Jump to content

User talk:Andrew Gray/Archives/8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 3 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Nom

[edit]

Hi. I've nominated Ernest Brooks (photographer), an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Smallman12q (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Smallman12q (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Proposed deletion of Alex Devine

[edit]

The article Alex Devine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable. Fails WP:PORNBIO.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Formosa ineligible for proposed deletion

[edit]

Greetings. I fixed the {{prod}} tag you intended to leave on Mark Formosa. I then removed it because the article has already been deleted via the WP:PROD process. The recreation is effectively a contested prod. To nominate the article for deletion, follow the steps at WP:AFD. —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right that being a prospective political candidate does not warrant a page and that they are deleted. I fully support you if you choose to use W:AFD deletion steps.--Milk76 (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 10 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 05:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ernest Brooks (photographer)

[edit]
Updated DYK query On August 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ernest Brooks (photographer), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 02:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Medal images

[edit]

THANKS! That's brilliant. I played round for ages trying to figure out how to do it, but I'm a bit inept when it comes to computers. Thanks for taking the time to help me out. I just need to finish the article now... Gwinva (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 17 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - August 2009 Issue

[edit]

Summary: Our Initiatives are starting to be developed - please get involved! In this newsletter, we also announce the results and prizes for Wikipedia Loves Art, and we bring you the latest on our Charity status application, in addition to our regular features on Other Chapters' Activities, recent Press Coverage and recent and upcoming Meet-ups.

In this month's newsletter:

  1. Initiatives
  2. Wikipedia Loves Art prizes
  3. Charity status update
  4. Other Chapters' Activities
  5. Press Coverage
  6. Meet-ups

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 08:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of John Heriot (journalist)

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of John Heriot (journalist) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NW (Talk) 00:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GAN STS-8

[edit]

What do we do with that? As I remember it only needed a little more work. Sooner or later I'll be pushed to decide. Materialscientist (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Green

[edit]

I was thinking about putting it up for FA, because it does seem to exhaust the sources on the subject. I'll take another look through it, and if there's too much work still to do for FA, perhaps you could consider GA? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I might live to regret it, but see here. Thanks for reminding me. I had been meaning to do this for some time, but I'd completely forgotten it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 02:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great, thank you. :) SlimVirgin talk|contribs 11:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for John Heriot (journalist)

[edit]
Updated DYK query On August 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Heriot (journalist), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 03:14, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Empty Dwelling Management Orders

[edit]
Updated DYK query On August 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Empty Dwelling Management Orders, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Greetings and thanks?

[edit]

Greetings Shimgray. Don't know where we may have crossed swords our paths may have crossed, but I've just seen a weird movement on my watchlist which has your signature on it. Although I'm not quite sure what it entails, I shall try to bear it with dignity - as long as it doesn't mean wearing one of those daft barnstars... Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explanation. Great! So this means I can now start articles on each and every single Pókemon character? Oh no, they've all been done... No sweat, I'll think of summat. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 19:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DEWP edit graph

[edit]

Thanks, I've added it to the data list. Hut 8.5 08:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Mercury-Atlas 8

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Mercury-Atlas 8 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! NW (Talk) 02:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia SignpostWikipedia Signpost: 24 August 2009

[edit]

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 06:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Mercury-Atlas 8

[edit]
Updated DYK query On September 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mercury-Atlas 8, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 11:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NowCommons: File:LST-314 loading.jpg

[edit]

File:LST-314 loading.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:LST-314 loading.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:LST-314 loading.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18th VGD

[edit]

Hello my name is Steve Stange, aka Zt692 who posted on the site for the 18th Volksgrenadier Division. I am new to this so my understanding of Wikipedia editing is rudimentary. All Volksgrendier Divisions in WWII were tactically attached and detached to Heer units, and directly subordinated to the Reichsfuhrer SS Heinrich Himmler. I am in the process of writing the unit history of the 18th and included in that work will be quite a lot of general material on the Volksgrenadier divisions. I appreciate any feedback you may feel free to give me.
This is exactly one of the very subjects I will tackle in my book, the desire to create a 'Heer' divisional unit based upon much of the selection criteria and leadership subordination used for the SS, and the actual reality on the ground and why this effort fell short in the final months of the war. 

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zt692 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Eyre

[edit]

Hi there. I noticed that you had proposed this article for deletion recently. I agree that he's non-notable, but I have already proposed it for deletion in the past, and been rejected (see [1]), and an article cannot be proposed for deletion more than once. I have instead taken it to Articles for deletion; your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stephen Eyre. Robofish (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan to me; we've got too many of these articles, and I've been meaning to address the problem for a long time. In fact, I've just found another one I think is non-notable, and have nominated it for deletion; your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody Dunn (2nd nomination). Robofish (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put me foot in it...

[edit]

Greetings Shimgray - sorry to hassle you but you mentioned that if I had any doubts re. marking as patrolled you'd be happy to respond, so here goes: I recently created a new article (Edward Malefakis) and while over at New pages saw that it was marked as unpatrolled. Out of curiosity I clicked it and saw that it got marked as patrolled. That is when a doubt set in and I headed off to read through the guidelines again. And yes, there it clearly states that an editor cannot mark etc., etc. What's my next step? Will I get struck off for trying to game the system? Is there a bot that will revert my marking? On tenterhooks. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - sigh of relief! --Technopat (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC) PS. I understand now why you winked in your original message - I was already spending a worrying amount of time editing Wikipedia, and while it hasn't quite yet doubled...[reply]

DYK nomination of Battle of San Marino

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Battle of San Marino at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! doncram (talk) 09:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

STS-8 revert

[edit]

I just reverted your recent change to the STS-8 article, and I figured that I should actually come here to your talk page and mention something about doing so, rather then simply leaving an edit summary about it. The primary reason that I've reverted is simply based on the fact that all (well, all that I've really looked at) of the STS pages include the wake up calls (actually, I just looked and STS-7 doesn't have a section, but STS-41-B does). The songs that are used, as well as the fact that NASA has this tradition, is widely reported by third party sources, and has been going back to the Gemini program. Those are the policy/fact reasons I can give for the revert, but on a more er... personal level(?) I wouldn't have even looked at the edit because I recognize your user name, and I know that you know all of the above. The edit summary: "this section is really quite trivial - I don't think it adds anything at all to the article or provides any information for the reader" just grabbed at my attention though, and made me say "huh? what's going on here?". I'll give you this much, the wake up calls section on that page needs (at least formatting) work. Most of the others I've seen are fairly well developed, but this one is decidedly underdeveloped. I don't see that as a good reason to simply remove the whole section though. Anyway... I'm willing to be talked into this being a good idea, I think that some explaination is warranted though.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... now that I'm really looking it seems as though about 1/3 of them have a wake up calls section, and the rest don't. All of the really recent flights seem to have it, but it's really hit or miss beyond that. The ones that do all have that reference to the history.nasa.gov pdf document though... and I don't think that we should loose that, even if it is decided to somehow refactor the section.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 00:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Battle of San Marino

[edit]
Updated DYK query On September 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of San Marino, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 00:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Seltaeb

[edit]

"remove [sic] spuriously accurate [an oxymoron?] inflation-adjusted figure, make [sic] round number". (Shimgray's edit comment)

Why did you think this will help, and why did you not discuss it on the talk page?--andreasegde (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AbuseFilter 204

[edit]

Is this no longer needed now? No hits since August 22. Prodego talk 01:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed

[edit]

interesting page you created in your userspace. As the gnome who's been tending to WP:Citation needed for the last few weeks, I was initially skeptical, but this is actually some nice content.

I have long wanted to move WP:Citation needed to Help:Citation needed. Maybe we could move the current page to Help: , and put your content into WP:. Then you could get your content into the WP: space without it conflicting with the purpose of the Citation needed page, which is to be brief and direct. (Of course the [citation needed] template would be redirected to point to Help:.)

Thoughts? Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 05:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 September 2009

[edit]

fyi car>automobile

[edit]

Discussion here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Renaming_articles_with_.22car.22_in_their_title_to_.22automobile.22 --Typ932 T·C 19:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia UK Newsletter - September 2009 Issue

[edit]

Summary: This month, our Initiatives Director explains our Initiatives, we update you on our Membership (including some new benefits for members!), keep you informed on our Charity Status application, and update you with our regular sections regarding Other Chapters' Activities, Press Coverage, and UK Meet-ups!

In this month's newsletter:

  1. Initiatives
  2. Membership
  3. Charity status update
  4. Other Chapters' Activities
  5. Press Coverage
  6. Meet-ups

Wikimedia UK is the operating name of Wiki UK Limited. Wiki UK Limited is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. The Registered Office is at 23 Cartwright Way, Nottingham, NG9 1RL.

Delivered by Mike Peel (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By word of mouth...

[edit]

Greetings again, Shimgray - a month back you kindly thoughtfully granted me autoreviewer rights and I reckon I've pretty much lived up to the high responsibility, i.e. no List of names of bartenders appearing in B movies so far :) .

There's another editor, User talk:Cosprings, I often meet up with on articles I frequent who I know would be of great assistance to Wikpedia if he also had autoreviewer status. S/he's beaten me to the draw on more than one occasion by creating an article that I'd been meaning to create but never got round to doing. I was going to propose this editor directly but thought it better to ask him/her first if s/he were interested, and the answer has just come back in the affirmative, so if you have a moment to spare to have a butcher's, I'm sure you'll agree. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that!--Technopat (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 September 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 October 2009

[edit]

proposal for autoreviewer

[edit]

Greetings Shimgray - you kindly followed up my proposal to grant autoreviewer rights to an editor I proposed recently and I was wondering if you would care to do the same for another editor I reckon could make good use of same. The editor in question, Mikenorton, points out that the Wikipedia guidelines suggest 75 articles while

I'm a bit shy of that (54 disregarding redirects to date).

and far be it for me to dictate Wikipedia policy, but I reckon the track record speaks for itself. Cheers, --Technopat (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive number of new articles...

[edit]

Greetings Shimgray - ever since you brought the New pages link to my attention (!) I keep coming across editors who I reckon could make good use of the autoreviewer function. The latest is User:Johnlp, whose impressive track record is at:[2]. Hope that these nominees don't create too much extra work for you - look on the bright side: in the long run it will probably leave you with more time for other stuff :) Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'll try to use the new responsibility with care! Johnlp (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

[edit]

Greetings & thanks!

[edit]

Greetings Shimgray - thanks for taking the time for those. I'll try to exercise a bit of self-control and not hassle you over the next coupla days with new requests. Unless, of course... nah! Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I realise that there is a real world out there, but since you kindly (!) introduced me to the new pages lark, it seems ever so far away...--Technopat (talk) 23:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks from me as well to you both. Mikenorton (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article nomination for Inner German border

[edit]

I have nominated Inner German border as a featured article candidate. Thank you for your earlier feedback on the article - please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inner German border/archive1 on its suitability as a potential featured article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wp:citation needed

[edit]

Hi Shimgray,

I've been a wikignome at wp:citation needed for the last few months, and it interests me that you've created User:Shimgray/Citation needed, which contains material which gives historical/cultural background on the topic. Although I'm not a big fan of having the material on the page, I have seen a lot of people express interest in it, and I don't think I could rally a vocal majority on my side.

The thing that does trouble me, though, is the idea of a wp: page containing a reference to the userspace -- since the former has an official tone, and the latter is more casual. It just seems a little awkward.

In an ideal world, your userspace article would appear in the articlespace under citation needed. I would fully support that, actually. Of course I expect you'd meet a lot of resistance from people who believe strongly in wp:self, and unfortunately, I don't have the time to take part in that debate.

But here is a compromise you might like. What if the current material in the wikipedia space is moved to the helpspace, and your userpage is moved to the wikipedia space. (This would require re-writing the code for {{citation needed}} to point to help:citation needed). Then the hyperlink at the bottom of help:citation needed would point to wp:citation needed rather than to User:Shimgray/Citation needed, and my whole hangup about tone would be resolved.

This is just an idea for you to chew over, and if you like it, you can act on it yourself. I suppose if you were looking to rally support for the idea, you'd look to Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy). If you're looking for points to make in defense of the proposal, I think the text at wp:citation needed really does fit better in the help:space, since it's written for newbies -- it's more tutorial material than policy material. The wp:space could then have the liberty to describe {{citation needed}} in exhaustive detail, ranging from usage to policy to the historical material on your userspace page.

Yours to consider. Peace!

Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 21:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

[edit]

HMS E18

[edit]

It may interest you to know that the wreck of the sub has been found. As you seem to have done a lot of work on the article, are you in a position to improve the referencing? Many paragraphs are unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury-Atlas 8

[edit]

Hi Shimgray. This is not an attempt to rush you, but I wondered if you have any idea how long it's likely to take you to track down the last couple of points on the GA review? I'm wary of letting it drag on too long...

Should I have a look for sources to support "it was beginning to seem as though the two sides were roughly equal" or the follow-up to that I suggested in the 'broad' section? You probably have better ideas of where to search than I, but I'm willing to lend a hand if you think it'd be helpful. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, it would be nice to get the GA done this weekend. Well done again for all your work on it! Olaf Davis (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

[edit]

Did I forget to thank you? ..

[edit]
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

[edit]

As I see you've noticed, I've passed the article. I had a lot of fun working on it. Any plans for anything similar in the near future? Feel free to let me know if you'd like a hand with anything.

Happy editing! Olaf Davis (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amorymeltzer‎

[edit]

Now the RFA is live if you want to punch in that !vote again. I jumped the gun there the first time around, as I should have waited until he answered the questions and accepted the nomination. MuZemike 22:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

[edit]

STS 129 (deletion of Launch Attempt and Tweetup Info.)

[edit]

1. Consider reinstating the Launch Attempt Table. Reasons; Although succeeded, first attempt is still an attempt!. It is rare that a shuttle liftoffs on its initial attempt. Most importantly, the Table reported weather forecast information on launch date. Hence, if the Table is kept as deleted, the weather information must be added some where in the page.

2. Deletion of Tweetup information. This is the first time that NASA had arranged such an event. Hence, (though it was not added by me) I think this will be interesting to the Wikipedia readers.

152.226.7.201 (talk) 07:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reinstated the first-ever Shuttle launch tweetup to the article. It is notable on many fronts and I added the AP article on it and several facts the bolster my reason for reinstating it--21 U.S. states represented & 5 countries incl. Morocco & New Zealand. First-ever launch Tweetup. Unprecedented tour of Kennedy Space Center (not the Visitor's Complex, the actual Space Center) which generally only VIPS get, not members of the general public as all of the 100 #nasatweetup attendees were. Unprecedented access to view the launch from the National Historic Site countdown clock, including this group photo taken by NASA HQ's photographer, Carla Cioffi -> http://www.flickr.com/photos/nasahqphoto/4111455630/, etc. While I agree the section could use fleshing out, it in no way warranted being deleted altogether. - Ageekgal (talk) 09:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Andrew Gray. You have new messages at Navy blue84's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--NavyBlue84 13:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

[edit]

wikipedia process

[edit]

I once suggested to an administrator about writing a "how to"/rulebook for Wikipedia and he essentially told me to fuck off. I later found out that a Wikipedia trustee had exactly the same idea and is/was working on putting all the rules in one place, particularly for newbies.

About the problem of the target of the merge not wanting it, perhaps we can develop a simple flow chart. AFD keep means keep, delete means delete. If merged then the arrow goes to the merge box. If partial merge is the desired, then the arrow directs the reader to the talk page. If none of the merged information is acceptable then the arrow goes to either deletion review or a 2nd AFD is submitted (if we want this).

What do you think? Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problem: If an AFD is to merge, the editors in the receiving article may not want the merged text (might want 0% of it, not just some of it)

After thinking it over, I think the best way is for the adminstrator to "ask" the object/target of the proposed merged if they are willing to take it. If they take some of it, then merge is ok. If they don't want any of it, then the administrator can take that into account about whether to keep or delete. The administrator can "ask" the receiving talk page maybe 2 days before closing. This doesn't have to be policy but just common courtesy. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me

[edit]

Hi you just edited a page I created for our lab and I had an image I wanted to add but it isn't letting me. I'm new to editing and creating pages so I was hoping you could help. It's the Infectious Disease Pharmacokinetics Laboratory (IDPL) at the University of Florida page. Thanks Bmahjoub —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmahjoub (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

[edit]

The Times on the Iraqi Army

[edit]

Hi Shimgray. Are you still in a position to find articles from The Times? I'm looking for a couple in 1959 (January 7, p.9) and 1974 (March 19, p.7). Best wishes for Christmas anyway. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

[edit]

Hello

[edit]

At Talk:List of wars 1945-1989, I'm suggesting to merge List of wars 1945-1989 with List of wars 1900-1944, and then add 1990-1999 wars. I'm suggesting this so it could include all 20th century conflicts and not be broken up. Your input (hopefully in my favor) would be appreciated. B-Machine (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Frederick Stovin

[edit]
Updated DYK query On December 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Frederick Stovin, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

[edit]

Royal Society

[edit]

I assume this edit summary was deliberate? :P. Ironholds (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I assume you'd say that even if it wasn't :P. Would you be interested in helping me out with something? *Evil grin* Ironholds (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
behold, probably the greatest potential legislative article in history (if AGK pulls his finger out and does the third of it on Scots law, since he's the only Scots lawyer I know). Unfortunately, I'm crap at Hansard-finding. Mind searching out first/second/third readings and the lot for me? I'll shove em in myself. Ironholds (talk) 16:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You won't be able to find the second Commons reading - there wasn't one! The government assumed that it'd be uncontroversial, and so simply pushed through without a formal debate. Cosmic irony then being what it is, the Bill stirred up a shitstorm of controversy at the Committee stage. Ahh well - if it was my party in power... :P. Any luck pinning down who introduced it? Ironholds (talk) 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting; ta! Ironholds (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

[edit]

Unreferenced BLPs

[edit]

Hello Shimgray! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Charles Howard (equerry) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. Peter Francisco (snooker player) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

[edit]

Review

[edit]

Thanks for leaving the review for Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602-628. I'll try to work on the lead and grammar editing. Thanks again. DemonicInfluence (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASA aircraft

[edit]

Hi Shimgray, I just wanted to let you know that I've started editing List of NASA aircraft. I see that you've contributed in the past, so I wanted to invite you to come back and collaberate on building the article, if you're willing. Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS.: I saw the PROD of NASA one, which is what prompted me to return to the List of NASA aircraft article, which I spun out of the main NASA article months ago and then abandoned (shame on me! ). I ended up merging and then redirecting the content that was in the NASA One article into the list. I saw that you removed some content about NASA One from the list article earlier, and the merge pretty much preempts the deletion, so I hope you don't mind. I think that it's better this way, and you did get me to return to the list article anyway. I'd look forward to your input on the list article.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 20:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

[edit]

My RfA

[edit]

Hi Shimgray. I just wanted to say a quick (and somewhat belated) thanks for your trust at my RfA - I'll try not to prove you down. Hope your editing's going well. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick Stovin

[edit]

I've started a GAR of this article and wonder if you can find a picture somewhere?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

[edit]

DYK for Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628

[edit]
Updated DYK query On January 22, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602–628, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Ucucha 06:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Boyle Roche

[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Boyle Roche/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 25 January 2010

[edit]

File:Replace this image female.svg listed for deletion

[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Replace this image female.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gnevin (talk) 18:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regiment changes

[edit]

Hello
Thanks for your note. I noticed that the hostilities-only regiments had a couple of different forms (some with full name and some with date of formation) so I was trying to make them consistent. I also thought it was worth differentiating them from the "permanent" regiments, as the items in the category seemed confusing otherwise. Is there a forum for discussing changes with British regiments? I could see some things that needed doing, so I thought I'd get on with it. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS I'll leave off doing them until I hear from you. Xyl 54 (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again
Did you have any more thoughts on a standard disambiguator for the temporary regiments? I'm asking, as I’m minded that these aren’t the only ones. (The 95th (for example) says this was the sixth regt bearing that number) so I was thinking we could do with a dab page for all the numbered regts, listing the previous incarnations and the basic information (like the ship pages (eg HMS Surprise) or the numbered U-boat pages (eg U-142).
That way any entities with a small history can stay on the page (like HMS Surprise (1799), or SM U-142): I doubt if there’ll be enough interest to write a full page on them, but it resolves what would otherwise be a gap in the sequence.
The corollary would be to lose the pages we were discussing altogether; unless one of them had a decent history (I noticed one of the 84th Regiments was pretty active). What do you think?
( I had some other thoughts, I've put them below. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"not a stub"

[edit]

Regarding recent changes you've made to the class of certain articles, I agree that they are not stubs, but shouldn't you be assigning another class in place of stub? I'm not an expert on the assessment process and I don't know the standard practice. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I feel some of the same reluctance to rate articles. — John Cardinal (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft v. Lindows

[edit]

Would you move Microsoft vs. Lindows to Microsoft v. Lindows? Thanks -- C. A. Russell (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 February 2010

[edit]

Regiments, again

[edit]

Hello again
I was interested in doing some more editing on the British Infantry Regiments pages, but have hit a bit of a wall, so I thought I’d check back with you.
I notice we have articles on most of the pre-1881 regiments, as well as their post-1881 incarnations ( which is fair enough, there’s more than enough history between 1881 and the present (or 1958, if that’s the case); I was minded to check through and, where necessary, make the changes. Some of the named/county regts may need splitting, for example (Sherwood Foresters is the most obvious example, but there may be more) and some of the numbers might neeed a page, even if it's just a stub. (On the subject of "temporary" regiments I've replied above.) I was also thinking we should have a “British regiments prior to 1881” category, for all the numbered regts.
What do you think? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got your note; I’ve replied there, for continuity. Xyl 54 (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another reply, there. Xyl 54 (talk) 04:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just to let you know, I've added an update. Xyl 54 (talk) 03:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS numbers

[edit]

Hey Shimgray, I was reading over this. I was asking Amory about the very thing the other day, and if the two of you can come up with some charts for strategy within the next month, that would be very, very useful data. Thanks for spending all that time on the talk page explaining quality! Keegan (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ...

[edit]

For your reasoned, sensible analysis at the Orion page. Happy to leave it out.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BS

[edit]
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For helping me to solve the mystery of the double spaced text! Thanks! CTJF83 chat 19:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 February 2010

[edit]
[edit]

It seems that you use my interwiki translator script. I have modified it a bit, so I suggest that you replace the half of your monobook js page starting with 

//
// [[User:Manishearth/languagetrans.js]]
//<br />

and ending with:

for(i=0;i<googlangs.split(",").length;i++){
 if(lname.indexOf(googlangs.split(",")[i])!=-1){
  return true;
 }
}
return false;
}


with: importScript('User:Manishearth/sidebartranslinks.js') Thanks. ManishEarthTalk • Stalk 10:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pour toi

[edit]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Wiki-train. Ironholds (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 February 2010

[edit]

Regiments, yet again

[edit]

Just to say I've looked at 60 to 80: I noticed you'd moved some pages in the 50's but I wasn't clear what; are these to move lists on nnRoF to nnRoF (disamb)? Do you think that's the best way round? (I queried it [[User talk:Xyl 54#(outdent)|here). The alternative is to have the list on the RoF page and lose the dab pages. Let me know what you think, as there's some between 60 and 80 need doing, either way; I can do them tomorrow if you like. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can go with that...Xyl 54 (talk) 14:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done: I've put something stubby for the 83rd, 85th and 94th Rgts. That's me for the night...Xyl 54 (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--
Hello! (sorry, I’ve been away for a bit) I thought I’d better check back with you on this, though it seems you’ve pretty much covered it now; well done! Xyl 54 (talk) 16:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Army

[edit]

Now it reads The British Army is the most advanced in the European Union ! This is crappy nationalistic bull shit. First From turkish people trying to say their army is th largest in europe, and now from a Brit trying to say the British army in the most advanced! Politicaly Russia and turkey are not european, thus it is ok to mention the BA is 2nd largets in europe. Rademire (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 February 2010

[edit]

Mozilla Add-ons

[edit]

Would you move Add-ons for Firefox back to Mozilla Add-ons? User:SMcCandlish moved it to "Add-ons for Firefox" under the mistaken assumption that the site's name was changed (probably after visiting it in Firefox, unaware of the user agent sniffing in use that redirects users to the add-ons section for the appropriate application). Thanks. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 03:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re. User:Shimgray/RAF

[edit]

You may know this already, but just in case: squadrons numbered in the 400-489 range were never officially "RAF" units; they were RCAF, RAAF and RNZAF units formed, staffed and commanded according to Article XV of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan. Cheers, Grant | Talk 02:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 March 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 8 March 2010

[edit]

Not stubs

[edit]

Hi. I have noticed that you have been going around removing assessments from article talk pages on the basis that they "aren't stubs". It is great that you are able to identify that the assessment is wrong, but would it be possible for you to correct the assessment rather than remove it? If you are not sure what the assessment should be but feel it is better than a stub then feel free to bump it up to start class.
However, if you prefer to continue just removing the assessments, can you please at least avoid removing the empty parameters like in this edit? Retyping the parameters just adds more work for the assessor. Thanks. Road Wizard (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

[edit]

Thanks for reclassigying William Gott. I only opened the article to get a picture for Nigel Poett, only to find there wasn't a decent picture. Then one thing led to another, and twenty minutes later I'd uploaded a new photo and added an infobox. I might have bash at getting poor old 'Strafer' into a better shape after I finish Poett. Can't find much about him on my bookshelves, though, which is a shame. Skinny87 (talk) 20:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's incredibly kind of you, shim. I've been wanting to read Clark's book for a while, but I'm rather brassic at the moment. If you hold onto it for a little while, I can send you something for it. Skinny87 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Email away with the details. Once again, very kind of you. Anything I can help you with on here, as thanks? Skinny87 (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just got the book in the post. It looks brilliant, and I can't wait to start reading it. Email me if you're ever down Chichester or the South-West and I'll buy you that drink! Skinny87 (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 15 March 2010

[edit]

Pepper v Hart

[edit]

this discussion/comment request may interest you. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 22 March 2010

[edit]

63rd Regiment of Foot (disambiguation)

[edit]

Hello, just to let you know that this page has been nominated for deletion using Template:db-disambig; one entry was deleted per MOS:DABRL, which left only one entry. Best wishes, Boleyn3 (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 29 March 2010

[edit]

91st Regiment of Foot (disambiguation), 93rd Regiment of Foot (disambiguation)

[edit]

Hello, just to let you know that these pages have only one link (other removed per MOS:DABRL) and so have been nominated for deletion using Template:db-disambig. Best wishes, Boleyn3 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom general election, 2010

[edit]

Could you unprotect this please? The election is announced now so the original reason has lapsed, but you semi-protected it for 2 months. --Pontificalibus (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I should have noticed that, sorry! --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 April 2010

[edit]

Kurt Meyer (soldier)

[edit]

Hi! Since it has been established that the accusations against Meyer are indeed in Beevor's book, would you mind undoing the delete of my insertion of that fact in the article? As you know, I can't very well do it. And I take it you don't think I would quote correctly from Beevor's book and then for some reason supply the wrong page number. Beevor's source (given in a footnote) is Peter Lieb: Konventionelle Krieg oder NS-Weltanschauungskrieg? Kriegführen und Partisanenbekämpfung in Frankreich 1943/44, München 2007, p. 159. Ojevindlang (talk) 15:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Ojevindlang (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010

[edit]

This doesn't seem to be justified, can you reconsider it please? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your detailed reply, I see your point, and it is a fair one. However unprotection has been requested on WP:RUP by 81.111.114.131. They have also been discussing the article on the talk page in some depth, so there is at least one IP editor who wants to make constructive edits. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for No. 219 Squadron RAF

[edit]
Updated DYK query On April 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 219 Squadron RAF, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egg on face...

[edit]

Urgh... not sure how that mix-up happened; please accept my apologies for the inconvenience. I usually always check for the sysop bit, but for some reason neglected to do so yesterday. (For the record, it appeared that Je was the one edit warring and that you were just trying to contain the problem.) Thanks for being such a good sport with respect to the errant note. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 17:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 April 2010

[edit]

Ahem!

[edit]
"WP:WHACK" redirects here. You may be looking for WP:Wikipedia is not Whac-A-Mole (WP:WHAC).
Not to be confused with Cod throwing.


Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earn warnings and blocks.

Example

[edit]

Whack!
The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.
To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

[3] HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping no-one had noticed that little accident... er. Shimgray | talk | 15:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. It happens to the best of us sometimes. At least you didn't delete it! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heathen vs Pagan

[edit]

There's actually a few reason I specifically chose the word Heathen: besides it being the native English term (from Anglo-Saxon hǣðen), it's also the very vocabulary that would have been used by the people in question, as well as how in modern times, "Heathen" is coming to mean specifically Germanic paganism, to distinguish it from other forms (Saami, Baltic, Roman, etc). Finally, the article is relevant to modern Ásatrú Heathens. Also, I feel that the name should be capitalized, as it is now very much a name as opposed to a mere description (as well as capitalizing it would give equal respect to both factions. consider how much ruckus would be caused if an article on race were to have White but also black). —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 17:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. While it's not universal, it's growing more in that direction. The term Heathen was made "bad" by Christianity, as it was this term which was used in English biblical translations (simply the author using native English speech). As a side-note, "lust" once simply meant "joy" as it does in other Germanic languages, but was "demonized" by means of the bible as well. In any case, Heathen is being "taken back," especially in the last 10 years or so, but this "taking back" began in the 1970's. Take it easy. —ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (ᚷᛖᛋᛈᚱᛖᚳ) 20:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 April 2010

[edit]

Template:Ice hockey/Task force categories

[edit]

Could you unprotect Template:Ice hockey/Task force categories as the page has no longer been used since April 2009 when the Template:Ice hockey page was converted to use WPBannerMeta. Thanks -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 April 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 3 May 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 10 May 2010

[edit]

Greetings again

[edit]

Greetings Shimgray - just a curiousity - no urgent need for answer. I'm newpage patrolling and came across the following message at Treborth Botanic Garden:

Cannot mark as patrolled

You need to specify a revision to mark as patrolled.

Return to Main Page

which, as it says, takes me back to Main Page rather than, for example, New Pages. A bug? Or is there some simpler reason? Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. Don't worry - won't lose any sleep over it. Famous last words... --Technopat (talk) 18:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 17 May 2010

[edit]

And again...

[edit]

Greetings Shimgray - Just came across an editor, User:Geoboe84, with something like 450 articles created and asked him/her if s/he'd be interested in autoreview. Could you please do the honours. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 24 May 2010

[edit]

Ernest Brooks (photographer)

[edit]

Hi, I have begun a review of your GA nomination and have entered some comments at Talk:Ernest Brooks (photographer)/GA1. Regards, Xtzou (Talk) 20:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has passed. I had a great time looking at all the photos. Thanks for introducing me to Brooks! Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 14:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 31 May 2010

[edit]

Andrew Thorne

[edit]

How is Andrew Thorne not a stub? It is very short. It only covers some years of his life, and even important events during those years (Norway) are not mentioned. Geschichte (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 June 2010

[edit]

Moonie and Moonies

[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure who is right on this question. I think most people who look up the word "Moonie" are looking for the article on the Unification Church itself, not the word. Just like if they looked up Mormon they would probably want the article on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not an article on the history of the word "Mormon", as interesting as that might be. I opened up a discussion on Talk:Moonie (Unification Church). Thanks. Wolfview (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Action at Néry

[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Action at Néry at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 June 2010

[edit]

DYK for Action at Néry

[edit]

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010

[edit]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Rosetta Barnstar
For helping me in a impossible slang translating! Boy, you've been scooped! Vale maio (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010

[edit]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010

[edit]

AfD nomination of Paul Vunak

[edit]

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. jmcw (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010

[edit]

Please consider participating in the deletion discussion for Category:Poetasters

[edit]

Category:Poetasters has been nominated for deletion here. Last January, you participated in the previous deletion discussion (which resulted in a no-consensus keep), so you may have an interest in this one. Please consider participating. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Andrew_Gray/Archives/8&oldid=1166522118"