Archives

1

Just so you know, reports shouldn't be so long. Here's a proper report:

000.00.00.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Vandalized after last warning.

Example (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Vandal only account.

But wow...your report was long. So your efforts aren't wasted...

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		You get a medal for that hard work! Cheers, JetLover (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Special Barnstar
		For being the first to find a special link to the Muhammad al-Durrah talk page, I award you a special barnstar... don't spend it all at one place. JaakobouChalk Talk 02:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vernice Armour, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On November 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Paul Soloway, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 27 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alondra de la Parra, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On January 28, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frankie Housley, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jake Simmons Jr., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Momoko Ueda, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 05:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making a footnote seems complicated and is not well documented but is easy once you know how to do it. Here's something you can copy and paste to make it easy:

<ref>{{cite web 
  | author = 
  | title = 
  | publisher = 
  | url = 
  | date = 
  | accessdate =  }}</ref>

Copy from before the first <ref> to after the last </ref>, then paste where you want a footnote. Then fill in the fields. Some references won't have a named author, just leave it blank or delete that line. For title, just copy and paste from the referenced web page. Publisher is the name of the company where you find your reference. Copy and paste the url for the specific web page you use as the reference. I usually copy the date from the reference in whatever format it appears. Some people might wikify the date. The accessdate should be in the format yyyy-mm-dd.

At the end of your Wikipedia article there will usually already be a section named References (or Notes). It will usually have a single line containing {{reflist}}. If those aren't there then add them.

Here's an example. You can edit this page to see the details.
The Space Shuttle uses five IBM computers.^[1]

Avoiding images in the interface is best for a few reasons (but they are not forbidden in most messages)

1. Accessibility for non-image supported browsers/low bandwidth users/mobile device (e.g. cell phone) users
2. Accessibility for those using screen readers (as most messages won't support alt-text tags)
3. A beansy reason

   If a image is required then it should be uploaded LOCALLY (here on en: NOT on commons) and full indef protected.

To avoid certain issues it is best to not transclude things in to the interface more then absolutely required (e.g. template:'s, other pages, and images) as changes to transcluded page can have unintended effects on the interface

As far as markup, it depends on the message, some of them require html markup, some require wikimarkup, and some don't support any markup. It is driven by which part of the software is rendering the message, and what types of inputs and outputs it handles, additionally support for magic words and extensions (like parser functions). MediaWiki:Newarticletext appears to support functions, wikimarkup, html markup, and magic words. The use of html table codes in there is likely to achieve a border or other alignment result not supported under wikimarkup, or requiring much longer code in wikimarkup. For heavily used messages (like this one), html rendering is slightly less costly for the servers, as it does not need to invoke the parser. Occasionally, html is also used to help render the page identically in multiple browsers.

Hope this helps, let me know if you have other questions! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that message I'm not sure. But if you want to get the new view in, it will have to go live to test it, then can be quickly undone if it breaks and needs to go back to the drawing board. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you have a stable version we can version it in, test it out (for a short period like 5 mins) then version it out if needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki talk:Newarticletext#Revised Jan. 8 - We're close to implementation. Please share your thoughts on the proposed slight wording change and maybe the bolding. –Pomte 22:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD is closed by placing {{subst:at}} '''Keep/delete/merge/whatever''' ~~~~ at the top, and {{subst:ab}} at the bottom of the AfD discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now answered your question on Talk:Polymer, and also added an example at the beginning of the article Polymer to make the answer clearer. Dirac66 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland do not belong in Category:United Kingdom school stubs as direct entries (which is also true for most of the English regions). They each have their own category and it is those categories that are part of the United Kingdom school stub category. See the list of subcategories. The map of England was included because England is divided into subregions, unlike Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland; and several of the English regions do NOT have their own separate categories. The purpose of the map was to make it easier to select the correct subcategory. I hope this helps to explain this a bit. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. If I had looked below the map I would have seen the subcategories. My first mistake was to try to choose a category from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Education thinking that it was a complete list. I didn't see Scotland there (which now makes sense) so I thought that UK was the closest and didn't stop to think that it had subcategories. I learned something. Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I am glad I could help. Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types/Education is a real mess because it is missing so many categories. I have been trying to work on the US portion of this list but keep getting side tracked. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted. Please can I have the text that made the article in its Wikipedia format. I have gotten this before for a deleted article and then I will re-write. Thanks, Robert C Prenic (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out! That I missed something so obvious...tsk! I wonder how that happened, as I took the URLs straight from a browser's address bar. Oh well. DocDee (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry, I was also in the middle of a lengthy edit (2 hours) and thought the tag was automatically posted in response to these edits. Was unaware you were going to edit. 128.12.169.7 (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the edits, again sorry for misunderstanding, wikipedia is so full of autobots, difficult to know when it is not one.128.12.169.7 (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to do. Granite07 (and IP128...) is a kind of tendicious editor who writes terribly, engages in OR, refuses to recognise RS. The kind of person who quickly diminishes my faith in Wikipedia. I don't think that dispute resolution would achieve anything at this stage apart from admonishment to be civil, 1RR etc. Any thoughts? Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on my talk. Cheers, Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions and your encouragement. I have done as you suggested and published the article on Ryan Allen. You mentioned that now I might, or other editors might, add Categories, an External Link for Carnegie hall and an infobox. I am ready now to add three categories. Should I place them at the bottom of the page? As I read from the tutorial, the form would be like this -- Double Brackets Category colon American Opera Singers,Basses,Male Singers Double Brackets

I also have a quick question -- how do you use the Wikipedia shortcuts?

Thank you

--Voiceperson (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for removing tag but you didn't add it propertly so I thought that it is some mistake. I'll add reference right now. San you add on talk page templates for wikipedia project Serbia?--Vojvodaen (talk) 19:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your help with my SVM article. I'd like to work on it more per your suggestion - do you have a company article in mind that the tone is more encyclopedic in nature (and does a good job of this) and less like an advertisement - this way I can get a better idea of what to strive for. (I've tried really hard to list just the facts, but want to understand what else I need to do.) I like your idea of having a 3rd party decide whether to take off a tag. That seems like the most reasonable way of going about the process. Thanks!Llcavall (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I am doing proper proceedure - I removed the tag, put notes on the discussion page as to why, and also changed the list format to prose per the other editor's comments. I appreciate you pointing me to the sections of the site to get help on this. Llcavall (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly looking better, although it would be better if the Personal section was placed in an infobox or converted to prose. Also, I'm not convinced that Affiliation, Clubs and Golf wear are encylopedic, so it's probably best to leave them out. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 21:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks great now, but it's still a little bit short. Articles have to be at least 1,500 characters, excluding tables, lists etc to qualify for DYK. If you can add two or three more sentences then I will make sure that it gets put on DYK. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 22:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could do with some advice. I've been dumping a lot of stuff on AfD in the past 24 hours, and I'm not sure it's all necessary - bit new to the whole deleting/patrolling thing. Is it worth putting this article in for AfD based on non-notability? - Fritzpoll (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the advice. I'll do as you suggest - Fritzpoll (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your helping me with categories, template information and the tip to place shortcuts in the SEARCH box, and let's face it, with your general encouragement. A newbie like me needs all the help he or she can get. So that's my word of thanks! Voiceperson (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help on improving the Maui_Academy_of_Performing_Arts article and for your encouragement. Way to help a newbie out :). Btakita (talk) 07:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Mitt Romney: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Enigma ^msg! 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Over the past few weeks, I've been watching a few hundred articles, and most of the time vandalism on them is reverted by someone else. To make myself useful, I always check the Talk pages of the vandals. Cheers, Enigma ^msg! 18:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have completed the move request on WP:FAQ so you can make the appopriate wording changes for the re-org of these pages. Keith D (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your tagging, but I don't know what the trouble is about, as it's got links that are connected and relevant to the topic: music, culture, tradition and related performances. I hope you can enlighten me. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, the exact name is Maskarada (carnival of Soule) Iñaki LL (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your comments at Strider12's RfC. This is a textbook tendentious editor, and a low-grade edit-warrior who consistently violates the spirit of 3RR while sticking to the letter of it (with rare slip-ups). Are you really suggesting that each time she edit-wars and gets to 3RR, that I provide her with a lengthy series of diffs for her to wikilawyer about, as she has every other time she's violated the policy? I don't see that as a constructive use of time. I also somewhat resent your complaints about the RfC, since I took great pains to provide evidence for all of the assertions, and I think they're amply borne out. Strider12's problematic approach has not improved at all since her initial problems, though it has become marginally more subtle. I invited readers to look at specific talk page threads because tendentiousness consists, in part, of repeating the same arguments endlessly while convincing no one, canvassing for support, and edit-warring. She (largely, but not solely) has made the 2 articles she targets uneditable and unimproveable. I don't think your suggestions about warning her with clear diffs every day when she approaches 3RR are going to improve that situation or the encyclopedia. MastCell ^Talk 04:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I left a follow-up note on my talk page, just to centralize things. MastCell ^Talk 17:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking back on a note I left on MastCell's talk page regarding a different topic, I noticed you said you would like to see more recent diffs regarding Strider's behaviour. I have provided recent diffs at the bottom of your post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Strider12#Outside_view_by_Sbowers3

Since I am not familiar with the structure of these diffs, I hope I did not put the response in the wrong area. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you did some work on this article and have advised the creator during the draft. I noticed that the author is the wife of the subject which brings up a WP:COI issue. Also, I have been unable to verify his notibility in any independent third party sources. He is in the lists that are cited in the references but they do not help establish notability. I wanted to check with you before taking it to WP:AFD. Am I missing something? Thanks Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 17:10, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the notability of opera singers in almost impossible to establish (except for Grammy winners). The article has a few POV issues steaming from non verified claims in the article. I think it can be saved but I am taking it very slow as the author is new and I do not want to bite her. If you have a minute check out the talk page there and feel free to correct me if I misspoke in my responses :) Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 18:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw over on the village pump that you felt that most RFC/U's came down to WP:IDONTLIKEHIM. Since this one that I started is pretty much settled, I'd just like to ask your opinion -- not on who you agree with, just on how the case was presented. Thanks. --uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 22:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jebbrady

I am working to improve the article on Ryan Allen to the point where the notices at the beginning can be removed. If you have a chance to take a look and see if you feel I am improving it, I would appreciate it. I did some work on additional references today (in part, encouraged by your words and Noah Salzman's kind research) and also took out some claims I find I cannot support with footnotes. I really don't know what I can do about the charge of COI, being married to Ryan Allen, except to try and be neutral in the writing. Any advice will be appreciated. Voiceperson (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your note today, and many thanks for keeping an interest, also for improvements. I just want you to know, you have been helpful to me from the beginning, and I appreciate it. I'm afraid I had to make do with that "low D" reference after failing to find outside validation for the "low C to high G" claim; however, thank you for your kind words. To credit a bass with a low C is a standard claim to establish the bona fides of a singer as a low bass. It's not crucial though, because people in classical singing know that low D is pretty impressive. Your message and footnote editing called my attention to the placement of the reference behind the period when it ends a sentence. I added a sentence supported by a footnote today and followed your lead in the correct style (I hope!). Thanks also for moving the EL to the end. Voiceperson (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, you tagged the article Merseyway Shopping Centre for notability, I accept this is correct but i only set up the article yesterday so was in the process of gathering more sources and probably to re-write it in a more appropriate manner, I have just added a number of other sources from websites other than that of the shopping centre itself, such as the local council and tourism websites e.t.c, what is an appropriate number of sources to include for notability? Thanks, James50567 (talk) 23:10, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what the problem is. Is it to do with verifying information I have put in the article? I have tried my best to do that. Please explain? Pn57 (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Falls festival page was the best I could do to reference the page that opens when you click on their picture. There is more information not written by TSOMM in a javascript opened window. Also, I can probably find newspaper articles. Pn57 (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1] I think that's an excellent solution. Thanks for working on getting things back on track. MastCell ^Talk 23:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sbowers, thanks for your words of encouragement regarding the Eve Carson AfD closure. Those are really tough, they are usually heated, and they've gone different directions (keep, delete, and no consensus). To answer your question, how does a particular admin come to close a particular debate? Answer, who knows? It really is rather random and goes to however is up to it. I generally go "down the list" at the old debates page, and I also try to close 1-2 per month that are considered "contentious". Why did I pick this one? Honestly, because I was unattached and uninterested in the outcome. If I had a strong opinion towards keeping or deleting I would have said so in the debate. That being said, I do have an interest in avoiding the same debate over and over again and would encourage you to visit a developing "stab" (sorry bad pun)at updating our community guidelines at User:Fritzpoll/Notability (criminal acts). Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I judged that being nominated for the 2007 Council of Fashion Designers of America award for best menswear designer was sufficient evidence of notability. The Council's been around since 1962, after all. DS (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a reference from Variety. Seriously. That's as big as the references get in showbiz. VARIETY !!! Ozzaroni (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You ! You are a better admin than pegasus. he/she is just a hater. I actually had all the sources on that same page, they were just on the company box. That's what admins are supposed to do, give constructive criticism or correction not destruction. Pegasus would get rid of an entire race of humans if he had the choice. He/she just likes deleting and deleting articles, thinking that he/she is doing service to wikipedians.

Ozzaroni (talk) 07:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do i reference a videotaped interview with Will Smith ? or a phone call with a represenative from the company or national tv news ?

Ozzaroni (talk) 02:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given your apparent interest at the talk page, I thought I would let you know that, per comments on the talk page, I have moved the guideline into project space for wider discussion. Apologies if this does not, for whatever reason, interest you any further! Fritzpoll (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is now fixed. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 14:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Appreciate the input on the additions. Not sure if inappropriate comments moved is good or bad (shows what I know) or if my comments were inappropriate or the other fellows. This is an odd but interesting world. In my neck of the woods challenging someone's work and credibility requires substantial homework on the part of the challenger and given the large amount of information about the subject I wrote about, I was taken by surprise. Then, the accusation of attempting to access his username, well, what can one say. Feel lke I am in the wild west. Anyway, thanks for the support and I will get this listing perfect in the next few days unless it is removed. I would think the United States National Listing of Historic Places would qualify notibility. --Norcobash (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny, I made the same edit you made back in February:

Mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PDCA&diff=prev&oldid=188690618

Yours: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PDCA&diff=198667337&oldid=198608810

But somebody undid it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PDCA&diff=189460958&oldid=188784629

We'll see if you have better luck... -- DanielPenfield (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I added inline references and just hope that a known contrary editor doesn't sandbag them again. --Hanvanloon (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the LA Times literally has dozens of articles going back to 1920 on Norco, the Norconian, Corona Naval Hospital, California Rehabilitation Center, Rex Clark, etc. The Daily Bulletin (Inland Empire Edition) has also carried several recent stories. The ISBN numbers are 13 978-0-7385-5559-1 and 10 0-7385-5559-2 Thanks again. You might also want to check out the website www.lakenorconianclub.org --Norcobash (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your offer of help! I'm very familiar with a few things about templates, but I know virtually nothing about most bits. I don't understand what you're proposing as the simplest solution; sorry. Overall, I'd prefer a fix that doesn't mess up what we have now; nationwide, there are over 2500 county templates, and it would be difficult to fix all of them :-)

Nationwide, there are 39 county seats, most of which (but not all of which) are in counties with these templates, that have compound names:

• Arkansas, 1
• Georgia, 1
• Maine, 2
• Maryland, 1
• Minnesota, 1
• New York, 28
• Vermont, 5

Of these, the Maine, New York, and Vermont ones contain bits in parentheses, while the other four states are cases of needing to include the county name.

Anything more that I can add? Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• AR: Salem, Fulton County, Arkansas
• GA: Georgetown, Quitman County, Georgia
• ME:
  • Farmington (town), Maine
  • Wiscasset (town), Maine
• MD: Bel Air, Harford County, Maryland
• MN: Elbow Lake, Grant County, Minnesota
• VT:
  • Hyde Park (town), Vermont
  • Manchester (town), Vermont
  • Newport (city), Vermont
  • Rutland (city), Vermont
  • St. Albans (city), Vermont

There are enough New York that it would clutter your page; you can easily find them listed at Category:County seats in New York. Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change is made, and the templates look fine. Thanks for your work! As you note, four aren't made yet; Maine doesn't have any county templates yet, and of the 162 counties between Arkansas and Minnesota, there are only 21 templates so far. Only 38 states nationwide have templates in all their communities, although more are being added; I finished South Carolina this afternoon. Just give us some time :-) Nyttend (talk) 23:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there are a few counties nationwide with two seats; there's one in IA, and I think one in LA and one in SD at least. Seems odd all right...thanks for making more code! Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's done, and looks as good as any other. Thanks again! Nyttend (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York is done; the only ones remaining are the four Arkansas, Maine, and Minnesota ones that don't have templates. Thanks again for your help! Nyttend (talk) 13:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly ask the stamp question :-) I like TV in some things: History Channel and a few other shows, such as "Cops" and "Law and Order". However, in my college dorm room, we don't have cable or get good electromagnetic wave reception, so a TV would be useless. Anyway, there's the question of $: college costs money :-( and I have other things to save for, much more important than a television. Nyttend (talk) 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is Nyttend; I'm on Easter break, and right now is likely to be the only time over break that I have Internet access. I should be able to be back to Internet access on Monday evening; I'll be able to help then or sometime later. Sorry for the delay! 75.144.2.26 (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grasshopper here :) I hope I'm doing the talk page thing correctly now. I reviewed your todo list and made the changes you suggested. I reworded some sentences to remove claims requiring citations. I think we might be able to substantiate them with some of the new references I've read, but I don't have time to do that now and thought it best to remove them in the meantime. I need to get back to my job or I may not have one! Should these go somewhere besides reference? Children's Book of the Year MWSA & Children's Book of the Year 2004 Runner Up. As always, thanks for your help and guidance! --JSane (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH! I just tried to make some edits to the sales numbers on the Judy Blume article and it said that I've been blacklisted as a spammer! I thought it was ok for me to contribute :( Even worse, I just lost most of my Judy Blume research!! --JSane (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: it wasn't me! it was one of my reference links! phew! sorry. --JSane (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reassurance :) It actually ended up being a blessing in disguise because I found a much better source for the citation required and some additional referenced points regarding the bestseller list that I can't believe weren't included! --JSane (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for all your hard work and defending my edits. It seems I'm not alone in having my edits attacked, as Felisse's contributions were also deleted according to her notes on the discussion page. Something is going on here in regard to a conflict, but it doesn't appear to be to the benefit of the subject matter. I can't help but wonder what the motivations are. It's a children's book author! The good news is that since I had such hearty training on this article, I've been able to use my new confidence and skills to lend my expertise to some other author's pages and have not encountered similar incivility there. I really thank you for making me feel welcomed, it gave me the confidence to try again on other articles! The bad news is that I'm still confounded by this one. --JSane (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Looks like I spoke too soon. Hu has deleted all my verifiable references, edits and citations in favor of a mess of an article. And despite your encouragement to continue contributing, he now posted my User Name to Wiki Spam saying that I'm a spammer and that my email belongs to spam.booksforbrats.com?? WHAT?? Everytime I think I understand Wiki's standards somebody comes along and does something random like this! What is going on? --JSane (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My husband is telling me he'd rather me not visit this site anymore now that Hu12 is demanding to know my identity or he'll block my IP. He feels like this has become personal and he's frankly a little worried. What do you think? --JSane (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...demanding to know my identity or he'll block my IP" err..No I did not. --Hu12 (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have assured her of that. As long as humans communicate, there will be occasional miscommunications. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(resetting indent) Aside from my communications with you, the tone in this discussion has been ..rather aggressive. Particularly given the topic. I'm a newbie doing my best and this is a childrens book author's bio. After minimal contributions, I was called BACK to this article because of an AFD and have done as instructed by more experienced editors than myself only to be accused of a COI. While I had no personal relationship to this subject matter before, I do feel a certain amount of guilt about being at the crux of this mess when all I intended to do was lend my expertise. I'd be happy to leave Wiki altogether after this experience (which is clearly what the intention is here), except the horrible guilt I feel leaving an innocent childrens book author's bio a mess. --JSane (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my better judgement, I just went to seminar and had loads of new info, so I thought I'd come back to Wiki! Of course, the minute I got back, I noticed the most ridiculous post on this article AGAIN. I have responded to it, but I need to go on to other business. Please review and let me know what you think The arguments these people appear to be using are quite personal and it's clear they are grasping at straws and have VERY little knowledge of the publishing industry. They are using consumerist terms to determine the validity of a book's success or the author, but sadly, those are not relevant. --JSane (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have added inline references as you suggested/tagged. One thing to note is that when any editor refers to a standard, e.g. ISO 15504 part 2 or ISO15504-2, then that is an inline reference in itself because the standard is a document, even if this does not follow the referencing approach preferred in Wikipedia. Readers can verify, at a high level, the facts written by looking at the abstracts on the ISO web site. Another issue that I cannot resolve in a simple manner is that I am the only book author publishing reference books in English about the ISO 15504 standard. There is one other in German but at a simplified practical level. I would appreciate your quick review and removal of the tag if you think the updated page is ok. --Hanvanloon (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice regarding the NFRA article. I added a link to the request. CorpITGuy (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have been involved in a dispute about the National Federation of Republican Assemblies. For your information the mediation case has been closed (I believe wrongly) and have requested that it be reopened, meanwhile if you are interested in following the case you can find it here. Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-19 National Federation of Republican Assemblies --Deadly∀ssassin^(talk) 06:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made contact with some folks at the NFRA who say their website is down at the moment and they do not know when it will be back up. I don't have a lot of information but I could probably find it. Do you think a fleshed out article would make the dispute over content less of an issue? If so I will pursue that diligently. Thanks. CorpITGuy (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only real trick is to search for similar categories or create them if they're missing.

Conquistador2k6 00:09 21 March 2008 (UTC)

As time permits I will clean the article up - really appreciate the help. --Norcobash (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brant Kersey has received some notability tags, as you have been a contributing editor can you read what they concern, and help to revise the article so it doesn't get deleted? Thank youSriMesh | talk 01:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied on my talk page. Regards, Rudget. 18:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try 1847USA. It lists all US stamps up to the early 1970s. Let me ask: are most of the stamps 2¢ or 3¢? Do all of them have holes ("perforations") on all four sides? Be careful to check the watermarks, if possible, and ensure that you measure the stamps properly if there's a size difference. You really should consult the Scott catalogue for the values; your local library should have a copy. Feel free to ask more questions if you so desire. Nyttend (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... since we work on some articles in common, that I am pretty much at my limit of frustration in dealing with Strider12's latest tactics. Unless she evinces some smidgen of interest in collaborative editing to improve the article rather than straight-ahead gamesmanship and combativeness, I am not going to engage with her further. It's just not a good use of my time here. MastCell ^Talk 21:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the GNU license on Talk:Jordan_Bayne? Does this mean that it's not a copyright violation? I don't have enough experience with these issues to know; I do know that the article in question is atrocious though. --Melty girl (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear. It's licensed promotion at its most raw and unashamed. The shame lies with those who allow it in the name of GFDL. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Update to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Hanvanloon. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. —David Levy 12:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw come on! WP:DTTR. Did you actually read what I commented out? As the second comment says it works better without the stuff I commented out. I'll go back and explain in the comment what I did and hope you don't object. If you revert again, I'll leave it alone and assume that your adherence to guidelines (even on April 1st) takes precedence over your sense of humor. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our rules don't magically disappear because the calender happens to display a particular date. Please stop interfering with other users' legitimate comments. Thank you. —David Levy 12:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please see WP:TTR. —David Levy 12:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you mark Buzzy Hellring as patrolled? Thanks. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 02:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC) I saw you because I patrol new pages too. Yesterday, I looked at patrol log and saw you we're active. And about the article, thanks. I'm not good with references. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please}[reply]

Wowzers, all I can say about that one is that I totally intended to close it as delete. I'm not sure whether I hit the wrong button on my script or what. That one is a clear delete, thanks for calling it to my attention. - Philippe 09:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I didn't write the Nick Savoy page but I worked on it extensively. I noticed that you voted to delete. I'm not sure if this sways your decision (which was made based on 'notability' but he is on the Dr Phil show tomorrow, April 11. I just saw him on TV as the Dr Phil show is promoting him extensively (www.drphil.com/shows). So now I have found:

• Dr Phil
• CBS National Radio
• Fox TV
• Playboy TV
• Brink Magazine
• Globe and Mail magazine (quoting him as an expert)
• Mentioned in other wikipedia pages such as Mystery Method
• As far back as 2006 there was some consensus to include him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seduction_community)

Does the Dr Phil showchange your opinion? If not, what would? I would like to get the page back up; I worked really hard on it. Thanks so much for your time! Camera123456 (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to this in my evidence section. Briefly, there is a pattern here which has not gotten substantially better. I don't have the energy or the sanity to wait for another 5 months of brand-new egregious diffs to accrue after the RfC. This editor is incorrigible in the face of all lesser forms of dispute resolution. The point of the older diffs was to illustrate the magnitude and duration of the problem; the newer diffs indicate that her approach is fundamentally unchanged despite intervening experience, RfC, etc. Actually, the fact that Wikipedia takes at least 6 months to effectively deal with this kind of agenda-driven advocacy editing indicates a major problem with its processes.

By the way, while you're creating "struckthrough" versions of evidence, you may want to see how many of Strider12's assertions are supported by diffs of any kind; how many of her diffs involve things said by other people "closely allied" with me for whom I'm apparently responsible; and how many of her diffs link to things which occurred >1 year before I even came near the article. Also, NCdave's evidence contains virtually no diffs, just a few links to "crisis pregnancy centers".

Do you believe there was any indication of any sort that Strider12 had moved in a positive direction behaviorally before I opened this ArbCom case (or since, for that matter)? The final straw was her 27th reinsertion of that disputed Fogel paragraph without any attempt to do anything resembling discussing the issue, followed by flipping WP:V upside down and accusing me of "disruptive blanking" for the 800th time. I'm actually fairly patient, and I think I've been extremely so in this case, but I'm not willing to put up with that anymore. MastCell ^Talk 05:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my talk page. I also added more evidence of recent problematic editing by Strider12, to address your concern that the problem was in the past. I find it very challenging to be asked both to substantiate a charge of tendentious editing and to observe some sort of statute of limitations of 4-6 weeks on the diffs I use. The hallmark of tendentiousness is endless repetition of the same arguments, accusations, etc. The point of the older diffs is not to downplay the present, but to establish that such a pattern undeniably exists. Does that make sense? MastCell ^Talk 06:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say or imply that you were a meatpuppet, and you simply aren't reading very carefully when you allege I did. I listed the four people that I think there are grounds for meatpuppetry suspicion and gave evidence for each one. For you to threaten me with being blocked on the grounds that you are misconstruing what I say does not suggest you read very carefully, but I guess we have already established. It is highly incivil for you to make threats based on a careless misconstrual of something I never said or implied.68.46.254.47 (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the limited discussion, this proposal was marked rejected. It can be resurrected at any time, and may become useful in the future, but for now, just wanted to thank you for your contributions. Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a heavy discussion right now, in this article, Miss Pakistan World here and it was nominated for deletion here; your opinion will be highly appreciated, especially your vote. Your participation in this matter is noteworthy, in view of the fact that you have participated in this discussion [2]. It doesn’t matter if your vote is favorable or not, but what matters most is your involvement since it seems to me that some commenter are against pageantry. Personally, I think that the article should be kept but should be freed from tremendous advertisement lines.--Richie Campbell (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to help more with the coding for {{US county navigation box}}? You may remember that there are a few US counties with two county seats (for example, see {{Bennington County, Vermont}}), but when there are two seats, it still displays as "County seat" or "Shire town" rather than "seats" or "towns". Could you make a small change to the code so that it will be plural when the two-seat coding is activated? Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you've not made many edits recently...in light of this, I'm copying this request to the village pump. Nyttend (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Since you helped me in the past (with the Ryan Allen article) I am coming back to you with a question about tags on articles. The article on Regina (opera) was in Wikipedia as a stub when I came across it. After working it over pretty thoroughly I believe it no longer deserves the citations-needed banner on the first page and the Start-class banner on the discussion page. Am I permitted to remove those banners? If I'm not qualified to do that, how can I apply to have them removed? Thanks for your help.Voiceperson (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you are back and have a spare moment, I would appreciate your opinion on my comment on the DDD talk page. Thanks. Centrepull (talk) 18:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the inuse tag error. I never saw it. Like a stop sign behind the tree. 128.12.169.7 (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I say 'thank you for saying thank you'.

Right now I figure I have two things to do to improve the article: 1 add information to all of the amendment subheadings (will do), and 2 wait till it gets more coverage in the media, and then add those sources. Do you have any other suggestions? TachyonJack (talk) 05:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I copy-edited your contibution to Tax Party Protests. Please replace the broken links with Google-cached information so editors can independently verify the information given. In addition, there were a few stories cited that did not support the information that the events cited were in fact "Tea Party Protests". Thanks--Happysomeone (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note you've reverted my edits & the edit summary does not satisfy the problems I pointed out. Please address my concerns on the talk page there. Thanks.--Happysomeone (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SBowers3, Thanks for the kind welcome and offer of help. I am new to editing Wikipedia pages but I do appreciate the importance of proper sourcing of information. I'll read up on the definition of "Reliable Source" and add them to the pages I've edited.

Having listened to the protesters and read the speeches given at many of these tea parties I believe the current version of the article to be a bit misleading in it's focus on President Obama and his policies. In spite of the common tone from mainstream media, the general anger of the protesters appears to be toward extra-constitutional, out of control government and spending. Their words have been directed vigorously at presidents and legislators of both parties regarding policies which started well before the current administration. Everywhere I search I find evidence of protesters booing republicans and dishing out anger in a very non-partisan way and a Google search for "Tea Party Speech Republicans" turns up loads of scorn.

I'm still learning what a "Reliable Source" is, but I do recognize that most of these below are not citation worthy. However to ignore the reality of the non-partisan tea party protests just because MSNBC doesn't report it seems to weaken Wikipedia. How do I appropriately cite things like: [1] [2] [3] [4] Kehrerrl (talk) 04:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I saw where you had corrected an article name on 4 Nov 2007. I submitted an article entitled Worldwide faith missions. I erred in not capitalizng all three words. I would deeply appreciate your assistance in making this correction. I am slowly learninng Wikipedia techniques. I welcome any suggestions as I attempt to make contributions. Thank you Rak-Tai (talk) 07:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your easy-to-follow instructions for the name change. I added to the article some notable facts about the organization's relationship with the Carter administration. The organization's president was also a friend of Indira Ghandi. One of his close friends in New Delhi taught her sons in the private school they attended; hence the connection. I have a copy of the letter which Bob Maddox wrote for the organization. Since the White House copy is probably filed in the the Carter documents and very difficult to unearth, how can I list it on the article's page for verification purposes? Also, the organization's ties with Mother Teresa are notable, but pose a difficulty for verification (Wikipedia places great importance in verification of article's claims, as listed on your recommended reading to me) Thank you. Rak-Tai (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC) A number of us call those opposed to the tea parties, 'teabaggers'.[reply]

Please read up on WP:BRD and then reconsider this edit. You added the information to the article recently, and there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page where you are the only one favoring the expanded section at the moment and now you say that the information is too great to delete without first discussing? Please discuss first before adding that massive amount of text and weighing down the main teabag article. TharsHammar ^Bits and^Pieces 01:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the quoty version I added, and then see why your "failed verification" tag is one more reason why I wonder why no one ever reads what references have to say. The quoty version isn't perfect, but it does show exactly what the references had to say that everybody missed, for some reason. I used exact quotes mainly for that reason, not because it's the best way.Jimmuldrow (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it, maybe you could review the following and either point out what I'm missing about the Post article - Bachmann speech - Palin facebook post, if you still disagree:

As TIME said,

Within days, the Post article, with selective and misleading quotes from Emanuel's 200 or so published academic papers, went viral. Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann, a fierce opponent of Obama's reform plans, read large portions of it on the House floor. "Watch out if you are disabled!" she warned. Days later, in an online posting, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin attacked Emanuel's "Orwellian thinking," which she suggested would lead to a "downright evil" system that would employ a "death panel" to decide who gets lifesaving health care.^[1]

As Palin said,

Rep. Michele Bachmann highlighted the Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff, in a floor speech to the House of Representatives.^[2]

Palin posted a link to a YouTube video of the Bachmann speech at the bottom of her facebook page.

As The Atlantic said,

Reading the post, it's hard to see what Palin actually meant. Her political spokesperson later confirmed that Palin was referring to the principle of "community standards," which she linked to a New York Post piece about Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel.^[3]

As ABC News said,

Palin refers in her statement to Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who in a speech on the floor of the House, Palin said, described the "Orwellian thinking of the president’s health care advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of the White House chief of staff. ... I commend her for being a voice for the most precious members of our society, our children and our seniors."

Bachmann's speech was based on an op-ed article in the New York Post, titled “Deadly Doctors,” by the former lieutenant governor of New York, Betsy McCaughey, that took a number of leaps of fact when discussing the academic writings of Ezekiel J. Emanuel, health-policy adviser at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.^[4]

Again, could you please explain the failed verification tag mentioned above.Jimmuldrow (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I imported was this one. You can tell it's the right edit because it says "4713 intermediate revisions not shown" above the diff (see principle 6 in User:Graham87/Import, and principle 5 of that page for why that edit didn't appear in the page history until my import). The diff showing an import doesn't show any change in the wikitext, similar to the diff of a page move. Graham87 02:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just imported all the edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia of Fare, the user who made the edit that I imported. He edited many articles about capitalism, so if you see a flurry of imports in your watchlist, that's why. I also imported several pages edited by Jhanley, among other users. Graham87 06:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no way to automatically find out which revision was imported either in the page history or in the import log. The best way is to check old revisions and find one with a high revision ID (the number on the right of the URL in the address bar). All early edits that weren't recently imported were imported by a script in September 2002, and thus they have revision ID's over 200,000. The edits between February and September usually have lower revision ID's, so the diff software interprets them as early edits, which is the reason why a "previous revision" link comes up when you open the earliest edit of Adam Smith. Graham87 01:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your posts on the Tea Party Movement talk page. I agree with your summary of what the citations seem to show regarding the character and make up of this movement. I am reading some of them now.Malke2010 18:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE. Do not remove the Merge tags from either Tea Party protests, 2009 or Tea Party movement until we have reached consensus in the discussion here. Based on preliminary replies for just one day, my guess is that consensus will require at least a week for all three questions and possibly more. Having the merge tags on each article doesn't eat up a whole lot of space so let's leave them in until everybody has gotten their say. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the redundant redirect "Isaac hayes" -> "Isaac Hayes". This is redundant because the software automatically tries alternate capitalizations for titles like this. I then took a quick look at "Category:Redirects from other capitalisations" and saw many similar redirects such as Aaron burr, Aaron copland, Aaron gillespie, Aba river. All of these - and there must be thousands - are totally unnecessary. Is there any performance advantage/disadvantage to these redundant redirects. Should they be deleted or not bother? Sbowers3 (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the software automatically does that unless you enter the term in the search box. If an article is called Blah Blah, and you link to Blah blah from antoher article, no automatic redirect happens. The first letter is case-insensitive but the others are not. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's try it: Harold M. edwards. Harold M. Edwards. The first of these is (currently) a red link. When I click on it, I'm invited to edit a new article with that title. No automatic trying of alternative capitalizations. Rather, that happens ONLY when you enter something in the search box. There goes your "totally unnecessary" theory. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply at Wikipedia talk:Redirects for discussion#Delete redundant (but not harmful) redirects? Sbowers3 (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a Happy rest o'the day, :D Malke2010 23:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Tea Party protests, 2009. 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/List of Tea Party protests, 2009. 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) 01:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went to add acknowledgement of my first creation (Template: DC Comics TV) to my profile page and found your blank page additions. Thank you very much for the thought, but I was told (and felt like an idiot) to click on the redlink of the title when a search result is that the article I searched for doesn't (yet) exist. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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. Courcelles (talk) 18:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sbowers, Thanks for your comments on my talk page. It wasn't for a full month, less than a day. Anything new on Sarah Palin? I've not had the chance to get over there. Hope all is well.Malke2010 09:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you participated in a previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions. I was wondering if you might share your opinion here: RFC: Should Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) be merged with Wikipedia:Notability (events) and Wikipedia:Notability (people)? Thanks! Location (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the nomination. Rillian (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Tea Party protests, 2010 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party protests, 2009 (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Civility Award
		Kudos to both you and User:DutchmanInDisguise for your work on the Russel L. Honoré article and, especially so, for so civilly working out your edit/revert concerns . Thanks! — Dhugot (talk)

Thanks for the Civility Award. The award to me was generous but was well-deserved for User:DutchmanInDisguise.

I am here only occasionally so did not see it until just now. 21:12, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

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) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Tea Party protests, 2010 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tea Party protests, 2010 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Worm^TT(talk) 16:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Was just looking at the first article I created, Walkman Effect, for the first time in a while. More than 8 years later, I just wanted to say thanks for helping a noob with citations back then :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]