Thanks for cleaning up the Aornis Hades article(s). To say I'm a Wiki-newb is an understatement, but I -do- know when I'm right. Thanks for your help. I hope that'll stop people from deleting my work just so they can mindlessly retype what Fforde said in his novel about the rivers. Usoki 20:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good job at implicit differentiation! Pizza Puzzle

Thanks. I didn't take AP BC Calc for nothing :-) Ed Cormany

Ditto for Geothermal areas of Yellowstone. You expanded the entry nicely! --mav 07:35 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thank you, considering I have a lot more planned for that and related articles and just haven't got around to it. Somehow paid work and sleep take precedence over free work. Funny how that is... Ed Cormany 19:31 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Good job on List of chess engines! Thanks! (I came across it accidentally the other day and couldn't face it--plus I don't have the summer off. ;-) ) Elf | Talk 04:10, 14 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with the Russia template! -- ran 00:41, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for fixing the article I put on cleanup! (boa knot) Just for the future- please remove all entries after fixing them up to prevent the cleanup page from getting more bloated than it already is. Thanks for your time. -Frazzydee 23:41, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A while ago, you asked why any article called "Wikipedia Help the Eager Beaver Foundation" was blanked and protected instead of being deleted. I don't know if anyone got back to you on that, or if you figured it out on your own, but the reason was that the article had been deleted four times. It was continually recreated by the vandal, so Angela created a blank version and protected it. Once the vandal lost interest, it was deleted. -- Cyan 19:16, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Cyan, that makes good sense, and I had never thought of such a clever solution to that type of problem. Ed Cormany

On the section of this article about the Wikipedia Help the Eager Beaver Article Foundation there was something written: The vandal: It's coming back to save the Eager Beaver article. Why did you erase that? Tell me why at my talk page. Heegoop, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi Ed, FYI, I created a help file on archiving Current Events: Wikipedia:How to archive Current Events As you will see, it is little more than the text currently at the top of the Talk page. I hope this useful information is now more visible. All the best, -- Viajero 17:12, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi, Ed, and thanks for the nice note abt listing Cleanup on Cleanup. I hope it didn't seem sarcastic; my personality makes me good at doing things like getting the new day's date on promptly and adding headings that i think are encouraging others to do the periodic review of entries as they age (which i agonize over too much to be effective at). I don't see it as "grown out of control", but as a little sub-optimum; i'm hoping that things like the Cleanup lisitng and the headings (which make it more obvious that we, collectively, are neglecting the sensible aging reviews) are part of our decentralized control system's means applying a course correction. --Jerzy(t) 13:34, 2004 May 13 (UTC)

---

Thank you,Ed, your advice is helpful.I will make some change to Softswitch as you advised me. I will learn fast-:)!--Bigben 04:03, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello Ed. I notice that you have redirected Amount of substance to Mole (unit). Please may I ask why? I've set out some reasons why both articles should exist in Talk:Amount of substance. Thanks Ian Cairns 22:35, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Archived talk

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (| talk)

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no worries about wiping them out. I was just *extremely* bored this evening, and noticed that it hadn't been updated (I was assuming because of the bracket), and thought I'd just throw some time into it. I did the best I could, even though it's real convoluted and hard on the eyes, so surely the bracket will make things all more the clearer, but don't worry about it! --Snojoe 05:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again regarding the bracket, and just a suggestion; obviously, you and I know better as to which bracket champions faces another in the semifinals, but for clarification, maybe there should be some sort of symbol representing each bracket, and which bracket winner faces the other in the semis. Example, declare the Roma/Sampdoria bracket "Bracket A" and in the semifinal/finals bracket, list "Bracket A" v "Bracket B" in each slot? Showing the page to my cousin, he had questioned the progression from quarters to semis, and thought maybe something should be added to clarify? You did a marvelous job with them though, definitely much better than what I had done! --Snojoe 20:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• More Coppa... More like just a general question, is there a specific website you're checking for live scores? I keep Googling some, and none seem to do a justice as all are *really* slow in updating the scores. I'd love to use it not just for Coppa scores, but any other competitions that Soccernet doesn't update as actively as they should. --Snojoe 20:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you readd the talbles from last season too? There is more consensus about deleting it then there is for keeping it. If I don't do it again then someone else will and I ca nganrantee you that. Kingjeff 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping you might be able to help. Please read and leave a comment at Category talk:Tournament bracket templates. Thanks. Flibirigit (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a boring idea which changing Inter to Internazionale. However, plenty of press (television of course) refer the club as "Internazionale". Inter is easier to call, but Internazionale is more proper one. That's why I made this edit. But I have no idea if the decision is correct. Raymond Giggs 01:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely support it. I tried to reach that reverter in German since he uses a German IP address, but this obviously still failed. Hockey-holic (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at what is now Talk:Lega_Pro_Prima_Divisione, you will find there was a requested move discussion ongoing - it would have been nice if that had been concluded before the move. Given Wikipedia's guidelines on official names, it is far from obvious that your decision based on official renaming is the correct one. Knepflerle (talk) 21:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it was easily missed! I have a slight preference for the old name; but taking another look back, nobody else has commented there, and you and the editor who nominated the move are both in favour so I'm perfectly happy to leave it. Good luck with your editing on Italian football - in general I think the articles on Italian football are of a really decent standard, I just hope other countries will catch up eventually! Knepflerle (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the teams' positions before any results were posted and thus every team was just listed once. Someone else added the results and copied the winning team's name (link and position) on to the next braket. For most people, many of those team names in the lower divisions are so obscure that few readers know what level those teams are playing in. Once all the resutls are in, if I were to ask you how many Serie D teams survived the first round, you would be able to answer me in 20 seconds, otherwise, it would take you many minutes, or at least it would take me many minutes. I personally don't think the bracket is hard to read. Maybe an index might be needed to tell the reader what the codes mean. We also need to know which team was playing at home (maybe something like the 2007-08 Coppa Italia). Someone put up the seeding chart, but I think that is wrong too, since the tournament has expanded from 42 to 78 teams.

I would keep that information for the first listing of the team, unless there is some sort of consenses that its no good. If you think its so important that it should brought up in the football project page, please do so. How about a compromise?........somehow keep the information on last year's placement near the team name (at the front maybe?) within the bracket area and not part of the name as it is now. Just a thought. Juve2000 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed what you did, and I just want to say that I totally diagree with the changes you made. The seeding chart makes no sense at all. Teams are grouped based on their classification the previous year and then drawn based on the round they are to enter. There is no seeding from 1 to 78, you just made that up based on the order of the draw. What you have done makes no sense. By the way, thanks for destroying the hard work I put in into making the brackets understandable. If everyone did what you did, we would all be reverting everything and nothing would get done. What am I supposed to do now? revert your work? Don't worry, that garbage will not be reverted by me. Lets see now, if I want to see where Castellarano came from, i have to look up seed 64 on your famous chart, and then see that it finished third in D/D last year. I see your point, the way I had it was way too easy, lets make it complicated and hard for the reader. Good Job, Juve2000 (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am quite convinced it is actually necessary to evidence the winning team in the playoffs, it is not so automatic to recognize it only by bolding club names. If you think it is merely a matter of colour, just change it; my only concern is to make the name of the winning team clear undeniably evident. --Angelo (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just noticed that some brackets used semi-finals and some used semifinals, Semi Finals, Semi-Finals, Semifinals. (Same for quarter-finals) Basically all of the different forms. Sometimes different forms in the same bracket template. So I looked it up at the Oxford English Directory through my library and they listed quarter-finals and semi-finals using the hyphen. Dictionary.com uses the word without the hyphens as one word. And of course in the media, anything goes, it seems. So it was basically a tidy-up, not trying to be bold. I think the OED is the 'most correct' spelling, so I went with that. I think that semi-final is defendable as the best choice as it shows in the spelling what is meant, that it is a derivation of the final. I do see the 'semi-final' format used extensively here in North America (mostly in books). There will definitely be opinions. I don't know of a project to go and discuss it at, so I just did a tidy. We have a ton of bracket templates that are virtually identical. The bracket templates could be reduced as another tidy-up project but that's a bigger job. Alaney2k (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope it doesn't cause too much of a fuss. I was trying to be helpful to make a default, not impose. (I looked at a large sample of the various articles linked and over 80% do not use the default titles anyway, so I was not that concerned about messing up articles) I would like to add some docs to a lot of the templates. They are so useful, and yet we probably don't use them enough, as shown by the duplication. Oh, and not sure what you meant about standardizing the 'other way around'. Alaney2k (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Coulda just removed them. Still would have changed a bunch of capitalization styles. You know, I could have just used AWB because they are all in one or two cats. Damn, why didn't think of that? LOL. Oh yeah, because there were so many versions... I could turn it around a lot easier cause I've standardized. Alaney2k (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm doing my best, this year I have the card to see every match at the stadium, so I can help also with many photos! My problem is the english, because I'm not very good to write...maybe you could work on the page correcting my wrong sentences ;). It would be great (and very useful!).--Andrea 93 (msg) 13:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have replied to your inquiry at WT:FOOTY, and also changed the 2009–10 Serie B table to what all tables should look like. Cheers, Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2013–14 S.S. Lazio season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Cristian Ledesma and Sky Sport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I am contacting you here as this seems to be the wiki you are most active in. There is currently an ongoing proposal with regards to having an ancient Greek Wikipedia, accompanied by an active incubator wiki that has plenty of articles already. I thought I would let you know as you have an interest and knowledge of ancient Greek, so you're more than welcome to participate if you find it worthwhile. Gts-tg (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020–21 S.S. Lazio season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Allianz Stadium. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:16TeamBracket-2leggedSF has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:4TeamBracket-CoppaItalia has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:16TeamBracket-2Leg has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 21:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]