User talk:Astrocog/Archive 1

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Atrocog, Could you give this article another look. After some re-working, I would tend to say that at least the cleanup and notability tags could be removed. Concerning understandability, the topic may be intrinsically hard to understand, however not more so than others in quantum physics. Please, another look from your side? --Chris Howard (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. Removed notability and cleanup tags. I (mostly) get what's going on there, but that's only because I've got graduate degree in astrophysics. For non-scientists, this looks like traxoline. Good luck! AstroCog (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Gee, would´t want to take that test on taxoline... ;-) I have added a formula box now, so at least the reader gets a snapshot of the main idea. And thanks for softening up those templates somewhat so far. Cheers, --Chris Howard (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The students still have till November 14 for the nomination, and they are working on it; currently they are expanding it for a DYK. You are more then welcome to drop by the article's talk now, introduce yourself and offer any suggestions! PS. Thanks for helping out! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:17, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

For taking on the St. Louis history article. poroubalous (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all the helpful criticism on the article. Believe it or not, the see also section is 1/2 what it used to be, but over the next few days I will implement your suggestions, and I'll be sure to post on your wall when I do this so you can look the changes over and make sure that I did not do something wrong (I am still not tremendously experienced w/ wiki, but I am getting better each day :) ) Thanks again! --Kgw2 (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have made edits to the references as mentioned by multiple reviewers. The adv./disadv. (now benefits/criticisms) has been reworded to be more objective in tone (as this was a mentioned issue) and the sections have been combined to make the subsections fewer in number (great idea there btw it looks much nicer that way!). I was a bit at a loss in terms of what to do for an image, as it is not like, for instance, a person or a think, but rather a concept. I don't know what really would be appropriate in terms of a picture, so I didn't know if you had any further ideas on that or in general what type of picture I should be looking for. I am speaking with the other authors and my professor tomorrow about merging, and we will have a unanimous response to it as of tomorrow (I am still rather torn on the topic as it is a subsection, in a way, but it really has some distinguishing features that set it apart as well, which makes it a difficult thing to do - did you have any opinion one way or the other on that topic?). I will probably not have time until this weekend with my work load to worry about the non-US info, but I have at least found some reliable citations to begin reading this week so that this weekend I can really make some decent headway on that issue. Anyhow, most of the more minor issues seem to have been taken care of, the real last issue (at least in my opinion) is going to be the non-US view of the topic, which should be close to done by the end of the weekend. Thank you for all of your time on helping us with this article, I really appreciate it. --Kgw2 (talk) 04:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Just happened to notice that NYPL_LPA has clipping files on John De Lancie (not very much) and Legend (a good couple of things) - might be a way to get started. -- kosboot (talk) 13:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Oooh! I'll see about reserving those. AstroCog (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The things I mentioned are clipping files, most of which are not in the online catalog. There is a card file index on the 2nd floor of the library in the Drama area. But for most clippings in the Theatre Division, the call number is the same: T-Clippings (followed by the name of the person in reverse order, e.g. De Lancie, John; in the case of show names, you write the name of the show, with a qualifier as to the medium, e.g.: Legend (Television) ). The card file might reveal other stuff, or could be used as a place to browse people/titles that interest you. -- kosboot (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. AstroCog (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nemesis_(hypothetical_star)#Tone_needs_work

74.205.145.75 (talk) 03:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Astrocog, you are not the only one getting comments left on your talk page. -- Kheider (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

For your help with the Christopher Wren article which I am currently improving! GoldRock23(talk - my page - contribs) 16:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

no citations have been added since 2007 is not a reason for deletion; the criterion you have in mind is unsourceable, which is not the same as unsourced.

However, for some of the people you've used this tag on, there might be a more valid reason, such as lack of notability. I've therefore not removed the tags (yet); it would probably be best to check wuickly if there are any sources, and then give a better reason. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In cases where I've said no sources since 2007, I've tried to add something else which is actually substantive, such as notability. It would be helpful to know specifically which articles could have a better prod. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you could readjust the location of your merge discussion. I see that

Do note that this article is subject to an educational assignment, and let's try to keep it in mind that we don't want to confuse the new editors (students) too much. See my comment at User_talk:Nas132#Grounds_for_divorce_in_other_countries. I think we can have two articles, one global, and one US specific. But let's make sure we don't bite the students out of this project with too much splitting, moving and deleting :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 02:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

No biting intended. The name "Grounds for divorce in other countries" suggests that the encyclopedia is actually based in some specific country, and is therefore a bit confusing. If separate articles are needed, I'd suggest overwriting the Grounds for divorce redirect with the contents of the newly created article. Copy and paste is probably not a good idea at this point though.  -- WikHead (talk) 02:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Take it to that article's talk page, fellas ;-) AstroCog (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't want to imply that biting was ongoing, but that students may be wondering what's going on. And per Astro, the best way to avoid it is to explain all of our actions on the article's talk page (and on the talk pages of the students). Hoping to see you all there :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 03:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Astrocog/Archive 1! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Delivered by

Thanks for uploading File:Epsilon eridani dustring.gif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Invitation from the Guild of Copy Editors The Guild of Copy Editors invites you to participate in their November 2011 Backlog elimination drive, a month-long effort to reduce the size of the copy edit backlog. The drive begins on November 1 at 00:00 (UTC) and ends on November 30 at 23:59 (UTC). We will be tracking the number of 2010 articles (and specifically will be targeting the oldest three months), as we want to copy edit as many of these as possible. Barnstars will be awarded to anyone who copy edits more than 4,000 words, and special awards will be given to the top 5 in the following categories: "Number of articles", "Number of words", and "Number of articles of over 5,000 words". We hope to see you there! – Your drive coordinators: Diannaa, Chaosdruid, The Utahraptor, Slon02, and SMasters . >>> Sign up now <<<

Sent on behalf of the

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for taking on the review of oldest article at WP:GAN. The Blair Waldorf article has been waiting for over 3 months even though the nominator did several reviews himself. Your contribution to keeping the GA process moving is recognized and appreciated. maclean (talk ) 19:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to look over the article. The text you removed from the lead ("controversy and other matters") was referring to the "Controversy" and "Reaction to triangle" sections, which both cite notable media coverage. Just wanted to clarify that before I made a decision on returning it.

I appreciate your advice and improvements. I'm not familiar with all the tools you cited, but I'll see what I can do. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I've made some edits to the article. -- James26 (talk) 00:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Was there any other issue, or did you just need more time? -- James26 (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Updated. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I asked questions in the GA review, regarding the links and the copy edit suggestion. I was basically asking for more specific information. I did a recent review in which several issues were identified. As you've read the entire Blair Waldorf article, do you feel that its issues are prevalent enough to warrant a copy edit? Just wondering, as I know they're two different articles. -- James26 (talk) 05:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like you identified many spelling/formatting issues in your GA review of that article, but I'm assuming you fixed them as you found them - so that article may not need a copy edit. As for Blair Waldorf, I'll take another look at it today. AstroCog (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate all that you did as part of your review. If my questions came across as antsy, I apologize. Thanks again. -- James26 (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. It was my pleasure to help out. AstroCog (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Haven't run anything through

Astro, I suppose future newcomers will find your suggestions and clarifications useful. I resent the fact that you used them in a certain sense to attempt to debase or humiliate me. False courtesy rings like a cracked bell. Well, you and Republican Joe have your playground all to yourselves now.75.21.113.40 (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No false courtesy at all. Since your

assume good faith. AstroCog (talk

) 22:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

To hell with this.75.21.113.40 (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

When you propose a merge, would it be helpful in securing the outcome you seek by following the guidance at

Hi RJH - I'm fielding questions and comments at the RfC for the AO notability guideline. A user is objecting to the language about including objects that were directly observed in the criteria. Since that was one of your additions, I'm hoping you could take stab at answering? The specific comment is here. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Astrocog. Sorry for the delay in responding; I've been pretty sick the past few days and I'm only just starting to get better. I'll take a look. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Skier Dude's talk page.

Hi, thanks for the review. At this point I've improved on everything, except the lists of children. Honestly I'm not sure if it's worth converting them into prose, most of them are non-notable and I'm not sure there's much to write about. Designate (talk) 04:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, I've finished my review of The Adventures of Brisco County, Jr. I think it's pretty close to GA, I just have a few minor notes. Feel free to reply if you disagree with any of it. Otherwise take as much time as you need. Thanks, Designate (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I fixed up the issues you found. Let me know if there's anything left. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, when I've got a chance I'll take a look. Cheers, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I had wanted to check, for the citation issue, would learning how to bundle them help, or is it more of an issue of spacing them through the sentence, etc.? I want to make sure I am making to correct steps to address this issue this week. Thank you! --Kgw2 (talk) 10:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know I should have Wed. free so I will finish fixing the article Wed. if that is alright (lots of papers with my credit load are due monday and tuesday unfortunately). --Kgw2 (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I'm a college prof so I know how it is for students. I'm leaving the hold in place and won't be closing it until the changes are made, so you've got no rush.AstroCog (talk) 23:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Astro, I wondered whether we might be able to use two photos: one representative of steampunks and another representing the technological aspect. I see no reason why we need to have a photo with both subjects in it. I can't tell you how much that present photo irks me. Those people look wrong. However, I am not conversant enough to try to dig for something. Usually I get infringement details quite wrong, and I do not believe in stealing. Djathinkimacowboy 00:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new, I understand how to edit encyclopaedias, but Wiki is rather different to what I'm used to doing. Can you explain the differences between normal encyclopaedias and how Wiki operates and I should do just fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyonatu (talk • contribs) 02:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a menu of helpful links in the welcome posted on your talk page. Try those out. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

...for your hard work and dedication to establishing celetial object notablity standards. Chrisrus (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so now what's the next step? Are you planning to implement these? There are thousands of asteroid articles still out there, no? Chrisrus (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no immediate plans to start going through asteroid stubs to make redirect to lists. However, anybody is welcome to go ahead and do that. If you do it, be sure to make a good-faith effort on each one to confirm it doesn't meet any of the

WP:NASTRO criteria. AstroCog (talk

) 15:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So, as far as you know, there is no plan to actually implement the standards. You should know that I'm not qualified to implement them, so I won't be doing it. I would think that after all you and you all have done to formulate them, you'd wouldn't want your efforts to come to nothing. Chrisrus (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for initial review Astrocog. I have made changes to the Hamilton Fish article as suggested. Do you have any time estimate when your review can be finished? Cmguy777 (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been pretty busy IRL. Just got the review up. The article is very close to passing GA review. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I reverted the external links removal you did - thought it was vandalism.

I am a science teacher in Berkshire, UK and use these links as a reference for students, along with many other teachers from forums in the UK, US and around the world for homework assignments and suggested reading etc. I appreciate your point about the K-12 reference as that is what they are, but I (We) have this Wiki page published as a link on the internet and also in papers as a reference for students.

If you feel so strongly that they don't belong here, can you move them to a more appropriate page and let me know where - I did notice there is a K-12 page for science? (I suggest that it is you that move them as oppose to me as I don't have a wiki ID and would probably get interpreted as a spammer).

BTW - these are not just 'commercial sites' - they are the top in Google for 'science experiments' and variations of such, which have been vetted and added over several years.

Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.228.220 (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

One month is about the right time to have an RFC open. Put your request for closure at

Thanks, not sure how I missed the RfClosure page... Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to say congratulations and well done on putting together

Thanks! I was about to offer you the same thanks and praise, since you did plenty of heavy lifting yourself on this proposal and RfC. I'm happy to have a guideline now. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I think all the tasks in Talk:W. E. B. Du Bois/GA1 have been accomplished. There were a couple of minor deviations, that are described in the comments on that page. --Noleander (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For general good works in your first year - GA reviews, taking an article to GA status, welcoming newcomers, steering a guideline to promotion, and conducting yourself in a lucid and calm manner that generates a positive working atmosphere. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You've only been here a year, and only really been active in the past five months, but you've done some impressive work. I'd like to keep you in mind for nominating for adminship in about six months. I think you're just the sort of person who would be a big asset to the community. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I pinged the group leader. If nothing happens within 48h or so, well, it's your call, I understand. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI: [1]. I am not sure where is the miscommunication issue; I'll try to find some time to look at the review myself this evening or the next one. I hope it's not a major issue... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 00:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

there was some criticism on foundation-l about "wikipedia not beeing good in vital articles". could you improve

Agreed. I reverted those edits mainly because information technology doesn't belong in the medieval section, and another addition altered a link that was already good. The best way to improve articles such as this is to expand the prose and support it with references to reliable sources.AstroCog (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

undid the revert, as currently the history is only parted in 3 time frames, all going for thousands of years. and IT should belong to the last timeframe i guess, and is important enough to be mentioned. what you think? your english and knowledge is probably a lot better to integrate it more seamlessly --ThurnerRupert (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comprehensive and very helpful GA review. One question: which images specifically had insufficient fair-use rationales? Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you again for your review of the article. I've now addressed the concerns at the GAN, pending your opinion. Let me know if there are any further issues. Thanks again, Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look. AstroCog (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing this article. It is indeed the product of a Psychology class. Wikipedia provides the opportunity to write for a general audience. This is something that most students don't have a lot of opportunity to do. I appreciate your comments and your gentle critique. My assessment is similar. I am working on restructuring assignments so that I get to make my assessment before articles are submitted to GA. I hope this student is interested enough to pursue the required alterations to clean it up. Just for your info, this made the DYK page today. Thanks again for taking the time and showing sensitivity to the situation. Paula Marentette (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I noted you have an interest in Minnesota-related topics (and are a U of M grad to boot). Would you be interested in weighing in at the FL candidacy for List of colleges and universities in Minnesota? It's pretty close to passing, but still needs one or two more supports. You can find the review link here. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 19:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll check it out. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 20:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Astrocog, Thanks for initiating a GA review at Bridgewater Associates. As a GA reviewer myself I know that often there are things that need fixing as seen through a fresh pair of eyes. So please let me know what you see and I will revise relevant items as needed. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I've been reading through this article, and it strikes me almost as an advertisement. One thing you could do to preempt my comments is to carefully work through the article to remove the kind of corporate-ese that makes some of the article read like it was generated by a PR person within the company. AstroCog (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do that. I assume that when you say "corporate-ese" you mean the language or presentation. If you could you maybe cite a specific sentence or paragraph as an example than I'd have a clearer understanding of exactly how to proceed. Thanks for the feedback. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 00:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I just posted my GA review. It's a decent article, and not too far from GA status. Good luck with the improvements. I'll be watching the review, so you can leave comments there and I'll answer them. AstroCog (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds great, thanks again.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 01:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I think I've made all of the changes that you have requested. Can you take a look when you have time? Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Death panel/1. I replied and I have made some changes to the article. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  helpme
  }} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

		A beer on me!
		Thanks for your astute review of the Bridgewater Associates article and the many good changes you recommended. And kudos to you, for all your many contributions, which serve to make Wikipedia bigger, better and stronger! — Keithbob • Talk • 16:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Time Error in GA Review

Hi - I wonder if you could sort out a minor issue for me? I did the GA review on

^ • @

) 08:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I just played around with it and can't see any obvious reasons for the error. Looking at the history for that page, it's also not obvious to me when the bot updated the history with the GA status, and perhaps that's the problem? I tried several different changes, but none of them stuck. You may need a tech person to look at it, and can probably find them through

here. Good luck. AstroCog (talk

) 12:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our third tranche of Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, 16 December – 23:59 UTC, 31 December. All GOCE members, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are five candidates vying for four positions. Your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the

AWB

on 10:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

GAs

Hey! A friendly reminder to actually list articles you have passed through

WP:GA/SSS

. Thanks, —

Andrew_stalk

04:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success! This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

This page 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.