Please stop adding unsourced personal commentary to articles as you did here here and here. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and as such is not a place for personal opinions. IrishGuy ^talk 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from entering personal commentary into WIkipedia, as you did with Centre-left. Thank you. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing SOURCED OBJECTIVE FACTS simply because it conflicts with your opinion. Mikelieman (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since "The Surge" is defined in Public Law when it was appropriated, it's goals were clearly established. Exactly HOW do you figure 17% completion is a "Success"? I can't imagine you *really* believe 17% is a passing grade. Mikelieman (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War Eagle! I noticed your new account via your fix of some uncaught vandalism at Carnell Williams. I noticed it mostly because it is very similar to my username, Autiger. Wikipedia:Username policy says that "Usernames that closely resemble the name of another Wikipedia user and may cause confusion" are inappropriate. Because of my long edit history here (almost 3 years) and the possibility of confusion of your username with mine, I'd ask you to select another username and request a name change citing the potential username confusion. Please let me know if you have any questions or need assistance with the change and thanks in advance for your cooperation in this matter. AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 16:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and yes, there are a few active Auburn editors, including an administrator AuburnPilot. If you look at the edit histories on Auburn-related articles, you'll several names that are consistent editors. Also, if you're a football fan, you might be interested in college football wikiproject. WDE! AUTiger ʃ ^talk/_work 14:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you've described perceived cultural stereotypes in some regional articles such as New England and Southern United States. These additions are not helpful to the articles, and appear to be based largely on your own perceptions, rather than any reputable source. Please be careful to adhere to Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy in the future. Rhobite 04:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion. [1] Even the Daizenshuus, which are the official encyclopedia books on all things Dragon Ball, state that the only individuals to ever achieve Super Saiyan 2 were Gohan, Goku, and Vegeta in that order. Sorry but per Wikipedia:Verifiability, the consensus is correct and stands. You can speculate all you want, but you are not going to convince us to go against something that has already been confirmed by the series’ creators. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that Wikipedia:No Original Research doesn't not allow that. Unofficially, Officially: bottom line is that it implies speculation. You say, "Maybe they just forgot to put him in". That’s Original Research too. Who are we to speculate what might have happened? Wikipedia has a strong policy against adding Unverifiable info. We just have to go with what they give us, I'm afraid. Vegetto did not refer to himself as a Super Saiyan 2, {just as Super Vegetto) therefore he is listed as a Super Saiyan only along with Gogeta.-- bulletproof ^3:16 06:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Georgia Counties 2004 Election.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 03:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw all those pics that you posted on my talk page, and I admire your research... however... there's one slight problem: They're all anime pics, and the tag that was placed before at the top of the Super Saiyan transformation list clearly states that manga descriptions are used over anime descriptions. This is simply because Toei is inconsistent with it's appearence of the Super Saiyan, and places things like lightning and stuff in random auras when it isn't supposed to be there. Also a reason why manga's more reliable is because it was colored by Toriyama himself. --VorangorTheDemon 09:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi its DBZROCKS, about your new Super Saiyan two image. The image isn't very clear and is very unclear of what it is portraying. I would like to take it down and was just wondering if that would be ok with you. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the image. Feel free to object and discuss this on my talk page. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Super Saiyan 2 Vegeta.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wont presume to speak for others, but I can answer on my own opinion as to why the dub isn't the primary source to use. Consistency. Chris Sabat and Gen Fukanaga have gone on record stating the dub is a different version with a different tone. It has also been dubbed and re-dubbed, and re-redubbed in some instances (not counting Canada and UK which FUNi owns but has different staff). On top of that, there is basic credibility. I generally don't see literary works on wikipedia written from the perspective of particular adaptations. No, most if not all decent articles write about the primary (original) version and then reference notable adaptations within the text. This is true with everything from the Bible to Journey to the West to Sailor Moon. Wouldn't it be random to just have this one set of articles based on a particular adaptation that openly tries to establish itself as a unique entity from the original? It isn't like all info on the 1st season of Macross links to a Robotech article instead. Honestly, given that the dub has such an interesting and varied history, multiple versions, and a notable following, I think an article similar to Sailor Moon (English adaptations) would be nice. So far, noone's really agreed though. Onikage725 04:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunetally what you said on Onikage's talk page has a few fundimental flaws.

1. If this is an encylopedia should we not use the original names instead of a dub that changes the names of character so that they do not have their same puns?
2. The original source is what is used. If I made a very popular translation of the bible which changed Jesus's name to Melvin we wouldn't change the Jesus page to Melvin now would you?
3. The dub name can be included in the alternate names section of the article or in a merged list character's case after the correct name is stated.

I hope that explains why we aren't using the funimation dub. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some excellent points and examples and I am sorry for being such a bother to everyone. But my main opposition to this is still most people do not understand what the words mean. That would normally be a good example of the hypothetical name change of Jesus, but Jesus's name IS a translation from the Hebrew name, Yeshua. It is Iesous in Greek, and Iesus in Latin. How many people do you see using those names instead of Jesus? You see, people use the name they are most familiar with, and most English speakers are more familiar with the English dub version of Dragonball. I'm not saying get rid of the Japanese names completely, lets just put them in parentheses next to the English names.--Lucky Mitch 05:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I think the difference is that we aren't talking about translations and romanizations. That is what we are using already (romanizations). For example Vegeta instead of Bejita or Vejita. Noone's using unnofficial romanizations, or straight romaji or kanji, which is why I get riled up when I see the "use english" argument. So I hope I didnt come off as contentious. It's just that I think people misuse the word translation. I dunno if you saw the old Mr. Satan/Hercule argument. Points on commonality were certainly worth discussing, but a number of the more vocal people were insisting that Mr. Satan was a Japanese phrase and Hercule it's translation. That isn't what translation is. The thing is, and I think a lot of people forget, is that English-language wiki is a language choice, not a subset of countries that we are allowed to write articles about. English wiki is worldwide, like every other wiki. Most other wikis get this too. Look at the French wiki. The French dub named Piccolo as Satan (Kami being god of earth, they figured his evil counterpart would be the devil) and then changed Mr. Satan to Hercule (that's where the name comes from). But the articles their were on Piccolo and Mr. Satan, making note that when adapted into french the names Satan and Hercule were used.

On attacks- those are likely going to be restructered soon anyway. As for why in most cases we used names from the Daizenshuu attack list, it is because that is the only comprehensive list that exists. I have tried... really hard... to work such a list based on the dub and even Viz manga. You can't. The manga doesn't cover every aspect of the series and misses some attacks, and Viz is weird with attacks (keeps some the same, half-translates some, translates some into Chinese). The dub has some that are the same or translations, some with names invented for the dub, some attacks misnamed as other existing attacks, some attacks with multiple names, and some attacks without names at all. For example, Piccolo's old signature move that you see in games more often now was the Bakurikimaha. You saw it when he attacked Raditz on the cliff. Gohan's first signature was the Masenko. According to the dub these two distinct techniques are the same move and called Masenko-ha. Goku's last ditch move is the Genki Dama and Yamcha's signature ki attack is the Sokidan. According to the dub they were both Spirit Bomb, and the Sokidan has also been renamed Spirit Ball. Tenshinhan's signature Kikoho has been called between dub, manga, and games the Tri Beam, Blast Cannon, Ki Blast Cannon, and Chi Kung Blast. It just gets confusing trying to keep track. And then there are moves that don't get named, like Freeza's Death Ball or the Big Bang Attack. They get named as such now because of video games, which are translated from Japanese, which goes by the Daizenshuu list, so any attack that doesn't have a dub rename tends to be some form or translation of the original name (since no dub equivolent exists for them).

I really hoped that makes sense... its like 3 in the morning here, so if it didn't let me know and I'll clarify. Onikage725 07:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to explain in detail since you are in some way aware of what's been occurring (ie, the cutting of plot cruft by WP:WPDBZ) and suspected of instigating these cruft re-additions to the Dragon Ball-related articles. I'd wait 'til this sock case blows over before deleting that sock tag. You could ask for an admin.'s opinion also. Now that you know what to do, please don't pester me about this again. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel your pain, Lucky Mitch. I'm also a Peter Vogel suspect. --TimySmidge 22:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Supersaiyangoku.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 14:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:3RR and edit with caution. Your edits on climate change will lead to a block if you continue. Vsmith 01:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on Vsmith's note above, keep in mind that the intent of WP:3RR is to prevent edit warring. Three reverts per day is a hard limit, not an entitlement. Many editors have found to their dismay that attempts to game the system, e.g., by making a few reverts every 24 hours, can merit the same sanction as violation of 3RR as such. Raymond Arritt 01:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your revert. Nice to see such civility and fair play on contentious issues. :-) I know my revert comment was, well, "direct". lol Actually, I too have removed it from TGGWS page. I get annoyed by people arguing that these films are controversial and that they need to be stated as such. They are usually simple arguing along the lines of their own POV of the issues. Sure, the films might well be controversial, but there is a good quote somewhere that explains how we don't tell people Hitler was bad, but that the facts about him clearly illustrate his badness. Just the same way that if there is notable, reliably sourced "controversy" it should be included in the two film articles (in lead if need be) - but not as a blind unsupported statement in the opening sentence.

I don't think controversial needs to be there at all - it should be self-evident (or not) if the article accurately describes the issues. Furthermore, the article"s" can't be co-dependent as if they need to balance out each others faults. There's more discussion on the AIT talk page. have a look. :-) regards --Merbabu (talk) 04:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your attempt at the inclusion of controversial. I am just trying to be fair and would be happy with both in or both out. It is frustrating that some of the frequent editors there reach one conclusion on AIT and a different conclusion on TGGWS. I actually agree with Merbabu to some level but my first goal is to address the POV disparity. Please feel free to make your opinion known on the talk page as well so we can demonstrate a shift in consensus, if it exists. A simple "I agree" or "I disagree" after a given comment, as appropriate, will do. --GoRight (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem man, I think we have the same ideals for the pages of both AIT and TGGWS articles. But despite all the evidence you have piled up, this stubborn group of people are just unable to accept that AIT is controversial. Yet these same people are so willing to label TGGWS as controversial at the same time. It just really frustrates me to see your perfectly good arguement and the evidence supporting it pushed to the side and to be considered "biased" and "unreliable" by these hypocrites. I will try to assist you and hopefully contribute to our goal when I can (on the talk page of course).--Lucky Mitch (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding the unfree image Image:Republicanlogo.svg to this template. This is not permitted in policy. You can see WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only did it once, sorry. The image put in place of it was just awful. I guess I'll just delete my copy of it now. But I have a question: If the image does not follow fair use policy then why is it still being used on the Republican Party page?--Lucky Mitch (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC

• Because it's ok to use such images on actual articles, not on userboxes. I agree the image on the userbox looks terrible. Looks like an elephant with a woody. Insulting, in the least. Feel free to replace it with text or another free image. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm startled to find that a college student who's spent his entire life in a remote part of the United States is an authority on a different part of the country. Perhaps you'll provide some references before reverting. Cordially Tedickey 15:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "extensive research" is taken to be an explicit claim that you have some published research in the area. Can you point me to this? Thanks. Tedickey 15:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the proper place to discuss your "extensive research". For the moment, we'll not have to discuss your personal comments on my user page. Tedickey 17:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking for your sources? It's odd that you claim to be referring to a source that puts "migration patterns" moving only in one direction. Here's a hint: influx of people "after World War II" is about even from Pennsylvania and North Carolina. They didn't all come from New Jersey (or whatever your favorite source of "migration" happens to be. Lacking a source for your comments, it's not possible to study it to see if there's any content there, or just political posturing. Tedickey 11:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your comments regarding Western Maryland also do not appear well-sourced. What is your source for those? If and when you can provide a reliable source, we'll have some basis for discussion. Tedickey 11:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some hints (in case you decide to actually do some research - though having read your other edits - hmm):

• Artlcle about the Mason-Dixon line (house, rent, work)
• Bay's Dialects Slowly Dying
• comments on the WP article
• Bibliography of Mid-Atlantic Dialects
• Writing: The Nature, Development, and Teaching of Written Communication
• Comment by WIREMAN

Tedickey 13:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - there are no "industrial jobs" to speak of in Southern Maryland. So far, none of your responses have indicated that you've stopped typing long enough to do some reading. Tedickey 13:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This gives a little more context (consider the relatively small numbers mentioned, compared to the size of the area). There's more than one power plant in the region, located there precisely because it's been low-density, mostly farms and small towns, with a handful of government installations which also are located there for its relative remoteness. But then, nothing on your edits gives any indication that you know about economics - ymmv Tedickey 19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way - I-95 wasn't "there" before the mid-60's, and wasn't a factor in post-WWII migration patterns (unless you're counting the time during your experience ;-) Tedickey 14:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia article has enough information to point this out. However more detail is found here Tedickey 19:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, if you had read the article, you would have seen this:

On November 15, 1963, just one week before his assassination, President John F. Kennedy opened the 11 miles of the Delaware Turnpike and the 47 miles of the Northeast Expressway (later renamed the John F. Kennedy Memorial Highway) at the Delaware-Maryland border. The border, more popularly known as the Mason-Dixon line, also celebrated its bicentennial that day. In addition to President Kennedy, Robert Moses presided over the opening of I-95 in Delaware and Maryland. The Delaware Turnpike, the second controlled-access highway to open in Delaware, was completed at a cost of $30 million.

I could dwell on the implications of that - but let your instructors do that (they're paid to put up with it) Tedickey 00:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your map-selection: agree they're pretty colors. Bear in mind that they're not describing the feature we're talking about. Tedickey 21:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments on "TURNPIKE" - no, I don't suppose you're capable of determining what I'm thinking of. Tedickey 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your repeated attempts to cite wikipedia articles as reliable sources: it was amusing: wikipedia articles are written by people such as yourself, who lack credentials. It is only a starting point to pursue investigation of a topic. Tedickey 01:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SMSA's (see http://www.census.gov/geo/www/maps/stcbsa_pg/stBased_200411_nov.htm for example) include the whole of any county/parish/etc that they include part of. They're based on population density rather than the ethnic-bias-of-your-choice. There's probably a reliable source online which shows the actual information which you're claiming, but take a look with any set of aerial images to see how the density varies. Tedickey 12:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Showing county-level data isn't proving any points regarding uniform density. Census collects [2] information - for something the size of Southern Maryland, there'd be a few dozen tracts (for rural areas). Count up the CDP's in the area - each of those is at least one tract. Or (as I suggested), an aerial view tells you what the data would look like if you're not able to find it. (And of course, you've been completely non-responsive regarding the original question of enthnic distribution). Tedickey (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm - that keeps coming up. "Southern" is not synonymous with "rural". But I recommend looking for Census tract data, since you'll only end up with misconceptions by examining maps which show any county containing any part of an urban area as "urban". A while back, the Census didn't do that - it delineated SMSA's in terms of the tracts, which I recall some comments that the lines drawn on that basis didn't satisfy enough politicians. Tedickey (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Virginia politics: I really have a problem with you dividing the Republican/Democratic split into North/South divisions. I prefer how it was, noting the urban-rural split. As it is, urban areas like Richmond, Virginia Beach, and Roanoke have been voting for democrats, as do (or did until recently) the coal mining regions. So it's more complex than you're making it out to be. I also need you to source your edits. And the bit about Northerners moving to NoVA just isn't citable, and I doubt it's true. NoVA growth is DC sprawl, not carpetbagging. I don't think today's changes have balanced the section. I also note you've reverted three times, so please work with the other editors on the talk page.--Patrick Ѻ 22:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't strongly support the previous version of the page, it had problems with bias for sure. But phrases like "the majority of the rest of Virginia is still strongly supportive of the Republican Party" have simply not corrected the bias. I don't think you can cite that as it stands. The politics section doesn't need words like "conflict" and "contrast". I've worked up a version I can stand behind, but I could use help finding more citations. This is still a minor issue of phrasing. Tell me what you think.--Patrick Ѻ 07:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do beleive that S.F. is left-wing rather than simply liberal? Most observers, including yours truly beleive that S.F. fits within the mainstream for liberalism. Left-wing, if not used in a perjorative sense (which wouldn't be suitable for WP), may, for example, imply advocation of state ownership of enterprise or socialism, the abolition of private property, etc... Happy new year, Signature^brendel 04:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick and kind reply. The WP left-wing article is not exactly the most precise definition of the term and in a sense you are right, liberalism is often used as a borad category applying to everyone from the center-left to the far-left (just like conservative often applies to everyone from the center-right to far-right). The left-wing article seems to talk about all ideas on the left, from center to far-left (see the intro). Yet, many Americans beleive that left-wing refers to the "far-left" (e.g. Noam Chomsky) and excludes center-left liberals (e.g. Sam Farr; Al Gore). Also, as both left-wing and right-wing are often used as pejoratives, and/or to describe "extreme" views, I am quite franly not a big advocate for using either; they often lead to editors using their own judgement of what and what isn't "far left/right" - or what is and isn't "nutty" - which is, of course, OR.

I would use the term liberal on the page, perhaps preceeded by "staunch" (doing so wouldn't be OR, as the city overwhelmingly supports Dems), as doing so does not specify wether or not the city leans mostly far left or center-left; nutty or un-nutty. In other words, by using "liberal" you can avoid making a judgement call or unintentionally conveying a message that may or may not create future edit conflicts.

As you have proven to be a competent editor, who has made valuable contributions and not broken any of the editing rules, I will trust your editing abilities and let you figure this one out. Have a Merry January, Signature^brendel 01:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you edited the article. I'm wondering if you, as a registered user, have an opinion on it's proposed merger with 'Initial Benchmark Assessment Report'. 24.32.208.58 (talk) 02:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:2004_USA_election_by_county_map_percentage.JPG, 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. D'Agosta (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated List of political catch phrases, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political catch phrases and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Alot of the Contributions, you have made lately appears to carry a non-neutral point of view. Please remember to observe our core policies. Dwilso 05:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch, while I wouldn't classify your edits as vandalism, I perhaps don't understand the need to include Parkwell's edit on population numbers in the section. The article includes information on the Great Migration in the demographics section, and the 1901 disenfranchisement in the history section, and it seems out of place in the politics section.--Patrick Ѻ 10:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just want to make sure that you're okay with the politics version. I'm inquiring because I'm planning on putting the article up for a FAC when I have a chance this weekend.--Patrick Ѻ 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the talk page of Fox News Channel and explain why you keep on removing "right-wing," which is a notable and sourced criticism of the network that is not directly synonymous with the other terms listed. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I really like your opinions. I'm from former-socialistic country so I know what are you talking about. Unfortunately, many europeans don't agree. I hope someday I'll find a way to get an american citizenship. You're studying at the university right? Maybe you can help me with something a little bit, I'm really interested in. Thanks --Novis-M (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for response, I'd like to know how to get scholarship or some grants on the university, or simply how to get there. Do you think one year spent in high school in US might help me? --Novis-M (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Tampa -- You're invited! Hires an editor (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, watch the talk page about the United States. You probably understand the economy and capitalism, you're an american, you can help to solve this crazy disscussion...socialists from EU trying to say that US economy is dead...its really difficult to say the opposite because I'm not native english speaker...thanks --Novis-M (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lucky Mitch/Pro-Choice anti-military service hypocricy, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucky Mitch/Pro-Choice anti-military service hypocricy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Lucky Mitch/Pro-Choice anti-military service hypocricy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What year are the data for ? Classical geographer (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Northern United States has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article violates WP:NOR and WP:NOTOPINION. The article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2007 (and has not a single source listed, possibly for years) and tagged as a personal essay since May. The discussion page reflects a huge lack of consensus on almost every aspect of the page and what consensus there is appears to be that the article is inaccurate or mere opinion. The existing and far less troubling pages for New England, Mid-Atlantic States, and Midwestern United States cover this region.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hoppingalong (talk) 01:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Northern United States, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northern United States. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Hoppingalong (talk) 19:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have learned for myself that secular humanism is not true. May God bless you... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.132.34 (talk) 05:41, 29 February 2012 (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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago you uploaded:-

• File:Majority Black Counties.JPG
• File:BlackbeltUS.PNG
• File:Highest per capita income counties.PNG
• File:Highest median household income counties.PNG

It would be much appreciated if you could review these uploads and expand upon the information presented. In specific terms it would be useful to know which data source was used for the statistics presented (and the year), so that others can make better comparisons of the data presented in diagrammatic form, and to verify that the data isn't biased in a particular way. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Where Lucky Mitch stands on the political compass.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused userspace file, uploader's last edit was 7 years ago

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]