Misplaced Pages

User talk:Williamwells: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:45, 15 November 2006 editJakew (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,277 edits →NPOV and NOR← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:45, 4 March 2014 edit undoBagumba (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators175,043 edits Notice: Keep external links to External links sections at the bottom of an article on Kevin Durant. (TW) 
(30 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{| style="width:98%;" border="3"
|<span style="font-size:25px; color:red;"><font face="Neolith">'''Welcome!'''</font></span>


Hello, '''{{PAGENAME}}''', and ] to ]! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck or looking for help, please come to the ], where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type '''<code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code>''' on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here are a few good links for newcomers:
*]
*]
*]
*] (or, the ] version)
*]
*] *]
*] *]
Line 20: Line 8:
*] *]


I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out ], or ask the people around you for help -- good Wikipedians ]. Keep an open mind and listen for advice, but don't hesitate to ''']''' when editing!


If you'd like to respond to this message, or ask any questions, feel free to leave a message at ]!


==Your contributions==
Once you've become a more experienced Wikipedian, you may wish to take a moment to visit these pages:
*]
*]


Dear Mr Wells,
{{{1|}}}


I was interested to read your comments on circumcision. I thought they were quite reasonable. Unfortunately, a few users are adept at using policies such as 'neutral point of view' and 'no original research' as weapons in their culture war on behalf of their favourite cause. However, I can assure you that these people are just as liable as others to depart from the policies that they try to enforce on others. So their language, in turn, can be revised to ensure that the elusive 'neutral point of view' will be more closely adhered to. ] 02:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Best of luck to you, and happy editing!


== Shaggybevo ==
] 10:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
|}


Please don't repost unless you can show in the article that the site meets the notability standards of ]. Thanks, ] (]) 03:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
==NPOV and NOR==


] Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages{{#if:we will not be censored|, such as ],}} to Misplaced Pages. Doing so is not in accordance with our ]. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read ]; you might also consider using the ]. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-create2 --> Again, we don't post articles that are merely links to off-Misplaced Pages websites. Do not repost unless you are willing to take the time to create an article that meets ] and cites reliable sources per ]. Simply mouthing slogans like "we will not be censored" is a good way to get yourself blocked. ] (]) 03:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi William. Please will you familiarise yourself with our policies on ] and ]. Thanks! ] 10:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


] Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Misplaced Pages{{#if:Shaggybevo| , such as ]}}, you will be ] from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the ].<!-- Template:uw-create3 --> ] (]) 03:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I am responding to your note both here and on my page..please just delete this after you read it. I am still getting the hang of the "internal mail" and clearly this doesnt really go here. Happily it can be deleted in seconds after you read it.


==] case==
Did that (read the suggested sections) prior to edits submitted. Added based on conclusions currently used in pediatric practice and based on multiple neutral systematic reviews by such organizations as Cochrane.
{| align="left"
|| ]
|}
You have been accused of ]. Please refer to ] for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ] before editing the evidence page. ] (]) 03:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


Geez thats a laugh, just because a second of thousands of users stopped to try to lend a hand in editing an entry for this significant online presence, you stoop to accusing me of "sockpuppetry" - hard to do since I have been a member here for many years.
I provided no original research "on purpose" - though I may have done so accidentally. Perhaps I could have re-referenced some statements but they have already been wonderfully provided elsewhere in the article and I did reference those that fit. If I left a major statement unsupported please point this out and I will fix the issue.


I am simply trying to make an entry for a fansite, one that is already referenced in an existing page for HornFans. I tried to make a more extensive reference in that page, then link it to its own entry, and between the two you deleted my entry.
I added a relatively detailed explanation in plain english about conducting a risk to benefit analysis that follows the analysis in the paper referenced immediately above the explanation. This is not intended to be original research, rather a plain english description of a difficult subject that I have specific experience in teaching to medical students and residents (and I did not see explained anywhere else).


I am not so fast as to be able to save everything locally each time I do this, so you are simply censoring my work. Give me a reasonable amount of time and I will create all links and provide the requisite substantiation for the entry. It will be included in the entry itself. I am not an anonymous puppet, relax, I really exitst, this entry is legitimate, and I will provide the required proof of this. Just give a guy a little time to edit please?? See the site yourself at www.shaggybevo.com, its not a joke, there are THOUSANDS of users and it has been in existence for many years. Dont take this personally, just give me a reasonable amount of time to properly make the entry.
One cannot conclude that when a conclusion is arrived at through the analysis of undisputed evidence that one's opinion is somehow biased. If that were true, then I must non-neutral concerning the flatness of the planet.


Multiple well-established studies have determined "ranges" of risks of UTI and harm from circumcision. Choosing the best and worst case scenarios, there is no benefit to a population in the procedure and this article was not reflective of this analysis that has been adopted by virtually all governmental and specialty medical organizations on the planet. The original entry continued to refer to the "public health benefit" aspects of circumcision as in dispute. This is untrue.


Similarly, most people consider the planet round. Just because a few think it is flat does not provide a forum for "equal representation" of the flat earth society in a discussion of geology. At best they would be a footnote.


==Your recent edits==
Given the predominance of evidence (not just opinion in this one subsection) is it no longer reasonable to describe a public health controversy. Perhaps in social or ethical considerations, but the public health aspects are rather mathematical - an answer can be calculated in this paragraph, and I have explained the concept in detail. I hope this ads to the complexity of the topic and helps someone reading this section to understand the concepts I outlined. I personally have no opinion when it comes to the social aspects of circumcision but just like I have an opinion about the answer to 2 x 2 = 4 being correct I will continue to explain how the risk to benefit analysis doesnt allow us to say circumcision is a recommended public health measure to prevent ANY condition, period. This simply is not a controversy in current public health/epidemiology literature. Some aspects of the subject do require further research but this does not in itself imply disagreement over the current data.
] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion{{#if:|, such as on ]}}, you should ] by typing four ]s ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button ] located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}} <!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --] (]) 07:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


==] nomination of ]==
I hope that clarifies the edits. I use this site extensively in my teaching and research when I read the entry I felt it only fair that I contribute in this area since this one portion of the entry is clearly incorrect. There are more areas of reference to the public health benefit of circumcision, but I have already spend more time than I should have spend on this issue tonight.
] A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the ], such articles may be deleted at any time. Please ], as well as our subject-specific ]. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the ].


If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl|hangon}}</code> to '''the top of ]''' (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on ''']''' explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for ''speedy'' deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact ] to request that they ] the page or have a copy emailed to you.<!-- Template:Db-web-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 11:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
As for my qualification to make revisions, I am not a particular authority on the subject but I am currently the faculty physician assigned to our hospital's newborn nursery/ mother baby unit and I must make treatment decisions based on these very principals on a daily basis. I have training in evidence based medicine (though I do not have an MPH) and frequently teach these concepts in my practice.


==] nomination of ]==
I wholeheartedly support the right of parents to make desicisions based on available evidence and without scaring them into a decision based on false science. Seems you are one of the few people who were able to make a truly informed decision and give informed consent for the procedure. {{unsigned|Williamwells}}
<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>I have nominated ], an article that you created, for ]. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.{{-}}Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <!-- Template:AFDWarning --> ] (]) 14:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


== Welcome ==
:William, please don't worry about making mistakes as you learn the 'internal mail' system, as you put it. If it's ok with you, I won't delete the above, but will reply to you here (this has the benefit that other people can see the whole conversation without having to flick between pages).
'''Welcome!'''


Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]{{#if:|, especially what you did for ]}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
:I want you to understand that I am not suggesting that your edits are factually incorrect, nor that you are unqualified. On the contrary, with a few exceptions, I would fully support using similar material (properly published elsewhere) as sources for the article(s). My concern, however, is that they do not fully conform to the policies I mention.
*]

*]
:Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that one of your statements above ("multiple neutral systematic reviews by such organizations as Cochrane") may indicate an incorrect understanding of NPOV policy. NPOV does not mean selecting a neutral point of view and then presenting that as fact. It means, to quote, "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions."
*] and ]

*] (using the ] if you wish)
:There is little doubt that circumcision is a controversial subject, and both the British and American medical associations acknowledge a wide range of opinion among their membership. A similar range of opinion can also be found in the literature (even among evidence-based analyses, which we should remember are not entirely mathematical and objective, but require the guidance and judgement of a human author). I have no doubt that every single author, every physician, considers his or her opinion to be fully based upon the available data, and would argue that they are unbiased. Fortunately we don't have to decide who is right: we only have to report upon the differing views. :-)
*]

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:Ttonyb1|]|my talk page}}, or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome -->
:Finally, may I express how pleased I am that Misplaced Pages is proving useful to you in your teaching.
] (]) 18:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

:] 12:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we may disagree on that fact. How does one have an opinion about the solution to a quadratic equation (other than the sign of the answer)? Opinions are a social construct and are best placed in an appropriate heading designed to present them. Opinions aside, there ARE elements of circumcision that are controversial, and some that are simply factual. This type of controversy is based on the lack of available or properly designed data and can be sorted out with additional study. I will cite the example of the roundness of the earth again to illustrate.

Whereas we can present both sides of a debate at to whether or not a particular tribe agreed upon this fact as based on carbon dating of artifacts is certain. These can be opinions, and still based on data - but with data that cannot provide adequate resolution to provide an answer to one's particular question. If the dating was to the year 1000AD +/- 200 years, and the artifact depicted a round earth, you will have a difficult time supporting your argument that the theory was not developed until 1500ad. If this is still your "opinion" then it is uninformed.

We cannot, however, present "opinions" within elements of an entry about this as if they were facts without support. There are uninformed opinions, and the interpretations may change as new data is made available, but risks and benefits can and have been calculated for this procedure. To present opposite "opinions" when experimantal data exist is ignoring facts and this type of contruct then becomes part of the social or political aspects of circumcision. This deserves to be included in the subject treatment, but not as if the experimental supported the practice. To do so is being dishonest or ignoring facts to present opinion. There arent multiple sides to this kind of data - there is merely an interpretation of the data and so far as epidemiology is concerned nobody is arguing about how to calculate risk to benefit rations.

I will grant you for example that some people say that 100% of penile cancer is preventable (at the cost of 6 complications per case prevented) and that is in fact true. Epidemiology states that this is too little benefit to recommend circumcision with no other pre-existing risks. Perhaps someone wants to argue with these issues under the subject of "epidemiology" or "evidence based medicine" but dont present that under circumcision as this is misleading to those who do not understand these issues. I count on the collective knowledge of the large group to edit these entries and I have not been disappointed. I feel I should return the favor with an unambiguous stand on known, factual experimental data. The social issues I will observe from the sideline. As it is accepted fact that the planet is essentially round, the flat-earthers may be mentioned for completeness in the historical descriptions of the history of navigation, but deserve no space whatsoever in the section on cartography.

With circumcision, all ethical, social, religious matters aside, it is a computation to determine risk and benefit. These computations may change with further research, but with facts in hand we can show that if we calculate in favor of and against circumcision, we will circumcise 100 or 200 newborn males before we prevent a urinary tract infection in one of them. One of every 100 babies we circumcise will suffer some untoward complication from the procedure. No amount of "explaining" will ever make this data interpreted as a favorable risk to benefit ratio unless the meaning of "favorable" is changed within the science of epidemiology. Therefore circumcision, from a public health standpoint, is not indicated to "prevent" any disease in a normal patient and there exists no valid argument against that. Throw me any argument and I can mathematically show you evidence to refute all comers including cancer, HIV, cleanliness, any infection, etc.. I have nothing to stand on to show you if I will be reincarnated or admitted into heaven achieve nirvana, etc. if I do/dont circumcise my son/daughter.

My goal is to remove the ambiguous statements from only those sections where such statements remain that imply that a medical benefit is enjoyed by NORMAL newborn male infants as a result of circumcision. There simply is no controversy among informed scientists as to this fact. There may be those with opinions to the contrary but I again cite my description of the flat earth society.

If I say there is no controversy as to the planets resemblence to a pancke, only those unfamiliar with the scientific method will continue to protest. Only those who do not understand how to calculate risk, benefit, pretest probability, NNT/NNH will continue to claim that an argument exists here. Sometimes one must draw the line. Circumcision may have value to some individuals for personal/religious reasons but it is never a medically indicated therapy when performed on a normal newborn infant. It is no different from a tattoo or a piercing. Personal benefits but no medical improvements. It exerts no evolutionary pressure on the fitness of the species whatsoever. Opinion doesnt enter into it.

As for editing to conform to Misplaced Pages's standards, I need lots and lots of help as I am not a writer by trade. I will revamp things and try again to be certain to cite specific sources but again I will not be citing any proof of the 2D earth as there is none.

] 15:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

:William,

:Thank you for your reply.

:There seem to be two aspects where we seem to disagree (and again, the disagreement is largely on what should or should not be included in the article, not a fundamental disagreement).

:Firstly, as I've tried to explain to you already, NPOV policy ''requires'' presenting all main points of view, without presenting any as fact. That is not negotiable, and I'm afraid that you'll have to accept it eventually, like it or not.

:Secondly, you still seem to be insisting that evidence-based analyses are a mathematical certainty, like solutions to a quadratic equation. I think this is unrealistic.

:Since you seem to want to talk about it, let's take UTIs as an example. The outcome of any analysis depends upon at least the following:
:*The relative risk of UTI in uncircumcised males
:*The absolute prevalence of UTI in uncircumcised males (or the means to calculate this)
:*The absolute risk of complications in the circumcision procedure

:The former is perhaps the easiest to agree upon: generally one would use a meta-analysis of published work in the field. But even here there's a human element, because the inclusion criteria for such an analysis would be defined by a human, and the searches done by a human, and these choices can influence the outcome. Singh-Grewal et al (Arch Dis Child 2005 Aug;90(8):853-8) reported an OR of 0.13, which is more or less the figure you state.


== Now is your time. ==
:The second is slightly trickier. You can get a range of figures, depending in part upon the age range of the persons studied. Jakobsson et al (Pediatrics. 1999 Aug;104(2 Pt 1):222-6) give a cumulative risk of 2.2% by 2 years of age. Singh-Grewal, citing three studies, take a range of "1% to 2%", and then base their calculations on a rate of 1%. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge nobody has established this rate with the thorough, methodical, approach used in a typical meta-analysis. The base data for these critical calculations seems to be merely an estimate.


You claim this a notable subject, great. The afd discussion allows our community at large to debate it's inclusion by our standards. It also gets you a bit more time to get things in order as far as your sources. I understand you feel it is very notable but thus far nothing has show as far as ] goes to include it. I'm only one person though. More will comment ] (]) 21:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
:The third is much trickier, for there is such a wide range of data, perhaps reflecting different definitions of what, exactly, is a complication. Schoen (Arch Dis Child. 2005 Aug;90(8):772-3), criticising Singh-Grewal's work, pointed out that their choice of a 2% complication rate was 3 to 10 times higher than that (0.2-0.6%) cited by the AAP. Again, I'm not aware of any methodical approach to this question, but a guess seems a poor basis for an unarguable mathematical truth.


== March 2014 ==
:As I think I've shown, NNT and NNH calculations are only as good as the raw data, and that is often selected by humans, which introduces a certain amount of subjectivity. ] 17:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
] Hello, I'm ]. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of ]. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the ]. Links within the body of an article should be ]. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:Uw-inline-el --> —] (]) 00:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 00:45, 4 March 2014


Your contributions

Dear Mr Wells,

I was interested to read your comments on circumcision. I thought they were quite reasonable. Unfortunately, a few users are adept at using policies such as 'neutral point of view' and 'no original research' as weapons in their culture war on behalf of their favourite cause. However, I can assure you that these people are just as liable as others to depart from the policies that they try to enforce on others. So their language, in turn, can be revised to ensure that the elusive 'neutral point of view' will be more closely adhered to. Michael Glass 02:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Shaggybevo

Please don't repost unless you can show in the article that the site meets the notability standards of WP:WEB. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages, such as Shaggybevo, to Misplaced Pages. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Misplaced Pages:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Again, we don't post articles that are merely links to off-Misplaced Pages websites. Do not repost unless you are willing to take the time to create an article that meets WP:WEB and cites reliable sources per WP:V. Simply mouthing slogans like "we will not be censored" is a good way to get yourself blocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Misplaced Pages, such as Shaggybevo, you will be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Williamwells for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 03:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Geez thats a laugh, just because a second of thousands of users stopped to try to lend a hand in editing an entry for this significant online presence, you stoop to accusing me of "sockpuppetry" - hard to do since I have been a member here for many years.

I am simply trying to make an entry for a fansite, one that is already referenced in an existing page for HornFans. I tried to make a more extensive reference in that page, then link it to its own entry, and between the two you deleted my entry.

I am not so fast as to be able to save everything locally each time I do this, so you are simply censoring my work. Give me a reasonable amount of time and I will create all links and provide the requisite substantiation for the entry. It will be included in the entry itself. I am not an anonymous puppet, relax, I really exitst, this entry is legitimate, and I will provide the required proof of this. Just give a guy a little time to edit please?? See the site yourself at www.shaggybevo.com, its not a joke, there are THOUSANDS of users and it has been in existence for many years. Dont take this personally, just give me a reasonable amount of time to properly make the entry.


Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Shaggy Bevo

A tag has been placed on Shaggy Bevo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Shaggy Bevo

I have nominated Shaggy Bevo, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Shaggy Bevo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Williamwells, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ttonyb (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Now is your time.

You claim this a notable subject, great. The afd discussion allows our community at large to debate it's inclusion by our standards. It also gets you a bit more time to get things in order as far as your sources. I understand you feel it is very notable but thus far nothing has show as far as wp:rs goes to include it. I'm only one person though. More will comment Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

March 2014

Information icon Hello, I'm Bagumba. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Kevin Durant. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Williamwells: Difference between revisions Add topic