Why hello there DorisH, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary

Feel free to drop me a question on my talk page.

If you need help (which I can’t answer), put {{helpme}} on your talk page. It is also a good idea to explain what your problem on Wikipedia is, it helps you and your helper!

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If another Wikipedian criticizes what you have done check what Wikipedia is not to avoid this happening again/ever. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

Jean-Paul 11:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know the correct procedure. Woodsstock 15:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for passing Equine nutrition for GA. I am going into the article and making some of the changes you recommended. You are definitely right that "horses" is overused, trying to fix that without causing too much confusion -- That said, many sources were specific to horses and may not necessarily apply to ponies and mules (which is why they got their own section) and of course, there is nothing on zebras! <grin> I also realized I needed to not overuse nouns when a pronoun would do! Removed at least one grazing reference altogether, you are right, it was redundant. Trouble is in the horse world today, too many people think locking a horse up in a stall and letting it eat grain all day is kindness--yet it's the moral equivalent of shutting up a child in front of the TV all day with soda pop, potato chips, and cookies! So perhaps all those references are sort of a reminder to those in the horse world, but do sound repetitious and odd to the lay reader. I'll take a good look at this question, however. Beating it to death isn't good writing either.

Anyway, thanks again, and if you have further comments, please feel free to offer them; your suggestions were insightful and helpful. (And kindly worded too!) Montanabw 04:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance I thought it looked like a spelling variant, but you're probably right. I made an edit too hastily. Please change the redirect as you please. —Tokek 14:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes to the article, mostly according to your suggestion on the talk page. But, couldn't find any source that cites the Saifur Rahman stuff as they are stated. He did have issues about micro finance, as far as newspaper reports go. I can actually replace the previous text with verifiable new text, or I can remove that unsourced part completely. On top of that, there may be massive scope for improvement that can be drawn from the official Website alone. Please, advise. I am a bit lost here, as I expected GA nomination to have at least some improvement drive attached, like those FACs have. Do I post requests to projects and user talk pages? Cheers. Aditya Kabir 17:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC) - please, answer to my talk page[reply]

You recently undid an edit I made to Wall Street Crash of 1929, and marked it as vandalism. I think you made a mistake, but as this was my first Wikipedia edit, I thought I should ask in case I did in fact do something wrong.

My edit merely added the bold-faced word to the sentence quoted below in order to make the sentence syntactically correct.

The market did not return to pre-1929 levels until late 1954, and was lower at its July 8, 1932 nadir than it had been since the 1800s.

Please respond to my talk page.

Thanks, --Hammond.guerin 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, Doris. Thanks for that wet trout slap. I am studying my WikiLove right at this moment (especially, since User:Zora, my inspiration, refuses to come back), and that trout meant a lot more to me than a thousand cool explanations. Thanks again. Now, can you advise on how do I really get those collaboration up and running? Aditya Kabir 15:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One more question - is that Japanese that follows your name? What does it say? Aditya Kabir 16:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It failed because it's too long. Criteria says 25 KB. It's 35 KB. Feel free to trim it down and renominate it. I've passed articles today too. GreenJoe 17:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to accept that I may have been wrong on the GA criteria about length. You may readd it. GreenJoe 18:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your post to the talk page of Yogiraj Gurunath Siddhanath was most appreciated. It filled me in the guidelines for determining the naming convention. At least I am comfortable with it. WP:MOSBIO suggests that an autobiography as a source is OK if it is reliable. I think the autobiography of YGS is really dodgy in many respects, but maybe it is OK if no reasonably outlandish claims are included or referenced.(?) Given that the article has withstood two attempts at AfD, I think it might be best to just prune the article down to the basics and let it stand. If you have any thoughts on this, please let me know. Thanks again. -Vritti 06:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not where the article is a clear 'fail'... The Land 11:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just put the article to peer review. Would you care to take a look? Aditya Kabir 20:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letting you know that I have opened a RfC on DPeterson [1]. --Mihai cartoaje 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This form message is being sent to you either due to your membership with WikiProject Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Wikipedia:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. A new drive has been started requesting that all members review at least one article (or more, if you wish!) within the next two weeks at GAC to help in removing the large backlog. This message is being sent to all members, and even members who have been recently reviewing articles. There are almost 130 members in this project and about 180 articles that currently need to be reviewed. If each member helps to review just one or two articles, the majority of the backlog will be cleared. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the GAC talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you had previously had an interest in editing these pages. You might be interested to know that DPeterson and all his socks (RalphLender, JohnsonRon, SamDavidson, JonesRD and MarkWood) are all gone. The socks indef. and DPeterson for one year. In the circumstances I wondered if you would be interested in returning to help edit. Alot of the pages dominated by these socks have already been substantially rewritten so that they now contain genuine information, but there is still alot to do. (Several people have tried the psychology portal over the last year but there isn't a single member who has ever bothered to reply apart from one comment very recently. Funny really when you consider how basic attachment is to child psychology, but there you go.) Anyway, hope you haven't given up for good. Fainites ^barley 20:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the December 2007 issue. Dr. Cash 01:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2007 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles newsletter has been published. Comments are welcome on this, as well as suggestions or offers of assistance for the January 2008 issue. Dr. Cash 00:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year! Here is the latest edition of the WikiProject GA Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2008 issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is ready! Dr. Cash (talk) 05:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The April issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter is now available. Dr. Cash (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The May Newsletter for WikiProject Good Articles has now been published. Dr. Cash (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by the automated Giggabot (stop!) 01:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. AWB has been having a few issues lately. Here is the august issue of the WikiProject Good Articles Newsletter! Dr. Cash (talk) 20:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are a member of the GA WikiProject. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of April. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 200. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. Hope we can see you in April.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:29, 25 March 2010 (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) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]