Major crimes attacks against civilians, use of child soldiers(TMVP), acts of ethnic cleansing, torture Attributed assassinations(TNA) Notable attacks prison massacres, assassinations of political opponents have taken place,State Terrorism

• • ADD THIS TO THE SRI LANKA PAGE IT IS ONLY FAIR B/C you did it to the LTTE PAGE

ADD THIS TO THE SRI LANKA PAGE IT IS ONLY FAIR B/C YOU GUYS DID THAT TO THE LTTE PAGE

Bastique tells me he loves to help you with the commons ursurpation if you post your request on commons:COM:CHU effeietsanders 18:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good find on those uusername-password combinations. Although, it would be ideal if they needed a valid email to register. It goes against the basic principle of a wiki. Either way, as long as we keep an eye out, these vandals won't be able to get much done anyway. --Renrenren 19:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation process, starting with opening statements, has begun on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/AMG Chemmani. If you do not have the page watchlisted, I would recommend you add it to your watchlist when you get the chance. I probably won't be notifying each involved editor at every step, and the talk page should be quite active over the course of the mediation. Thanks again for waiting. -- tariqabjotu 22:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just here issuing another reminder that the mediation has begun on Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/AMG Chemmani. Please add your opening statement when you get the chance. -- tariqabjotu 17:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:French Guiana football flag.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:MetalSonicCG.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lexicon, sorry for not getting back to you sooner on this. Yes, I own the rights to some images. I will upload them shortly, as narcissistic as that may appear. :D Thanks for the suggestion. BFD1 18:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Logo_iom.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BigrTex 20:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Basque_Football_Association_logo.gif as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. BigrTex 21:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Csa_logo.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. BigrTex 21:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Logo_waf.gif as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. BigrTex 21:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Logo_niu.gif as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. BigrTex 21:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have a great weekend Taprobanus 21:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to check which version is original. SEY01 13:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, I did not figured out, it was already exist in the article before someone has deleted, refer to history of the article and finally, who do you think yourself, owner of wikipedia or authority about the subject that you will remove it ????SEY01 14:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link of what I had figured out for my own (!) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kosovaflag.gif SEY01 14:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about a legend and it is a simulation of star and moon that is, flag itself what is wrong with it, what kind of source you are looking for, a witness? SEY01 14:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are so sure about that star and moon are not in the same line, have you been in there? SEY01 08:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you dont mind but now the redirects on the above mentioned are mixed up & I just doubled the length of it and because of an edit conflict with you none of them have any text! Highfields 17:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Newfoundland Blue Ensign.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 08:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Himasaram 08:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your etireless effort in Sri lanka reconciliation related tasks Taprobanus 17:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, really thanks to you for taking that kind of time Taprobanus 17:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Us-civil.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jgassens 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I go on to request deletion at Wikicommons, I suppose it is best to work it out here. The issue is that the image is not an image which has any historical background. That is to say, the image is made up, perhaps not by you or the original author, but it is a fictitious flag nonetheless. The "50 star" argument suggests that a review of the law post 1959, when there were officially 50 states, shows no incident of that flag ever being officially recognized by the United States. The current US flag, with 50 stars, was recognized in 1960. Unless the creators of the "civil flag" of Nathaniel Hawthorn's world had foreknowledge that that we would have 50 states, then it is quite impossible that there should be 50 stars. As the "owner" of the image, it is upon you to verify that this is an actual flag of the United States. I.E. one that has been recognized by the federal legislature. If you can't do it, then you should concede that it is not a historically relevant artifact. If it is a hoax, it has no place on Wikipedia, as is policy. Jgassens 20:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I will consider your argument, though I still whole-heartedly disagree. You will be notified regardless. Most likely I will request deletion, since the article it is attached to is written entirely incorrectly (and should be phrased as a complete hoax and not a controversy, and since it is not a noteworthy hoax, it should be deleted or merged.) It's a better outcome than a stupid revert war, regardless. :) Jgassens 21:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but I have requested the image for deletion on wikicommons. [1]. Please understand that it isn't anything personal. My intentions are for the improvement of wikipedia. Jgassens 19:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that the sentence "whether by the defenders or the Romans will never be known." is OR on my part but the sources I found all mention that the burning of the storehouses contradicts Josephus's claim that the food was not burnt by the defenders. Leaving this interpretation will result in a rv by POV editors and how do we know the Romans didn't do it after Masada fell? I feel that sentence is acceptable OR given the reasons I just gave. If you feel otherwise feel free to rv. Wayne 19:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I've been a bit frustrated with you keep changing this article but actually I've been searching through the history and your edits have realy improved the article. I think you deserve the Computing Barnstar and think you should join Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology but then again you appear to be a technical sort of guy not a flag sort of guy...

		The Computing Star
		I award you The Computing Barnstar for your Technical help on World Flags Highfields 16:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you are capable to understand but, let me tell you, being a native brings some benefits at knowledge of FLAG, legends, language etc. than others. Sure, I know better than you who even cannot imagine how a flag looks like from opposite side if it does not have an identical miror image, like flag of Turkey. Your 2D vision defect perceives each flag has to look identical at both faces, like your flag. http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozan_d/473885904/in/pool-ayyildiz/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/32482907@N00/580802312/in/pool-ayyildiz/ SEY01 06:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid all of that's absolutely irrelevant as long as you can't WP:CITE a reliable source which states what you've found out, period. —Nightstallion 13:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo Nightstallion!!!! Sounds you have perfectly understood(!) what the discussion is... SEY01 14:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have understood it, thank you -- regardless of whether what you claim as the source of the flag is accurate or not (might be shrugs), you need an independent source which you can cite. Simply figuring something out for yourself is quite nice, but not good enough on Wikipedia. I'm afraid I'm getting the impression that you fail to understand what this discussion is about; your claims regarding Lexicon's lack of Turkishness being a factor in this seem to indicate you don't understand the issue. —Nightstallion 08:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not watching the article; it's lucky I dropped by to check.

Your reversion of my edit on the grounds that "the table doesn't match the article" doesn't seem like the way to fix the problem.

The question you should ask is: "If the table has been edited, then perhaps the article itself should be edited too". Instead of a rapid reversion, you might have pointed the conflict out to me so that I could fix the article itself.

Since you have deemed reversion (without notification) the way to go, I would like to pose you this question:

Why is 星期天 translated as 'week heaven' and 星期日 translated as 'week sun', whereas 礼拜天 and 礼拜日 both translated as 'worship day'? If you can justify this (with references), please feel free to leave the article as it is.

Bathrobe 07:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lexicon: 1) Italian was not an official language of Ragusa, Dalmatian was. 2) The Republic was under Venetian control for a time that is true, but it was independent before that, and prior to that, was part of the Byzantine Empire. I will not revert anything as yet, in anticipation of your response/explanation. DIREKTOR 12:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Respublica di Ragusa, I believe. But I admit I am not sure... It is an extinct romance language so it is not widely known even around these parts... I accept your argument concerning one of the points. But you must realise one thing: the hatred of the Ragusans for their arch-rival the Venetian Republic is epic (why do you think Ragusa has those famous massive seaward walls and forts?) For them to have Italian (i.e. Venetian) as an "official" (there was no such institution an official languages in those days) language is I believe, highly unlikely and untrue, I don't doubt it was frequently necessary to speak it (for the merchants), but "official"? No. DIREKTOR 13:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin was in the official use till the last dekades of Republic of Dubrovnik. In a book I have, I see that a diplomat was appointed with a document written in Latin. Kubura 13:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latin was ADMINISTRATIVE!!! not "official" language in those ages almost in the half of Europe! It means that documents were written in Latin language. At present we still have situation that scientific researches and documents published by universities have topics translated to Latin everywhere in the western civilization. Every flower or butterfly or mineral has its Latin name! Isnt' it? How is that? Obviously it is our cultural ancestry from those ages when all documents were written and published in Latin language in that part of Europe. So it was not official! BTW some documents in Dubrovnik/Ragusa were written in Dalmatian - it is well known fact.

For Medieval - period you can say that official language was the one which was in usage by the citizens of the specific city. In Dubrovnik/Ragusa it was Croatian and Dalmatian. Do you know that the most part of Croatian Medieval cultural ancestry comes from coastal cities like Dubrovnik, Split, Trogir and Zadar? Zenanarh 14:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that remark. Maybe it's better description "administrative". Kubura 11:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lexicon, always discuss with others, when you make changes in the article that had severe editwars, disputes etc.. Kubura 13:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a questions ,what's your name?Lexicon or Lesbicon?

"I have a questions", this can be only one BANNED person... DIREKTOR 19:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Lexicon, the guy insults everybody and then calls on administrators, I won't perpetuate this pointless struggle on your talkpage. DIREKTOR 20:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MJCdetroit has asked me to inform you (and a few other users) that he is about to undergo the RFA process for the second time. Since he says you have offered to nominate him in the past, I am informing you before the RFA goes live. Shalom ^Hello 02:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC) io lo prendo al culo.[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Froya games flag.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of this series of personal attack as an admin ?17:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I need a better Canadian dictionary. Ben W Bell talk 11:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your warning, now another editor has revealed my identity in the same ANI violating WP:STALK here. What is my recourse ? Thanks Taprobanus 13:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This message is to inform you that the forumer Direktor is a well know propagandist of tito-style propaganda on the internet. He has been banned from other forums because of his harrassment against italians in Istria and Dalmatia. He has used other nicknames and WRITES ALWAYS IN A SYNCHRONIZED GROUP WITH OTHERS, who support him. He always writes to be of distant italian roots in order to obtain support for his harrassments (he often identifies Italians in Dalmatia with fascists), and writes even to be a "not nationalist" while he fanatically promotes the Tito Yugoslavia with many lies and deceits. An Italian forumer born in Istria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.231.200.216 (talk • contribs)

Hi... I noticed some time ago that you changed the Image:Rouge-Admin JollyRoger.svg but I more recently noticed that it seems to have a skull that strongly resembles Image:Flag of Edward England.svg.To the right are side by sides of the current versions as of this writing.

When I drew the original skull it was a copy of a different pirate flag, the more conventional one. While I don't really think the Edward of England one is bad, I am wondering why you changed it, and also if you did work from that other SVG or what?

Also, do you have any strong feeling about actually doing the switch and replacing the original Red Brigades derived flag with this one?... both you and I still have that one in our Rouge Admin badging :) ++Lar: t/c 04:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I stole the skull from the flag you mention. I thought the other one was a little too "cartoonish"—it lacked detail which I think made it not look as nice as it could look. If you think I wrecked your flag, feel free to revert my changes. As for the use of a Red Brigades-inspired flag for rouge admins, no I don't feel any need to change it. Indeed, it doesn't make as much sense with the skull and crossbones, but still retains some of whatever it is that makes people think it might be offensive by retaining original flag's styling as well as the Italian "Rosse" and Italian-inspired "administratte" spelling. So if you're going to offend an editor or two, why not do it with the original flag? Lexicon (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(refactored from my talk, I'll watch here for a bit) Well, the original red brigades one does come up for deletion/kerfluffle-ing from time to time, as does the group itself... That's why I've thought that changing out the image with the star on it for this one was a good compromise. But no worries I guess. May as well let sleeping dogs lie. I think it's a fine change I guess, although I personally do prefer more cartoony skulls, that one looks rather sinister. So no I won't be reverting it. Thanks for the offer though, it's appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 15:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe when I have the time I'll try to create a composite which is less cartoonish but not as sinister either (I have a little bit of practice with Inkscape, so I can do more than just cutting and pasting, although I admit not a great deal more). Lexicon (talk) 15:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and BTW, I see you have a personal infobox on your user page, which I think I'm going to add to my own, and I noticed you have your age manually entered. If you want it to update automatically, you can use the {{birth date and age|year|month|day}} template to show your birthdate with an automatically updated age, or the {{age|year|month|day}} template to just show an updated age. Lexicon (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am no Inkscape maven, that's for sure... but this image was a learning process for me. The original skull and bones image was made by intersecting/unioning/differencing shapes and twiddling paths, till I had a close approximation of the bitmapped image I was working from. Getting the text to follow a curved path was a bit challenging since you have to take spacing into account and you can't center it, only start somewhere... Perhaps I should dig up the bitmapped image and link to it in the description box. But since that version is now gone in this image, it doesn't matter. BTW, thanks for the tip on age, it's been done. {{age}} does have the drawback of making your birthday obvious, but if I cared about that I shouldn't have added it to the esperanza calendar way back when :) ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posed a question at the end of the discussion in the article about Jacob's Ladder. Would you answer it? 67.87.92.56 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BramptonThunderLogo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shell ^babelfish 02:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first proposed flag in your list belonged to a extremist Ulster Loyalist Nationalist group, that wanted a Independent Northern Ireland, this group is defunct. The next 2 where prosposed by the Alliance Party in N Ireland their proposal was never taken seriously, the last one I think is a fabrication that I think someone created as a windup, it based on the PSNI banner.--padraig 19:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few templates you created, Template:Infobox Raëlian and Template:Infobox Raëlism, have been marked for deletion as deprecated and orphaned templates. If, after 14 days, there have been no objections, the templates will be deleted. If you wish to object to their deletion, please list your objections here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the templates. If you feel the deletions are appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 18:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the change you made, a much clearer version.--Vintagekits 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also take a look at article Vaharai Bombing Where citation from HRW report is taken off and said it is dubious. Just because someone does not agree with what a RS says does not make it UnRS. Please take a look as an edit war is sure to break out. Further can you also take a look at Allaipiddy massacre article. In the Allaipiddy massacre I used a citation that has been used by HRW itself and some users seem to think it is UnRS. Please can you comment on this article too. Thanks Watchdogb 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing things on the talk page. Watchdogb 20:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the anon seems to be the same as this user [2] nationalist editors, seeking propaganda on Wikipedia. His contributions are not helpful. --Vonones 13:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sock of banned user [3] that you blocked. --Vonones 13:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just spend one weeks vacation on the west coast of Newfoundland and photographed quite a bit of the small coastal towns, post offices, lakes and Long Range Mountains. I have started adding the photos to the article List of communities in Newfoundland and Labrador, you can link there from our Wiki article by the same name. I will be adding more later and feel free to use them while expanding the communities articles WayneRay 14:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]

Not really asking for full feedback on this article (although I wouldn’t mind it). I’d just like to know what you feel the best way the divide up the Career section is, by Club, by season, not at all or some other way. Please leave your reply under the section in my talk page named “Milner Career section”. Buc 16:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at St.Phillip Neri church bombing please. I want the article to go through a couple of neutral eyes. Be Bold and let me know any problems with the article that you might not be able to fix. Thanks Watchdogb 16:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the clean up of the article. Your work is extremely appreciated. Thanks again Watchdogb 18:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		A token of appreciation for fixing many SL related articles and for giving a NPOV voice in the midst of chaos. Watchdogb 17:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb you again. Certain user is adding NPOV/totally disputed tags without properly giving reason to the tagging. Can you please comment on this act. Thank you Watchdogb 16:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing now is aboslutely fine; I been working on the shading and just need to recolor more. If you need to email me about the design, the "Email this user" function works. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Acceleride.svg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 11:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:CCAlogo.png as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 19:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Bramptonlogo.png. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 20:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this diff ThanksTaprobanus 12:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lexicon. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lexicon, where you may want to participate.

-- snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Caledonlogo.gif. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 20:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lexicon, sorry to see your good name dragged through the mud because finally you as an admin did what others obviously should have done long ago. But you made a comment that

"it is also true that Taprobanus has almost certainly been uncivil himself in the past"

.I have made over 11,000 edits and created over 225 individual articles that were not there in Wikipedia before I joined of which just one has been deleted and another in AFD due to my own actions. But my recollection says that I have never ever willfully violated civility or personally attacked anyone. I was once told by an admin that I should not even call an edit Vandalism which I have not done since then in my edit summaries. If you find any, please let me know and I will correct them in the future. Thanks Taprobanus 14:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please monitor the Canada article. There is again a discussion on allowing the contentious term dominion to be used. I was under the impression that it had already been decided to shelve this term when refereing to Canada, and that continued discussion should go on elesewhere . If appropriate, please comment here. Thanks. --Soulscanner 21:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have nominated your Trans-Neptunian Objects collage at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Check it out. Spikebrennan 21:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like serial mass tagging without any attempt at discussion in this article, can you kindly take a look at it please. Thanks Taprobanus 01:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:CF+blk.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:CF+blk.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 18:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi please see here. I have no problems with negative information but it has to come from WP:RS sources and per WP:REDFLAG it better be more than one agreeing with that point. An anon has been adding this information for the last 10 months again and again on a reputable living Canadian journalist. Thanks Taprobanus 12:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On your new job, may you never ever have time to come to Wikipedia Good luck and do drop in once in a while Taprobanus 16:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]