User talk:Inlandmamba/Archive 1

1097:

accounts. I told Mr William in the chatroom the whole story. He went away without even listening to my side of story. Sir, I had created my Wiki account in 2009. My question to the person who blocked my account is *WHY* would I be using a second account? I have been doing edits using my own account. I have even placed articles in review process and those were accepted. I know I started using it in 2011, but I had created it back in 2009. You can check the statistics to confirm this fact. In know I couldn't understand how to use Knowledge (XXG) earlier and a helper in the chat room *Chzz* helped me. My account is blocked and I cannot work here any more. Please I would need your help Sir. Thank you. Inlandmamba (talk) 10:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

4187:. Your edits were undone by an administrator, and he has clearly explained why he did them in the edit summary. You didn't use a reliable source. It was from a blog. Blogs are not considered to be reliable. Please read the guidelines on reliable sources before adding anything to the article. I have no intentions to undo your edits if they are constructive, but they should be according to the guidelines identified by Knowledge (XXG). Let me know if I can be of any further help. 626: 546: 4506: 4462: 3428: 2497: 2344: 431: 4033: 3289: 2163: 4155:

to Pakistan, or you have undid those because it was not against Jinnah, you think those views like ayesha jalal and S.akbar has are constrictive and any positive views which are from Mandela too are UN-contractive ??? Just change your mind and re-read about Jinnah, if you are presenting disputes about him, than also present positives about him, and let leave all things on reader's to decide........... Thanks

4635: 2941: 2806: 2750: 1016: 752: 4401: 1341: 2660: 2280: 2182:. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see 1878: 1818: 66: 4154:

HI,.... Can you tell me why you undid my contributions on Muhammad Ali Jinnah, why they were UN-constractive ??? nothing was disputed in those contributions, i had properly inserted references and every singal person who know about Jinnah can tell you that Mandela said those words during his visit

1538:

I'm not sure if "can" means "will this get the page deleted?" or "is it following Knowledge (XXG) rules if I do this?". If it's the first, then yes, the db-author template should suffice, though you might want to help the reviewing admin by pointing out (in your edit summary) that all the edits since

3624:

and put "Jinnah" in the "Portrait" field, in my opinion, numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 33 should be PD without question due to the expiration of Crown Copyright after 50 years. I think #4 is the Jinnah/Nehru image we already have but it would be nice to have it confirmed. If you can go, scan everything

3047:

Take the advice or leave it; there is no policy prohibition against paid editing, and our COI guidelines are just that - guidelines. I am simply concerned that you are straying into some ethically gray areas, and I think you're generally a good editor. Again, I have no desire to out you; if you'd

2703:

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can

2301:

1556:

If you're asking if the db-author template is the right thing to do, according to the rules, then the answer is that you can do pretty much anything you want - one of the powerful features of a wiki is that it's essentially impossible for a normal editor to do anything irreversible. Even "deletion"

1314:

It's great that you are doing some reviewing, but you need to add a D (decline) parameter to the submission code, rather than putting in an extra submission code line. At the moment, the articles you are reviewing are remaining in the Pending AfC submissions list for another editor to have to look

1123:

I don't know why you would use a second account. There could be several reasons to do so: Maybe you didn't want to be associated with certain topics, which can actually be an appropriate use of an alternate account; Maybe you knew that the new article was rather spammy and didn't want it associated

1096:

Sir, I was using my account about 12 hours ago. My wireless internet router dosen't have a password on it. Someone, I don't know who, may be someone from neighbours might be using the same connection. All of a sudden my account was blocked. The reason given to me was that my IP is being used by two

1238:

Hi! What are u talking about absence of sources?? all of my articles have a reference to Water Register of Russian Federation where presence all basic information about length, mouth and basin of rivers. And it seem that there are no any better sources on this topic. How many references u need for

1128:

But in the end it doesn't matter too much to me. I want to believe there is little chance of this problem recurring, there was no lasting damage, and like you said this account has made many constructive edits. Whatever is true, I'm going to unblock this account since I hope it improves Knowledge

3153:

That's great :) As for RS, I have found some in the past but a lot of the claims don't seem to be backed up by anything other than primary sources (perhaps it's time to remove some of that info since the tags have been up for some time). You're right - it's an article that badly needs some work!

3226:

The first link doesn't seem to work. There are no pictures which are being displayed. Have you checked commons? On commons their is a complete category (28 pictures). I think that some of them may be useful as they have been licensed under the Indian domain, but I am unaware of the criteria for

459: 3733:

That would be fine. Send me an email and I will send you one in return, "E-mail this user" over on the left side. We can't send attachments through that. And I would explain to the librarians that you need images of Jinnah that are out of copyright because they were either taken by British

1217:

That's OK. Peace. Just please think before acting, because it's frustrating when you're trying to work if you keep getting interrupted by users (who may have the best intentions in the world) adding deletion tags to articles without considering the scope or the sources presented therein.

1173:

Can you please consider you rationale for articles for speedy deletion thoroughly please before adding such tags? You also added two other tags, one on notability (which i'll ignore since it the speedy was because of notability) and one about sources. I named four sources in the article;

1567:

If you move the page to your user space, and Jonathan does become famous, and you're unaware of that (or you've left Knowledge (XXG)), it's possible that some other Knowledge (XXG) editor will find the page and use it as the basis for the article about what would then be a clearly notable

450:

Before it can be added to Knowledge (XXG), your submission should have references. All articles on Knowledge (XXG) should have inline, numbered references after facts, showing the 'reliable source' (a newspaper, book, etc.) where the information can be checked, so that all information is

1563:

If you decide you want to recreate the page (let's say that Jonathan becomes famous), as long as you have an offline copy, you're good to go. (If you don't have an offline copy, you need to find an admin to undelete the page, perhaps moving it to user space; that's not a big

3066:

Well Kuru, I don't know what you are talking about and why I should email you about anything. I'll just stick to my work and if at some point later you think that I have done something against the rules, I'll be happy to have guidance from you. I don't mean to offend you in

2062: 471: 3942:

It has passed the FAC, which I think we can all be proud of. I will fill out the form today, as I will have limited Internet access due to travel after today for several weeks. I will be online from time to time and can deal with a response from the BL when it

3681:

Well, what I suggest you do is also scan the documentary information on the images as well, whatever the BL has on who took it, what his job was, when it was taken, that sort of thing. Then I'll work with you on the uploading. I will probably have you email me

2908:

Well, nominate all yo like, as long as it's correct. ;) In this case, the article simply wasn't promotional, so G11 didn't apply, and it was clear that the subject was a novel by a notable author, so A1 doesn't apply either. That Richard Condon wrote the book is

2880:

a citation to a verification must be accurate and it must comprise of independent third party sources, but this article does not have even a single one. All that I could find was that the name of the novel was mentioned in the authors page on Knowledge (XXG)

1889:, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See 966:

adminhelp template, and explain what help you want. Adding two copies of the same template will not get help any quicker, and serves only to make a little more work for the admin who responds, scrolling down the page and finding the surplus one to remove it.

3643:

is their official website. So I just have to go there, ask them for all the images they have of Jinnah, and scan them. Later upload them to commons under my own name or under someone else work. Actually I'm not that familiar with commons, that is why I'm

1315:

at; and also it looks like the creator has re-submitted without doing any further work. (Note that the syntax when reviewing a DRAFT article is slightly different, so read those instructions carefully when you next review one of those.) Best wishes,

467: 466: 470: 469: 468: 2832:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

2776:

4661:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

2967:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

1965: 2858:

You nominated this article for speedy deletion, but it seems like a novel by a notable author to me whose spam value (given that it was published in 1971) is pretty low. Please be careful in nominating articles for speedy deletion. Thank you.

2716: 2314: 3848:

Well, we want to make the article as best we can. I will fill in the form, unless you want to. One of the delegates left me a note at the Truman FAC saying he will look at both that one, and Jinnah, tomorrow. And I think we likely to

3566:

Best to do nothing more to the article, other than minor tweaks until it passes. I am currently traveling; I hope once I get home to see if I can do more to prove these images are published pre-1946. I've received no word back from the

2572:

It is just a single line without any references or any external links. I admit that I don't know anything about it but if it has been created, it should have some references or some more text to make the article look more encyclopedic.

2710:

to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with

2308:

1839:

I have noted that you are uploading images from a Hedge Fund Letters website and claiming the images are licensed under CC 3.0. I looked at the websites, and no such indication is made. The website has a clear copyright notice at the

2885:

but I thought that another Knowledge (XXG) article cannot be used as a primary point of reference. But as you are an admin, I totally respect your declining of the speedy deletion. I'll try not to add any speedy deletion tags in the

3863:

Please go ahead. If we can get the images online, it would be great. The head of Asian department gave me an email address of the images section for printing. You can use this address to ask them to send the copies directly to you.

2692:, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read 2054: 464: 463: 460: 465: 2971:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

2836:

2780:

1571:

If the article is deleted, it isn't cluttering up you user space (on the other hand, since user space is essentially infinite, the concept of "clutter" is a bit of a non-starter; "disorganized" is more typically the

3973:

I just looked at it. It is indeed quite expensive. I will go their to scan some pictures, most probably in the second week of December as I am quite busy with my work now a days. By the way thank you for making it

1498:

I fixed one citation in the article, to show you how this is done. I was going to provide you with some urls for additional sources, but when I searched Google News (archives), there really wasn't anything but the

1124:

with your account; Maybe you created the account at work when you didn't have access to your original account; Maybe it was intended as a role account and you didn't know that it was against Knowledge (XXG) policy.

4665:

1479:

I hope the above doesn't sound too negative - Knowledge (XXG) has a lot of rules, and you're doing great work here in creating articles and (I haven't looked, but I assume) other editing. Just keep learning. --

1901:

attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.

3174:

I am slowly moving ahead on the article, it's now in pretty good shape up to about 1928 although there are still changes I want to make before that. Twenty years to go! Drop me a note letting me know your

2989:

I really don't intend to out you, but it may be a good idea to place a note on the talk pages of the articles you were paid to create noting that paid editing was involved so others can review the work.

462: 443: 648: 1126:

I do think it is extremely unlikely that two accounts edit Knowledge (XXG) from the same IP at more or less the same time, and then both show up one after the other on IRC to ask for an unblock.

3959:

Ah, I looked at the image order form and the prices are very high, on the order of over thirty pounds an image. I am wondering if you go there, can you do it with your own scanner for free.--

4433:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 3571:

people at the British Library about the images of Jinnah in the India Office records. I have no plans to be in London again until next August, unfortunately, so I can't do it myself.--

2829: 2141:

Please do not removed sourced information from articles, please do not remove dispute tags without addressing the concerns identified by them, and please use edit summaries. Thanks! --

3585:

I commented on your talk page a few hours back. Hoping that you would reply there. I moved to London a few months ago so I can go to the British library to get whatever is needed.

4429:

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

2773: 2964: 2432: 1503:

article. So I'm beginning to think that you're ahead of the curve here in terms of creating an article about someone who may well be notable in a few years, but isn't now.

2018: 1512:

There is a better option that deleting this article (the direction this discussion seems to be headed in, though I'm not going to get directly involved in that: you could

1470:

I'm not disagreeing that this guy is notable, but rather that you could do a much better job of proving it if you were to cite better sources. And cite them properly (see

3805:

I went to the British library today. Though the images department was closed (opens from Monday to Friday), they told me that I can order the images online if I want to.

3344: 2876:

Thanks for notifying me. There were no references present to prove that the article is in fact written by the author. That is why I tagged it for speedy deletion. As per

3696:

That would be perfect. I'll see if the BL is open tomorrow. If it is, ill scan whatever I can because in the weekdays I won't be able to make it due to work commitments.

4658: 4338:

That is fine, look around on other medical articles how it is usually done, "IUD with progestogen" is not a good example of an excellent article right now. I have also

2428: 222: 4523: 4479: 3441: 2514: 2357: 2042: 2038: 1274: 2034: 2233: 4422:

if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Knowledge (XXG) (see

4418:, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Knowledge (XXG). If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. 4339: 3369:

Hello Pakistanis Wikipedians! Assalam-o-Alaikum, I hope you are enjoying editing Knowledge (XXG) and helping around. I want to join every Pakistani Wikipedian on

1270: 3231:. We can ask any commons admin to do the image check and use the ones which pass the criteria. What do you suggest? We can also put one more picture of Jinnah's 3339:

because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the

2229: 1778: 461: 2050: 2022: 4098:

if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing!--

2078: 2030: 2026: 1560:

If an admin deletes a page (at your request, in this case), all your edits of that page are no longer visible in the list of your user contributions (edits).

497: 4708: 4698: 4647: 4599: 4239: 2953: 2818: 2762: 2380: 2243: 1774: 1730: 1689: 1632: 1284: 496:

That makes the references automatically display as small numbers which will link to the details in the section titled == References == at the end. You can

4430: 3194:. In my opinion, nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 33 are provably taken by agents of the British Government and would have had their Crown copyright expire by now.-- 2058: 852: 4694: 2074: 2070: 1679: 1622: 1557:

by an admin really doesn't delete a page - it just makes the page invisible to everyone except admins. In this case, here are some factors to consider:

266: 1957: 2396: 1953: 1921: 4438: 2649: 2269: 2194: 1411: 4589: 4279: 2094: 1945: 1941: 1746: 1675: 1618: 1051: 796: 35:. Welcome to Knowledge (XXG)! I noticed you've just joined, and wanted to give you a few tips to get you started. If you have any questions, please 1937: 911:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Ibogianeclinic". The reason given for Ibogianeclinic's block is: "{{spamusernameblock}}".

4255: 2392: 1187: 2086: 2082: 1961: 1821:

Welcome to Knowledge (XXG). While everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one of your recent file uploads, such as

4585: 4275: 1742: 4251: 4091: 1834: 1543:

the article). That's because db-author can't (properly) be used if there are substantial additions from anyone other than the original author.

725: 504: 4704: 4595: 4235: 2376: 2239: 1726: 1685: 1628: 1280: 3813:

that one needs to know. They told me that if I order them, it would take a minimum of 25 days for the department to send me those pictures.

1925: 1997: 1933: 1929: 1886: 262: 3394: 395: 3734:

officials or were published pre-1946 in British India, or were published anywhere by 1942, and the photographer cannot be ascertained.--

3116: 2599:. CSD A1 is for "Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article.", which this clearly is not. Label it as 1981: 846: 4228:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to

960:

You have placed two "adminhelp" templates on this page, but have not said what help you want. If you have a request to make then place

1977: 1973: 1829:

very seriously. Images and other media may only be uploaded and included if their copyright status meets the conditions stated in our

1223: 1207: 4415: 3336: 1415: 663: 568: 240: 1046: 791: 316: 1825:, had missing or false information regarding its source and copyright status. Please note that Knowledge (XXG) takes copyright and 288: 244: 3235:. I saw somewhere on Knowledge (XXG) that flickr images can also be used. Don't remember the exact policy. I searched on Flickr, 2090: 1190:. Can you please explain how 4 independent sources, does not demonstrate coverage? Can you please explain how a fellow of the 659: 564: 386: 381: 355: 1989: 1985: 117:, before you make your own. Look at some subjects that you know about, and see if you can make them a bit better. For example, 4701:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4592:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 3373:

so I hope you would like to join us in our community. We would/could help each other and make Pakistani articles more better.

2669: 2236:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1682:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1625:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1277:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 337: 199: 130: 4232:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 4171: 2373:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1723:. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1436: 1002: 3135: 2178:. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 1403: 1352: 1330: 342: 4538:

Hello Inlandmamba, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

870: 4423: 2712: 2310: 2183: 1407: 359: 253: 4090:

If you don't want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see

3513:

No, the images were deleted in response to the image check. We need to prove pre-1946 publication to bring them back.--

1993: 1577:

All of which is probably more info than you needed, but hopefully somewhere in there is the answer to your question. --

4651: 2957: 2822: 2766: 2046: 390: 284: 4557: 4094:(even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my 3131: 2424: 1145:

If you share your Internet connection with others and you know that they edit Knowledge (XXG), please read and follow

888: 4410:. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Knowledge (XXG) under a 4229: 3463:

We now have three supports, image check done, source check done. There is a good chance it could be promoted soon.--

2676: 2370: 1890: 1882: 1720: 1023: 430: 271: 257: 4685:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

4576:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Knowledge (XXG) appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

1247: 1219: 1203: 713: 3404: 324: 249: 1065: 810: 736: 3190:

So far as I can tell, the best source for Jinnah images is the India Office records at the British Library, see

2720: 2697: 2318: 320: 193: 189: 3981: 1583: 1522: 1486: 1262: 4406: 1949: 1856:

I share the concern over the copyright status of these images, and the use of these caricatures in general. --

399: 3120: 840: 3625:

you can. I suspect some of the others are the ones we had to delete. Note they say photographer unknown.--

3212:. I've also found an image of Jinnah and Nehru which is almost clearly PD and have added to the article. -- 2842: 2786: 2221: 1390: 4159: 3478:

That's great. So if the image check has been done, can we bring back those pictures which have been hidden?

3340: 3332: 3236: 3112: 2813: 2797: 1770: 292: 4552: 1822: 972: 552: 4113:

Thank you for trusting me and giving me this authority. I hope to use it for the best of Knowledge (XXG).

2174: 1419: 759: 670: 575: 350: 333: 279: 217: 4379: 4210: 4136: 3928: 3889: 3836: 3792: 3719: 3667: 3608: 3554: 3501: 3262: 3159: 3143: 3090: 3035: 2897: 2706: 2578: 1243: 835: 106: 17: 3387: 2877: 2757: 2741: 2545:. The fact that you may personally do not understand a technology article is not grounds for deletion. 1663: 1602: 1450: 1348: 1334: 346: 185: 2304: 724:

and add this information, that would be great. If you're not sure how or need help, please ask at the

662:, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to 567:, and don't have to post a request. However, you are more than welcome to continue submitting work to 4446: 2910: 2503: 2496: 2204: 921: 732: 527: 4642: 4626: 4077: 1826: 377: 118: 4686: 3977: 2474: 2467: 1785: 1579: 1518: 1482: 1424: 3191: 1513: 1135:

If your WiFi really is unprotected, you should change that immediately. This mustn't happen again.

203: 144:

There's lots of information below. Once again, welcome to the fantastic world of Knowledge (XXG)!

4671: 4581: 4167: 3453: 2852: 2838: 2782: 2332: 1846: 1430: 1320: 1155: 1109: 990: 983: 955: 4539: 4532: 4321: 4320:

The sources you have recently added do not comply with our guidelines for medical articles, see

4314: 3992:

I enjoyed it. That sounds good. Archive diving is a bit of an occupation for me, I'm afraid.--

1833:, and if their provenance is clearly documented. If you have questions, feel free to ask at the 1146: 625: 545: 503:

Please add references to your submission, which will be reviewed as soon as possible. See also,

97:

and describe what help you need. Someone will reply very quickly - usually within a few minutes.

3902: 864: 81:, but please don't put silly stuff in - it will be removed very quickly, and will annoy people. 4724: 4615: 4490: 4468: 4461: 4347: 4328: 4303: 4103: 4095: 3997: 3964: 3948: 3854: 3739: 3687: 3630: 3621: 3576: 3518: 3468: 3434: 3427: 3217: 3199: 3180: 2456: 2259: 1802: 1705: 1648: 1386: 1300: 968: 4419: 4061: 3568: 2693: 2596: 2098: 1894: 1471: 1195: 1139: 275: 212: 78: 4512: 4505: 4359: 4190: 4116: 3908: 3869: 3816: 3810: 3772: 3699: 3647: 3588: 3534: 3481: 3242: 3155: 3139: 3070: 3015: 2948: 2932: 2918: 2891: 2864: 2685: 2653: 2574: 2531: 2388: 2350: 2343: 1179: 1029: 941: 787: 770: 694: 644: 4547: 4070: 2689: 2119: 1830: 1373: 618: 538: 438: 424: 404: 208: 4577: 4442: 4271: 3312: 2542: 2521: 2482: 2287: 2273: 2198: 1738: 1191: 916: 523: 508: 90: 36: 32: 4411: 4184: 4050: 2294:. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on 2179: 1458: 1361: 328: 3381: 2688:, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done under 4728: 4675: 4619: 4566: 4519: 4494: 4475: 4450: 4386: 4351: 4332: 4307: 4247: 4217: 4175: 4143: 4107: 4001: 3985: 3968: 3952: 3935: 3896: 3858: 3843: 3799: 3743: 3726: 3691: 3674: 3634: 3615: 3580: 3561: 3522: 3508: 3472: 3458: 3416: 3359: 3349: 3318: 3269: 3221: 3203: 3184: 3163: 3147: 3124: 3097: 3061: 3054: 3042: 3003: 2996: 2983: 2922: 2903: 2868: 2846: 2790: 2734: 2638: 2629: 2613: 2582: 2564: 2555: 2524: 2510: 2485: 2460: 2415: 2263: 2210: 2150: 2146: 2131: 2127: 2102: 1865: 1861: 1850: 1806: 1709: 1652: 1586: 1525: 1489: 1443: 1372:

While all contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, content or articles may be

1324: 1304: 1251: 1227: 1211: 1175: 1160: 1114: 1008: 976: 946: 876: 740: 717:. However, in order to keep and use new images, we need to know their original source. 698: 680: 611: 604: 585: 531: 164: 157: 138: 56: 49: 31:

Hi, Inlandmamba. This is NOT some automated message...it's from a real person. You can

3288: 452: 4715: