talk 22:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject:Canada Highways

It redirects to a broken link, which i have fixed.... User:Raccoon Fox Talk 23:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: 1887

OK, that's fine then. You should also include the emails in the image pages. However, there's always the alternative of just asking User:Nilfanion who can make track maps similar to every other track map on the project. --Hurricanehink (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

New WikiProject?

WikiProject: Canada Roads has potential as a Wikiproject, and i can help you with this. shall i revert the redirect, and install the necessary links on the other wikiproject pages? User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 23:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Uploading Copyrighted/Third Party Images

Thanks for showing interest in helping the PA State Highway Wikiproject. Unfortunately the images you uploaded do not belong to you/did not have copyright information attributed to them, and were automatically deleted. Please either obtain permission for use of these photos from www.state-ends.com or upload your own work (and remember to set the copyright information after uploading them). While it's great to see photos on the highway pages, it's a great liability for Wikipedia to have other people's work appear without permission/unattributed on its pages.
Kether83 02:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: CT Turnpike help

Pics for what now? -- NORTH talk 20:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you're talking about. What do you need? Shield images? Photographs? Photographs I can't really help you with, CT state route images are named Connecticut_Highway_X.png -- NORTH talk 20:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, like I said, I have no idea where you can find photographs like that. The only place I can think of off the top of my head is http://www.kurumi.com, he has a lot of Connecticut info. -- NORTH talk 20:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Eyewitness accounts aren't verifiable. Either remove it, or find some sort of news article that supports your claim that it's a dangerous street. -- NORTH talk 22:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Connecticut Turnpike

You have put in the exit list for Interstate 95 in Connecticut and not the Connecticut Turnpike. The portion of I-95 after the junction with I-395 is not part of the Turnpike. Exits beyond 76 should be removed and replaced with exits along the lower half of I-395. --Polaron | Talk 18:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problem

There's a copyright problem with Image:Track-14-1887.gif, you got permission to use it on the Wikipedia - this is not allowed.

You need Unisys to license their images under a GFDL-compliant license, like a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 license (which'd suit their needs best).

Thanks, but please rectify this or I shall have to list it for deletion as a copyvio. Computerjoe's talk 20:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you see the Wikipedia has to allow them to be used commercially, unless it's fair use. Computerjoe's talk 14:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

1887 tracks

Way ahead of you :P I've got the track maps on my computer and will be uploading them soon.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Its wishful thinking that. If you look at the external link for those storms it says "The re-analysis team agreed to eave them out of HURDAT". If there isn't HURDAT I can't make a map. Also, I'd strongly suggest you get rid of the infoboxes for those storms in the article, for a start calling them 20, 21, 22 and 23 is inaccurate.--Nilfanion (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada Roads

I do like the templates you've created. thanks! User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 01:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Middlesex County Route 676

I agree that it's certainly no longer a stub, but please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and sometimes we need to value quality over quantity. The issue discussed at Talk:County routes in New Jersey wasn't just that the articles were stubs, but that they weren't worthy of expansion. The conclusion we came to was that we are going to merge the non-500 routes back into articles by county, save for a select few. Unfortunately, I don't really see Middlesex CR 676 being one of those select few.

What you have to remember is that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information, and unfortunately, a blow-by-blow account of every intersection on a minor road falls into the indiscriminate category. It was a good effort of an article, but this road is really not notable enough to have a full article. I will be happy to merge the introduction and History sections (but not the rest) into the Middlesex County article when we create one sometime in the very near future.

I hope none of this sounds snobbish or mean, as that's not my intention, and this is nothing against you. It's just those pesky Wikipedia standards. We can't have everything here, and unfortunately, I just don't think this article makes the cut. -- NORTH talk 03:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Canada

I appreciate the work you're putting into setting up the WikiProjects, but could you please finish defining the structure and link each project up before you start any more? It's rather hard to follow what exactly is to be done. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 04:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Final state highway naming conventions debate

HurricaneCraze32, your participation is welcome in the Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll. Please give your input as to the process by 23:59 UTC on August 8.

Regards, Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Tropical cyclones WikiProject Newsletter #3

The August issue of the WikiProject Tropical cyclones newsletter is now available. If you wish to receive the full newsletter or no longer be informed of the release of future editions, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What is arbcom?

I have no idea what it is...bu ti think they were both told to stop editing the List of Ontario provincial highways article, since they both disagreed on the naming conventions, and neither wanted to accept the legal and official/proper/public definition ("Kings Highway", instead of Primary Highway, or Provincial Highway, or Ontario Highway).

User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 17:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

SPUI is very rude, i agree. i've been to his websites and he lampoons people that disagree with his ideas on roads. he *is* knowledgeable in roads, though. It's a pity that he's chased those people off wikipedia. x.x User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 17:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...i was just trying to clean up my own user pages.... x.x User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 17:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

North Fourth Avenue (Highland Park, New Jersey)

What are you trying? The reason I marked the page is becuase it seems like a standard street in a town, with no other reason for notability. Wildthing61476 20:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

My humblest apologizes then :) Wildthing61476 20:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles, cut-and-paste moves, sandboxes and other assorted good stuff

Hi, HurricaneCraze. I've seen that you prepare some of your articles in one of the template sandboxes, and then you cut and paste them into place; please don't do that, it really destroys page histories. For legal reasons, we need to have the edit history of the article as intact as possible, to satisfy the requirements of the GNU Free Documentation License, so branching articles is already a bad idea; also, you usually leave the {{Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)}} template on the page, and when I go to fix the cut and paste move, the edit history of the article has an ugly header in it. So, please, two things:

  1. If you're going to use a sandbox, use one subpage in your user space
  2. Whenever you're done, use the move tab at the top of the article, instead of copy-pasting it.

If you can't use the move tab, feel free to ask any admin for help with a cut-and-paste move, but please, don't make more work for us than we already have... just go ahead, be bold and update the article directly. Titoxd(?!?) 00:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

T.D. #9 of 1987

Information is located here, since it led to a significant rainfall impact in the Mid-Atlantic states. Thegreatdr 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with those. I was tracking tropical systems then as a hobby in high school, and I don't remember those depressions! Unfortunately, there is a real data void for tropical depressions between 1980 and 1988 due to the NHC discontinuing their tropical systems reports for those seasons. I know I don't have any of the discussions, but I may have the real time advisory positions of those systems, somewhere. Thegreatdr 18:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Other systems is still noted in other season summaries, and it looked like that's how the article for 1987 was designed. I thought that was the practice for tropical depressions and other potential tropical/subtropical cyclones. If not, the depressions should be put in chronological order and all the season articles need to be changed. Point me to the statement within the project that no longer supports "other systems," if you please. Thegreatdr 19:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Icelandic

I noticed that you made these edits to Icelandic's RfA and talk page earlier. Therefore I thought best to remind you of a couple things. The first is you do not own any of your contributions to Wikipedia and as it says "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it". In fact the fact he used your LNBS as a starting point for the live article is a compliment, it means he thought highly enough of your work to see it as ready for the mainspace. The other thing to consider is Etiquette. Icelandic was in the wrong to go ahead and use your subpage without asking you first, but holding a grudge over it is silly. In particular learn to forgive and forget. On the issue of his RfA you voted neutral, which is your choice. However, you said you would support him if he would agree to do a number of things for you. You should decide whether he is admin on his potential as an admin, not merely because he will do exactly what you want (or not).--Nilfanion (talk) 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll do those things, I guess. I'll work on 14 tommorrow. Also, I didn't "steal" Matthew, I just revived the article from what it was and added to it. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 00:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I helped you with the 14 article. I'll add more whenever I get the chance, but I did what you wanted. íslenska hurikein #12 (samtal) 12:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Minor Edits

Remember to mark your edits as minor when, but only when, they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one, or vice versa, is condsidered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Nilfanion (talk) 21:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I guessed that. :P You really should only tag edits as minor edits when they are that kind of thing. Also, edit summaries are veryuseful. Yes they are a bit inconvenient, but if you do them it helps other editors know whats going on.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to make any articles for the foreseeable future, I've got more important tasks than writing articles on fishspinners. I'll let Hink assess it he will be along soon I'm sure, hes been doing more of that lately.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

1987 depressions

It will take me a while to look though stuff in order to find the old tracking maps. My guess is they're still at the parent's home, and if that's true, it will take months to access. I'll look up the reanalysis spreadsheet and see if much is mentioned about them. Thegreatdr 01:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Kate

Ehh, I think Irfanfaiz's Kate article is better. However, I don't think you should continue publishing them. We should work more on getting the existing articles towards better status, like Fabian, before adding more no-impact start articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Calm down

Please calm down with the article creations. We don't need those new articles on the low-impact storms. Instead, please go back and fix up some of the articles you made. Inline sources are a good start. Try and find records and impact for them. Also, there's plenty of information in the tropical discussions. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If you could do that for each of the articles you made, then I'd be happy. Also, Erika isn't even terribly good as it is. Long quotes should rarely, if ever, be used. You should use the content from the quotes. There is probably still more info out there on Erika if you take the time to find it. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: SPUI

Please never leave personal attack messages on my talk page again. I don't like SPUI, but I have never seen him beg for page protection, and most (but not all) of his deletion nominations have valid points. Phrases like "is a pissy" and "whines until his man-titties lactate" have no place on Wikipedia.

While I do not like SPUI, it is not my intention to have him banned permanently. It is my intention to force him to behave -- which, with the exception of the incident on WP:NJSCR that forced me to take a wikibreak, he has done recently.

Please up your maturity level. I've had my eye on you for a while, and repeating behavior like this will cause me to take action against you, not SPUI. -- NORTH talk 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't care who wrote it originally. You're still the one who put it on my talk page. -- NORTH talk 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for making unnecessary, and very strong, personal attacks about User:SPUI. Relevant diffs are:

Please come back after the block expires as a more civil Wikipedian. If you feel that the block is unjustified, place {{unblock}} on your talk page. Cheers! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 11:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you wish to change your username, please list yourself at WP:CHU; otherwise your name will not be recognized by the database. Thanks! --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 12:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

More about SPUI (No blocks this time though ;D)

(In response to your post on WP:LTA) I've seen flashes in the distance over this user, I'd suggest looking at some of the various user organizations around here related to dispute resolution. If you want to, you can take out an WP:RFC, however that can be extremely trying on the nerves of all involved. If you're content to wait it out, most true problem users will end up getting themselves thrown out given the time. 68.39.174.238 06:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: SPUI II

Thanks for cleaning up your language, but I still disagree with about half of these points, and still don't have any desire to have SPUI banned permanently. -- NORTH talk 03:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Your crusade against SPUI has to stop, or it may earn you a longer block than 24 hours. Chacor 03:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/t/User_talk%7EMitchazenia_Archive1_26bc.html"