Your motivation for removing the report without taking action was "No vandalism after last warning". I have to disagree: he had indeed done further damage since receiving test4.
17:29 - User vandalised Commodus again
17:35 - User received test4
17:38 - User vandalised Commodus yet again
17:43 - User reported (no further warning issued, since he had received a final warning)
After that, the report was removed. What's the use of having final warnings that state "the next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked", if when the user does vandalise a page again, the vandal report is simply removed? --Nehwyn 21:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I usually discount edits done just mere minutes after a test4 to give them the benefit of the doubt that they hadn't seen the message. I saw your report just a few minutes after you posted it and waited until 18:23 before I removed them just to see if they had gotten the message, or had definitely ignored it and was still vandalizing. To me it appears they did get the message as they have not vandalized again. Blocks are not punitive but preventative, so if the message works, no block is necessary. --plange 21:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I get the principle, but I disagree in this case. Test4 specifically states that, if vandalism continues, the user will be blocked. Lower-level warnings are there to see if the user stops vandalising pages. Once a final warning is issued, and the user keeps going on anyway, that's definitely grounds for blocking. Otherwise, there's no difference between test1 and test4. --Nehwyn 17:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When it's continued by just one more edit a mere minutes after the last warning I give the benefit of the doubt. If it keeps continuing, I block (because if there's more than one edit past the warning, I know they've seen the orange box letting them know they've received a message). --plange 17:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but I respectfully disagree. --Nehwyn 18:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. --plange 18:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006[edit]
The November 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
I would sort of agree with you; the only quibble is that the Frelinghuysens were a pretty prominent family in early NJ, and people might object to getting rid of the article because of that connection. I would use the example of an article I sent to AFD on Leutenant Helmut Frohberg, a minor officer in the German army in WWII. Nice article, pictures and everything... but the guy was just not notable. The AFD discussion is archived, although the article is gone.
I suppose that one way to save articles like Helmut Frohberg and Sanford Ransdell might be to allow a certain number of articles on "foot soldiers" - otherwise non-notable combatants - in each war - maybe 5 on each side, more for a major conflict. That might be an interesting addition to the military history. As a bit of an exclusionist, I sort of feel like I'm opening a can of worms here, but still - might be worth considering. Brianyoumans 04:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is usually a pretty thankless task. So... ***thank you***. --Dweller 16:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :-) --plange 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and for what it's worth (not much), I think you're spot on with your arguments above about blocks, following a test4. I particularly liked your comment about the blocks not being punitive. That's something us RC patrollers lose sight of... it begins to feel a bit personal and I'm sure lots of us begin to feel subconsciously that blocks are justified on a punitive basis. --Dweller 18:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just had my willpower tested with that myself as one of my articles Serenity (film) just got attacked, but I waited until it was obvious they were not stopping. --plange 18:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for blocking people as you deal with them. I've been refreshing the page before you put the investigating message on. Coincidentally, you might just be better not putting that message in. I follow the following sequence CONTRIBS-> TALK -> BACK -> BLOCK -> TALK -> REMOVE. Alphachimp 16:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no worries - I was doing the message thing as suggested on the talk page, but if you think it's not needed, that's cool. --plange 17:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, it's totally up to you. I just figured I'd tell you how I've done it for the last 2.5 months. I really do appreciate what you're doing, no matter how you decide to do it. Alphachimp 17:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I was glad to get your tip on sequence! Saves me learning by trial and error :-) (the part I was referring to above was about leaving a message on the page) --plange 17:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to you, Plange, for sorting out the vandalism on both the Jobcentre Plus page and my own User Page. I have to say I was out of my depth, and didn't know quite how to cope with this very childish individual.
Things weren't helped by the fact that, ironically, for about 48 hrs I was out of action as – at the crucial time – my own IP address had been inadvertently blocked by an over-zealous anti-vandal Wikipedian. Thanks again - your intervention was much appreciated. – Agendum 19:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
no problem! You user page happened to still be on my watch list from a previous post there. That vandal was very bizarre! --plange 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i notice you recently blocked this user, in past few minutes i have noticed 3 pages vandalised by them(1, 2, 3) im not sure what to do about this, or how to go about warning them. cheers mate. --Dan027 09:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not directly involved, no, but I have been following the project since January, and yes, Joss Whedon gave his direct approval using Whedonesque.com, his blog site. I will find the permalink to the entry that is somewhere in the message board of ITB. Additionally, Nathon Fillian not only voiced his support for ITB, but also gave some of his own money to help finance the project.
To respond, post on my talk page. -- Ubergenius 16:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is the link about Nathon Fillian's support: [1]
Hey Plange,
I have a question about downloading pictures. If I took my own picture and wanted to download it onto a site, say Virginia for instance, what would I put down has a copyright or where I got the photo from so it would not be deleted?
Thanks RUTKE421
This image: was taken by a fellow project member at WP:VIRGINIA and you could use it as a guide for what to put in there for licensing, etc. --plange 05:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may have noticed that the article contains little biograhical information. This is due to the lack of independent reputable sources on the subject. There is an official biography, called Sathyam Sivam Sundaram by his follower Narayana Kasturi, but this is more a hagiography and I believe unreliable even for basic facts. Do you think that this was a good decision? User:SSS108 thinks I am wrong. I put some of the contents of Kasturi's book in Beliefs and practices in the Sathya Sai Baba movement. A comparable figure in this respect is Jesus. Andries 15:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually what I would like to see happen, is if you and the other editor can agree that you would like to have a peer review, then we can give you one -- the Assessment area is just for quick assessments. The reason I'd like to ask that the other editors agree is that we just had a situation where we reviewed an article in good faith -- Mitt Romney -- having no idea it was in the middle of a POV war, and the other side had no understanding what a peer review is and attacked the reviewer. We do not like to get dragged into POV disputes (that's what arbitration is for), so if you guys are willing to let us tell you what we think without us being dragged into the argument, that's fine. You can then just take or leave our comments and it's up to you guys to implement them. --plange 15:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article already had a peer review more than two years ago, Wikipedia:Peer review/Sathya Sai Baba/archive1 but then it was very different and was authored for more than 80% by me. Almost every edit that I now make on the article will lead to a request for comments, because user:SSS108 disagrees with it. If I request a new peer review then I will announce it on the Sathya Sai Baba talk page. Andries 15:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Try our biography peer review, you might get more responses there than the regular PR process. But if you could also have SSS108 say that he'll also be ok with a peer review. I know I'm being like a mother hen, but it's hard to get good peer reviewers and after last week, I don't want them to get attacked again :-) --plange 22:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another case in which the peer review was not announced was Prem Rawat. I learnt it here [3] I am one of the main contributors to the article and in perennial disagreement with another main contributor i.e. user:Jossi. Andries 08:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least on that one we were allowed to give our peer review without the other side (I guess that would be you in this case) jumping down our throat :-) Thank you! We're asked to do these and have no idea of sides or that there are even any sides, so we innocently go in and give our 2 cents and in that one particular case, were lambasted. --plange 00:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Looks like I'm in the same boat you were in last month with the Buffy article (congrats BTW!)-- I just nominated Firefly (TV series) for FAC and Tony also suggested we get a copyeditor - who did you end up finding? --plange 23:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted User:Deckiller, but he is already extremely busy (with both real life and wikipedia) but said he would be willing to look at the Buffy article. I did come across several professional editors (who I haven't yet contacted) who have helped get sci-fi (Star Wars) articles to featured status and I would suggest asking one of these users: User:BrianSmithson, User:Fuhghettaboutit, User:Myleslong. Also if you're interested in a trade, do you fancy giving a complete copyedit for fluidity and grammar to Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and I can give a complete copyedit to Firefly (TV series) over next few days? -- Paxomen 12:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's a deal :-) I'll go take a look at it today~ --plange 15:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK I may need a a few days to give a proper copyedit, but I'll get there :) I will attempt to be bold, and trust in others to bring any of my changes into line if neccessary. - Paxomen 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm glad we're doing this trade because going over yours gave me ideas for the Firefly one. Nowhere do we mention Mutant Enemy and we should; I also liked how you did your production area, and I didn't know about that Espenson article on writing, so I'll try to work that in... I had to leave after doing Buffy, so I didn't get to leave comments on the Talk page, but will do so now... Thanks for your help! --plange 23:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's great to hear that doing this has been a help. Btw Mutant Enemy is very briefly referenced in the 'Writing' section but the Mutant Enemy article could use some expansion which I'm sure Wikipedians will eventually get around to. I've only started copyediting Firefly article, but am so far really impressed with the citation format, and the content is really interesting, and look forward to doing some more in next few days. -- Paxomen 00:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused on the Sean Hannity page. I don't have problem with the criticism staying in, I was just trying to figure out how it's supposed to work. The criticism does not come from a staff editorial in the New York Times but an editorial by Frank Rich. Is that still the full opinion of the NYT's editorial staff? I'm not familiar enough with how the paper works to know.
I'm putting this on your talk page because I really don't care one way or another if it stays in and I don't want it to look like I'm fighting for the criticism to come out when I'm really just asking a question. --PTR 19:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool--I've only been barely watching that page, so could you help save me some time of going through the Talk stuff and provide a link to the editorial? I don't even know what it was saying, just saw that note about NYTimes and chimed in... Thanks! --plange 23:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you found it before I noticed this. Thanks for your input. --PTR 01:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have seen that you are using the Cacycle editor extension. This program is no longer actively maintained in favor of its much more powerful successor wikEd.
wikEd has all the functionality of the old editor plus: • syntax highlighting • nifty image buttons • more fixing buttons • paste formatted text from Word or web pages • convert the formatted text into wikicode • adjust the font size • and much, much more.
Switching to wikEd is easy, check the detailed installation description on its project homepage. Often it is as simple as changing every occurrence of editor.js into wikEd.js on your User:YourUsername/monobook.js page.
Since you have experience with featured articles, I could use your assistance. I am working on criminology topics which is an area that Wikipedia sorely lacks. Last weekend, I discovered there was no article on "Gun violence", so started one. Most of the research literature pertains to the United States, so the article has become Gun violence in the United States. Obviously, people have strong POV on this topic, and I'm perhaps entering a minefield here. To try and rise above politics, I have only included the highest quality reliable sources (most are from peer reviewed, scholarly journals). Personally, I really don't have a POV on this. The article basically presents the current state of research on this topic, and I think is close to featured status (if POV pushing can be kept out of the article). Nonetheless, someone has already come along and place a neutrality tag on the article. I could really use some peer review on the article, at this point. Do you at all agree with the person who placed the neutrality tag? Do you have any suggestions on improving the article or making it more NPOV? are there aspects of the topic that are missing? Any help would be appreciated. --Aude (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My RfA done
I hope to wield my mop well (Her name is Vera)
I appreciate
The support you have shown me (I hope I don't suck)
Anyway, I just
wanted to drop you a line (damn, haikus are hard)
I never would have guessed that my own RfA would be passing so soon after seeing yours pass with flying colors... obviously, we browncoats are just very dependable and mature. ;-)
And looks like we're even on the whole "updating RfA tallies" thing. :-) EVula// talk // ☯ // 16:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comments have gone pretty quiet in the last week. Certainly no screaming like was occurring earlier. Premature? BusterD 13:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know I dragged you into a bad one last time on Hannity but I was wondering if you'd take a look at Al Sharpton. It's mostly controversy written very POV. Just in case you are interested. --PTR 22:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Plange,
Firstly thanks for helping out by intervening on the Joseph W. Tkach editing. Definitely progress was made, thanks to the anonymous editor. I have another favour to ask. The article is now a FAC. I am uncomfortable about soliciting votes (conflict of interest), so I was wondering if you could ask your colleagues to review and vote on it. Thanks. --RelHistBuff 08:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, that whole POV section was in the article itself, under the title "Reader's Opinion". I removed it and someone else put it under the Talk Page in case it might be modified to be back into the article. It was never a blog (as far as I know). Zidel333 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying it ever was a blog, just that that's where it belongs. I personally think it doesn't even belong on the Talk page, as there's no way it can ever go back in the article in any form, since it's a blatent violation of WP:OR. That is, unless it cites a reliable source per WP:V and WP:ATT. --plange 18:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, and I personally agree with you concerning its nature. I just thought you should know. Zidel333 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for rating Blaise Pascal (amongst other articles). Could I possibly request that when you rate maths articles, you add them to the relevant section of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0? This needs doing as as the maths rating template has a "field" element, which is not used by the bot which produces all the useful lists and statistics.
Many thanks! Tompw 00:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for looking into Image:Zzz-Webb-FtWarren.jpg. I researched even further and found the original source: [4]. I tagged the image specifically . The uploader obviously doctored it and everything else he uploaded (unexplainable fake grainy orange hue). Do you think we should just crop out the individuals and re-upload without the weirdness? ccwaters 18:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely! I'll do it tonight... --plange 19:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome, and thanks for the Browncoat :) — Deckiller 04:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue IX - November 2006[edit]
The November 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
This Barnstar is awarded to Plange for his incredibly hard work sheparding the Firefly article to FA status. Congratulations! Wikipedia is a better place with popular culture so well represented. Jeffpw 21:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jeff! --plange 04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Plange... First, thanks for taking the time to assess ('B') the Rafael Buenaventura article back in September. Since then, I and others have made some minor improvements (more sources, etc.), but not really any major changes. In light of the subject's recent demise, I would like to see if it can be elevated. When you have time, would you please review/supplement your rating with some feedback/constructive criticism? Thanks, wormcast 18:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006[edit]
The December 2006 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in your comments on the Kipling page, you wrote, "Needs in-line citations." What are they? I am assuming, they would replace my (unsightly) footnotes. Thanks. Sanjay Tiwari 15:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi plange,
I am having another problem with an anonymous editor reverting (3RR rule). I have tried to bring it to the talk page, but he/she left a long message basically saying that conversing is of no use. Normally this article is about a very controversial, but minor character and it should be under semi-protection (according to the criteria by Jimbo), but I don't think it needs to get that far yet. Just need something to get this person to the talk table. Thanks again. --RelHistBuff 16:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Mr. IPaddress is talking on the talk page, so it's ok, no need to intervene (yet). I will try to deal with it for now, but I may need help later. What is the procedure for asking for semi-protection? --RelHistBuff 20:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I posted several messages on Template_talk:WPBiography and was hoping to get your thoughts on them on that talk page. Thanks. -- Jreferee 16:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - December 2006[edit]
The December 2006 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 23:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006[edit]
The January 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Hi, I missed your valued contributions recently. Everything ok? Errabee 00:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really, the Biography project is nowhere near as effective without your presence. I know we all look forward to hearing from you soon. Badbilltucker 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your fellow browncoats are missing you too... EVula// talk // ☯ // 18:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys! Yep, am hoping to get back into the swing of things soon! The holidays swamped me!! --plange 21:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
okay, whoah, what are these red and green numbers that are appearing now on my watchlist next to each item? Can't for the life of me figure out what they mean... LOL! --plange 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a visual representation of the edit. Green means stuff was added, red means stuff was removed. If someone removes a lot of content (either vandalism or archiving), it shows up as bold red. It takes a couple of days to get used to it. EVula// talk // ☯ // 22:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, and so the larger the number, the bigger the edit? --plange 22:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came to the conclusion that the "Nathan Fillion is related to Jubal Early" is completely bogus. I watched every commentary (which was quite the sacrifice, mind you) and found nothing. See Nathan Jubal Fillion Early for the skinny. EVula// talk // ☯ // 01:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added comprehensive sources per WP:Cite to the Michael Jordan article today (which somehow had like 5 sources since it's inception) maybe you can give it look now as I noticed you made that comment on it's article review. I also did some copy editing, major revising, and cleanup and am looking for feedback on what to do next. Quadzilla99 16:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be an edit war errupting again. Anshe is an important Metaverse pioneer with 7 years of history, but some guys seem to be of the opinion that her life has mostly been about "prostitution" and a flying penis attack. The issue is complex and requires thorough research and digging through a lot of crap to get to the real facts. (AndreasZander)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - January 2007[edit]
The January 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 21:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]
You may be interested in User:Audacity/Userboxes/WSPQ, which is a replacement for the old Political Chart userbox. The new userbox takes the two variables (economic and personal freedom), calculates which political alignment they place you into (Statist, Libertarian, Liberal, Centrist, or Conservative), and links your userpage to the appropriate category.
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are looking to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 11!
Delivered by grafikbot 11:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Novels newsletter : Issue IX - February 2007[edit]
The February 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 16:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikiproject:Biography has been a little rudderless in the last few weeks since you've been absent, I've been trying to step up and help where I can. I really think the project needs to have a collaboration council or coordinating committee or something along those lines so it doesn't depend too much on one person. But before taking any drastic action :) I wanted to get a good discussion going with as many participants as possible, so I've started one on the project talk page. Given your long and tireless contributions, I'd very much like to hear your opinion in the discussion. Mocko13 02:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by February 25!
Delivered by grafikbot 14:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies[edit]
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 22:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - February 2007[edit]
The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 16:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Who are you? Your username reminds me of something, but I'm not sure ... Seriously now, yes, you can do something: you can run the project you upgraded and made it a model one in Wikepdia! Elected or not, you are the actual co-ordinator of this project. I'm happy to have you back, and I'm hope that everything is settled now (about the emergency you told me). Cheers!--Yannismarou 07:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Plange, none of this popping in saying "remember me" and then disappearing again! Seriously, I hope you've not had an occurence of your family emergency, and I truly hope you'll be back to give WPBio the leadership it needs and deserves. If anyone is irreplaceable on Wikipedia it's you :) --kingboyk 01:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, sorry, I don't know why it's hard for me to get back into it-- I will try, seriously. The family emergency should be through soon-- my father was diagnosed with lung cancer in late February and I've been traveling to Fla every other week, but his last treatment is Friday and all things look really good. --plange 03:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aww... sorry to hear that. I hope he recovers soon. We look forward to seeing you back; if you need any help getting back into the swing of things please send me a message! --kingboyk 19:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Family comes first. We are looking forward to seeing you back with us, but first of all we hope that everything goes fine with your father; compared to family and health, Wikipedia is nothing more than trivia (and these words come from a Wiki-freak!).--Yannismarou 19:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - March 2007[edit]
The March 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 20:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! If you are receiving this message, that means that your user page is in a specific year category. Per a recent user-category per deletion, all specific year categories are to be deleted. If you wish to continue using year categories, you have two options:
If you wish, you may do both. Hopefully, this change in categorization will be quick and painless. Happy editing! --An automated message from MessedRobot 12:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that most of the United States presidential candidate biographies or presidential campaign pages on Wikipedia have an associated "Political views of ____" article.
I find that name unsatisfactory, and detail the arguments for the name's weakness over at...
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIII - March 2007[edit]
The March 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007[edit]
The April 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by Grafikbot 11:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007[edit]
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 19:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to trouble you. A difficult dispute is taking place on the Bob Dylan Talk Page [[5]] with an editor who simply refuses to believe Dylan was ‘born again’, and who deletes all changes I make to the text, and all references. I would be grateful for your opinion. Thanks Mick gold 20:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)[edit]
The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - May 2007[edit]
The May 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 16:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The May 2007 issue of the Virginia WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.--Kubigula(talk) 02:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XV (May 2007)[edit]
The May 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 15:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XIII - June 2007[edit]
The June 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 15:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XVI (June 2007)[edit]
The June 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV - July 2007[edit]
The July 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 17:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:Greg-keyes.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 16:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I am currently trying to contribute to a battle in respect to giving a reason why a Viking force had to withdraw from a native attack, which I think was instrumental to the article itself and since the person in question received her place in history for that act. Its my understanding that Wikipedia is meant for contributions, but the people at that region see fit to leave the situation vague. They have told me that I cannot simply copy and past from references and, in short order, I re-wrote the small addition
in my own words. I don't see what the problem here is, however, they simply revert my edits and give me vague conclusion to why they have done so. The site is intended to be used for non-commercial reproduction so we have no problems in copyright infringement. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. InternetHero 22:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Military history WikiProject coordinator selection[edit]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XV - August 2007[edit]
The August 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Military history WikiProject coordinator election[edit]
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators from a pool of fourteen candidates to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by August 28! Kirill 01:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
