Hello. Please be courteous to other editors and use edit summaries when updating articles. The Mathbot tool shows your usage of edit summaries to be low:

Edit summary usage for Everything counts: 41% for major edits and 82% for minor edits. Based on the last 150 major and 60 minor edits in the article namespace.

Using edit summaries helps other editors quickly understand your edits, which is especially useful when you make changes to articles that are on others' watchlists. Thanks and happy editing! --Kralizec! (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added that borderline speculation as a compromise. Several times, somebody came along and wrote that Dolly intentionally drops the ball. I figured that catering to both views would save me some editing. Oh well. Clarityfiend 17:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You edited the John Vanderslice article. Wikinews is schedule to do an interview with Vanderslice this Wednesday, September 26. If you have any questions you'd like to ask John or know about John, please leave them on my Talk page. Thanks. --David Shankbone 15:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BryanMakesLists, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Spellcast 06:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi I was trying to provide useful information via a link to my Software Configuration Management website, and it was flagged as link spam (revision 173799727). Was this due to the contact information on my website? I legitimately am interested in helping others with this information both in my own business and the user community, and I would rather comply and have that information available to others than not have the info available at all. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.76.224.66 (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there. I saw that you edited the entry on The Decemberists with the following note: "(copyedit (esp. change references to the band to reflect that it is a singular noun, not plural, therefore terms like "they" and "their" are not appropriate when describing the band as a whole))"

I rewrote The Decemberists entry, as you are incorrect about the grammatical issue, and in fact this very argument was hashed out some two years ago on the talk page for The Decemberists entry. I refer you to this article for clarification: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement 69.253.96.139 (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone reverted your edit to The Tipping Point, and I agree with them. The main focus of the Baltimore section was syphilis, not AIDS. Tanthalas39 (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a closer look at the edit history. I did not change the page in the manner that you describe. Everything counts (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone a small part of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-pattern&curid=233956&diff=191032030&oldid=188767622 as described in Talk:Anti-pattern. Perhaps you could check that out. PJTraill (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent changes to Zillow.com, typically removal of an entire section is suspect, however your edit summary was thorough and helpful. Thanks! 02:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bestowing pedantic attention on lots of articles - your username keeps popping up on my watchlist (Bookmark (computing), Del.icio.us, Social bookmarking, etc.). Dreamyshade (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a compliment. :) Dreamyshade (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I couldn't help noticing that you appear to be interested in Arrested Development. I am interested in setting up a Arrested Development Taskforce to improve articles related to Arrested Development. At the moment I am just looking for people who are interested in joining. If you are interested in joining, please add your name here or contact me on my talk page. Thankyou, Joelster (talk) 23:56, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to Cleveland Clinic...the issue was brought up on the talk page, just so you know. Spencer^T♦C 22:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Spencer^T♦C 01:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain to me why the edge city of Memorial City (w/Memorial City Mall) does not constitute an edge city in your view...Guanako512 (talk) 23:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - can you advise about the Clean Up and Citations tags added to Body Worlds - the tags don't indicate what should be cleaned or where there should be citations. I've looked at the Wike advice pages and the article seems OK to me. There are already 31 external references for instance - isn't that enough?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_worlds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.65.12.14 (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I noticed you reverted this edit of social psychology. Maybe this was by accident? The previous edit was constructive and so I restored it. The edit was to direct the section on compliance to compliance (psychology) rather than compliance (physiology). If you think it should be physiology, let's discuss on the article's talk page. Justinfr (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone has re-reverted it already. Please catch up on the major changes to practice, which were made nearly two months ago. Thanks for your inquiry. Tony (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this: [1]. I'm certain the "and" is redundant, without it the intended meaning is perfectly obvious and unequivocal - if you still think otherwise, please can you reply here and explain why? Thanks. 66.152.166.101 (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see comma and semicolon; only the latter can be used between "closely related independent clauses not conjoined with a co-ordinating conjunction". That is the case with the sentence in question in this article.

The article is trying to state that X happened and Y happened -- X being the fact that an office block was constructed on one bridge, and Y being the fact that the other bridge remains unfinished. It is appropriate to use a semicolon here with no and -- e.g. "X happened; Y happened." It's not appropriate to use only a comma; if that's the mark you want to use, an and is required to separate the two statements -- e.g. "X happened, and Y happened".

I thought the idea with disambiguation pages was to treat everything as sentence fragments? In any case, I presume the following will be acceptable: M8 Bridge to Nowhere, two separate bridges over the M8 motorway in Glasgow, Scotland: one eventually had an office block constructed on it; the other remains unfinished - ? 66.152.166.101 (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sounds great. Everything counts (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now done. [2] - 66.152.166.101 (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I'd spotted that one! Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 02:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would ask you as you appear to be the last editor to make substantial edits to the page. There have been two different IPs adding this and this. I reverted it twice, as I can't really understand what they are trying to point out, but it got put back. The only thing I can think is that they are trying to say that Wikipedia copied the definition of downtown. I've asked bot IPs to comment on the talk page but wanted another opinion. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of reverting your edit, I have decided to contact you on your talk page to ask you: if you insist on using italics here per WP:ITALICS, what is your explanation for vast numbers of articles (try Special:Random) that don't use this rule. Also, in that sentence, "edge city" is not discussed as a linguistic phrase or other phenomenon, but as a technical term in urban planning. If the sentence were discussing the etymology of the phrase edge city, I would have agreed with your opinion. If you intend to reply here, please post a {{talkback}} on my talk page. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 23:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding here. The general rule I follow is that words or phrases are always italicized when we – for any reason – are writing about them as words, as opposed to writing about the subjects that they represent. I agree that many articles fail to follow this convention, but I'd argue that a) many articles have a lot of problems with regard to WP:MOS compliance, and b) that's no reason not to try to get it right when we can. Everything counts (talk) 00:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have just re-read the first sentence of the article and I agree with your reasoning: "Edge city is an American term for…" I tend to skip that part of a sentence when reading, as it's in most cases considered to be syntactically incorrect, as "A is a XYZian term for QW" can in most cases be replaced with "A is a QW" and moving the "XYZian" part at a less pronounced place in the article. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 12:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the article Purple Line (Maryland), you changed redirects to add in the non-redirected page. Wikipedia's policies indicate that this is normally a bad idea...Naraht (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to about 3 months ago, I had also been doing this type of "fix" as well. I don't remember who directed me to the policy. We live, we learn. Have fun on Wikipedia!Naraht (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must admit I have been doing this too, or rather, I was told not to use redirects but to link straight to the article i.e. write [ [ A | B ] ] even when I actually want B to be displayed and it is a redirect to A anyway. Wikipedia policies seem to me often contradictory, though one can always find a pedant who will tell you they are perfectly clear. Yes, in isolation... SimonTrew (talk) 00:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ohio State Highways#Memorial highways which I started recently; it would be good to get a consistent way of listing these designations on the respective articles. Mapsax (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, i was not sure how to do it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.233.119 (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

Thanks for the copy edit. Not entirely sure about this. It's a *fairly* common term but not exclusively-- do you think your edit might imply that?

I added it to the dab page too.

Totally agree with you about leaving an edit summary. SimonTrew (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everything counts,

I see you removed the UK section listing brands. I must admit I was somewhat uncomfortable with it, though since it was wikilinks not external links I did not think it blatant advertising.

The difficulty here is the balance— you will notice, forexample, Post's and Kellogg's are mentioned elsewhere in the article. I think it was NPOV to say Kellogg's is the biggest player in the UK market, I *think* I put a ref there, if not I had one that was true but not suitable for Wikipedia (lies damned lies and statistics etc).

I think it's important to get away from the article being, I think, perhaps a little too US-centric, but quite understand that you don't want just a list of brand names. This I find a little tricky since most people eat brand names, and, except for Kellogg's, wouldn't know who made it (i.e. the product name is more important than the company name). Anything you could suggest for how to balance these conflicting demands, I should be very grateful to receive them, and have a go at writing another UK section that is not just a list of brands.

I do appreciate how I put it was unsatisfactory, I thought so myself at the time, but I thought better than nothing. Q.E.D. because at least then you get something debated. Had I asked about it on the talk page, I would bet you all Lombard-street to a China orange I would have had no response at all.

Anyway, I like a Full breakfast.

Very best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 00:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where you prefer your replies, so will do it here.

Looking at the diff, the first ref to Reddy Brek (outside of the UK section) should go. I imagine I left this hanging there by mistake, a residual tail.

I think maybe I should redo the UK section to just mention the companies instead of their products, or at worst (since then they may look like scarecrows in a field) to put the products very much secondarily rather than first mentioned. What do you think?

I've been editing the Full Breakfast article I guess that is how I stumbled on to this article. I also need "cereal bar", you know, those bars of grain and other factory sweeping stuck together with honey etc and sold like a chocolate bar. Cereal bar is not a topic, and I couldn't find anything else covering it. Any ideas? SimonTrew (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what particular reason was that information we added declared as original research and removed about urban decay? Our reasons for inclusions of information was because some of our students attending UWEC are investigating urban decay, plus are residents from cities like Milwaukee, Chicago, Quad Cities or Twin Cities; and some even originate via Cincinnati, Cleveland and Indianapolis. What better information can we find connected with urban decay that can be cited as proper sources for this very Wikipedia we are working on? The UWEC/12.227.185.235 (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response posted at User talk:12.227.185.235. Everything counts (talk) 13:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure about your edit on CamelCase:

• You've stated that a citation is needed for BumpyCase, why not for all the other ones too?

• Agreed -- added {{fact}} tags there also. Everything counts (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You moved another citation to outside the sentence to which it refers, my understanding of best practice here was that it should be within the sentence to ensure that it was clear where it referred.

• It's common practice to put both <ref> and {{fact}} tags after the period at the end of the sentence. Everything counts (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You removed the quotation marks from Dave Yost's statement, but it is important that he was referring to the practice as internal capital letters.

• I'm not sure why the statement needs to be italicized, as it's not especially novel or hard to understand, but I don't have strong feelings about this so have left them in. Everything counts (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You removed one see also reference on the grounds that it was already referenced in the body, but so are the other two, so they should either all go or leave in Hungarian notation.

• Removed the others also. Everything counts (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consequently I have undone your edit so that it can be resolved first. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 03:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. Thanks. Greyskinnedboy (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you removed Qatar Airways from Tysons Corner VA, you said: "(not notable -- there are many companies with offices in the area)"

But how many of them have Wikipedia articles and pass WP:RS and WP:N? How many of them are located in the boundaries of the CDP or are associated with the CDP? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess a fair number of them? To single out one or a few seems odd without putting into context the number of large/notable companies with offices in the area. Everything counts (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, each entry needs to be sourced. I only know of two. If there are any others, I would be happy to add them as long as there are sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look for example at this. At a glance, that's about 75 major employers in the area, many of which I know have WP entries. It does not make sense to single out two or three of them, seemingly at random, for mention in a general article about the area. Everything counts (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are NOT being singled out. They are the only ones that I can source at the moment. If there are more significant companies within a boundary, someone needs to source the company's website, or a publication, and add it to the list. And while they may be in the area, one needs the addresses. One needs the addresses because that way we know that X company has offices in X CDP or Y CDP. Generally only offices in a CDP are listed (an exception may be made if an office is heavily associated with a city, for instance AOL's HQ was stated in publications to be in Vienna, VA, even though it was really in Tysons Corner) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I found http://web.archive.org/web/20070315182704/http://www.fairfaxcountyeda.org/publications/tysons.pdf , I'm going to look at it. It's very helpful to have these documents as they add supporting information to articles. What I did in Downtown Houston is state how much Class A office space, how many companies, etc. were in Houston before listing the major firms and international airlines. Anyhow, I'm going to go through the companies with articles and see which ones have offices in Tysons Corner CDP, or any others. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I looked at the companies on the list. As an example I selected Unisys. It's an area employer, but the office is out in Reston CDP, so I added it there. The Fairfax County economic report does not say that the employers are just of the Tysons Corner area; it covers the whole county. I did find two notable companies that have offices in TC, so I added them. I'll see if I can find more. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Even so, I would place street addresses in <ref> text to support the inclusion of an entity in a particular article; they are not encyclopedic and do not belong in the article text.

2. I understand and agree with your point that article additions should be sourced. But, not all sourced statements are encyclopedic. For example, see this edit I made in Downtown Washington, D.C. I'm not arguing that any of the statements are untrue or that further citation is needed; my concern is that we maintain encyclopedic tone and level of detail -- that we do not keep piling up facts upon facts, but instead strive to keep article text meaningful and as comprehensive as possible. There's a balance here that I think we can and should try to strike. Rather than adding a narrowly focused statement or citing a couple of specific examples with no broader context -- and then challenging others to throw even more more examples on the heap -- I think that we should try to start with an encyclopedic summary and then add the appropriate level of detail. In the case of Downtown Washington, D.C., I do not object to beginning with the BID language and adding to it. Everything counts (talk) 02:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm fine with not including street addresses in the lists.

2. Your find (the Fairfax County economic summary) really helps with this. As you see on the Tysons Corner article it gave context by establishing the main industry, the character of Tysons Corner, and the amount of office space. It's kinda like what I did for Downtown Houston#Economy

WhisperToMe (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote

In 2009, the Turnpike became the first publicly-owned toll facility in the United States, and the second overall, to offer users the option of paying tolls by using a debit or credit card.

You wrote

In 2009, the turnpike became the first publicly-owned toll facility in the U.S. (and the second in the world) to allow users to pay tolls with a debit or credit card.

1. "Turnpike" should be capitalized because it refers specifically to the Ohio Turnpike and not just turnpikes in general.

See MOS:CAPS -- "Proper names of specific institutions ... are proper nouns and require capitalization. However, the words for types of institutions (church, university, college, hospital, high school, bank, etc.) do not require capitalization if they do not appear in a proper name."

In this sentence, while turnpike does refer to the article subject, it is not capitalized because it refers to the Ohio Turnpike in the generic sense -- that is, the same way in which we'd refer to the Ohio Turnpike as "the roadway" or "the highway" in an article such as this.

Does that make sense?

Everything counts (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bit, though it'd seem to support my side: the word "turnpike" does appear in the name "Ohio Turnpike". I can't find anything more road-specific in the MOS (I do try to follow it, though admittedly I don't know it as well as I could) or the roads MOS, WP:USRD/STDS, so I guess that's it for guidelines. Mapsax (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. More importantly, the statement refers only to the U.S., not the world. (Review the source.) This could be clarified by moving the "and the second overall" clause to after the word "facility" in my version, but it seems unambiguous as it is/was.

My mistake -- I misread the original sentence. Thank you for correcting. Everything counts (talk) 23:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. The rest of the changes are minor and need not be changed back, though I'm not sure why they couldn't have stayed as they were.

Mapsax (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit - A 2009 study identifies the consolidation of usage of the Web to a small number of top websites.[24]

The Long Tail is based on the premiss that

- the least-frequently-occurring 80% of items are more important as a proportion of the total population.-

and

-the long tail, represented here by the portion of the curve to the right of the 20th percentile — can become the largest area under the line.-

This is based on a small number of studies of a small area of the internet. Yet the tone of the article suggests that this has general application to the Web. A point that is not refuted or criticized in the article. I wished to critique this point of general application by pointing out that a meta-study of the usage of the web finds that this is not so. May this revision be changed back in order to add balance to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.73.141 (talk) 02:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Metro has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you are concerned about Washington Metro and continue to edit it. I am hoping that someone like you might take responsibility for addressing my concerns at Talk:Washington Metro/GA1. Could you either comment on that page or at my user talk about whether you might be able to assist in some minor clean-up of the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling me out on the capitalization. I guess I have only seen it upper case. Sorry for the revert. Go figure, you learn a new policy everyday. BOVINEBOY2008 11:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the changes you made on Adams Morgan and stated the reasons why on the talk page. The business strip portion still sounds strange but Columbia Rd is not an addendum to 18th street, it could be easily argued that Columbia Rd. is the primary business strip given its higher revenue generation, if you can word it better, please do.Miglewis (talk) 20:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your recent image revert at Gallery Place–Chinatown (Washington Metro), I'd like to see what you think... SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Your name pops up on my watchlist all the time, corecting grammer misteaks and tiepoes. It's a good thing you have patience and sharp eyes because professional writing ain't my one of my specialteas. Thanks for spending time on cleaning up countless D.C.-related entries. It's much appreciated. Cheers! APK lives in Dupont and Gomorrah 13:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jesusland map. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesusland map (2nd nomination). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soap Opera Rapid Aging Syndrome (2nd nomination). 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been considering nominating North American blizzard of 2009 for WP:GA. Right now I don't really have any concerns with it, but as you've contributed a lot to the article, I wanted to know if you think there's any concerns holding it back. Let me know! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking, and no objections here. Everything counts (talk) 20:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The terrorists have won (2nd nomination).Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please check out: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes (3rd nomination). Thanks. I see you are really a vet on WP. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Everything counts. I noticed that you have kept an eye on Middlesex (novel) for quite some time; you were the #1 contributor to the article until you were overtaken by myself and Gingsengbomb. I've worked on the article for the past two months and am trying to get it to a good article and later to a featured article. I have noticed that you copyedit many articles, and I was wondering if you could take a look at Middlesex. If you don't have the time, it's all right, since I have two editors, Ginsengbomb (talk · contribs) and SMasters (talk · contribs), copyediting it. But it would be very helpful and much appreciated; with more eyes, the article will be significantly improved. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:16, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

The US-VISIT page would be much better with information on how long the information is kept and what it could be used for. I tried to find this information but couldn'n find anything. Indeed, that is not the best proof of it being unclear. Can you find something better?

131.180.22.248 (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC), known as Gollem on the Dutch Wikipedia.[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Pseudo-acronym. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudo-acronym. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for your assistance with the BoH article, much appreciated. I've just one query. I was taught that a list should be seperated by commas except the last two items which are seperated by "and". I notice you have changed the lists so that the last 2 items are seperated by both "and" and a ",". To me this looks totally wrong.

I think it should be a, b, c, d and e.

And not a, b, c, d, and e.

I'm planning to change this but there are a lot of places in the article where this happens so I thought I'd get your input first. Let me know. Regards, Iangurteen (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you enjoy the holiday weekend! I'm one of the few (?) locals to stay put this weekend, so hopefully, mobs of sweaty Arkansas tourists holding Metro maps won't bombard me with 101 questions.
Tourist A - "Excuse me, but can you tell me how to get to 10th and, honey, what's the letter?"
Tourist B - "F."
Tourist A - "F?"
Me - "We're standing at 11th and G. You do the math."
APK whisper in my ear 13:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response, thank you. (Flea21212 (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've stripped the section back to one point that's actually (badly) citable. Hopefully, you'll be OK with a briefer but a section that would fit better (thought not well) in an encyclopedia. I've warned Flea of WP:3RR too.

I've taken the first step and tried to make a compromise edit. I know it breaches about twenty WP policies, but if we can get to a stable but crappy compromise edit, it saves a pretty pointless edit war, no? Etrigan (talk) 07:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etrigan (talk • contribs)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xeno^talk 18:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has begun about whether the article Watermelon House, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Watermelon House until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Wolfview (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Everything Counts,

I saw some of your contributions on an article that falls within the scope of Wikiproject: United States Public Policy, (Homeland Security, I think) and I was hoping you would be interested in assessing articles with the Public Policy Initiative. There is more info about assessment on the 9/13/2010 Signpost. If you're interested or just curious you can sign up on the project page or just contact me. Thanks! ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 23:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IMG 2162.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:37, 15 March 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) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]