Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Logophilia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JD554 (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, that was a template I didn't know about. --JD554 (talk) 14:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Sharlett, Have received your message. Thank you for illuminating the global society as to the great contributions of Norwegian, Dr. Abraham Vereide. These notables of world history must need be emulated in our century. Mr. Coe seems also to be a man of generosity and magnitude of soul in his broad work helping the discouraged and repressed, the world over. Like Vereide, history, I believe, will record his deeds with nobleness and may we too, leave a pathway marked by service to mankind. Cordially, Ivan Anderson Ivananderson (talk) 12:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Sir, Have received your message that you are on the staff of Wiki and that you are not prominent writer, Mr. Sharlett. It seems that there is no identifying title to distinguish your responsibility. I make strong effort to write with accuracy and to manuever the electronic tablets with best endeavor. Cordially, IvanIvananderson (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Pinch, I made some accuracy edits to the organizational page of the Norwegian social innovator who founded the para church organization: Fellowship Foundation. Strangely you did not regard these edits as valid. Please review your opinion against the documentation of the two biograhies and the archives of Billy Graham. You may find that what I have written is historically true. Cordially, IvanIvananderson (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have copyedited the article according to each one of your suggestions; even scrapping about two dozen instances where there was a "Villani" and replacing it with a pronoun. I think you'll like the general clean up which follows the advice you've proposed here.--Pericles of AthensTalk 01:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great! The League of Copyeditors will handle it from here; they're good at what they do, hence the name. Lol. ;)--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Guyinblack25 has performed a copy-edit to address your comments at the aforementioned article. I've been attempting to solicit the aid of a member of WP:LOCE (see my talk page), but will defer to whether you believe the prose is sufficient. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR(Converse) 22:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any comment on whether the copy-edit is sufficient? Sephiroth BCR(Converse) 08:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I've been goldbricking shamelessly on this task for a while. :) OTOH, perhaps getting caught up on the (overt) backlog was good for project morale (one can at least hope). I'll do a batch tomorrow, time-permitting. Alai (talk) 04:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Running now. Enjoy! Alai (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia:Missing science topics/NIST Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Happy Editing, Dustitalk 18:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, and stand corrected. I saw a large amount of text removed, saw the warnings on your userpage, and assumed vandalism. Please accept my apologies and Happy Editing, Dustitalk 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since nothing was happening with the ANI, it got auto-archived to here. I thought it was waiting for the user to agree to your proposed course of action and/or report on how much they had "undone" before being stopped, but perhaps it was waiting for something else. The user's talk page got inadvertently mis-archived, but I pointed it out and it's back, should you need to refer to it later. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to tagging the categories, you need to add the categories to the nomination on the CFD page. Just edit the nomination, copy the line :[[:Category:Fictional characters by religion]] - {{lc1|Fictional characters by religion}}<br /> and substitute the subcategory name for the parent category, e.g. :[[:Category:Fictional Christians]] - {{lc1|Fictional Christians}}<br /> for each of the subcats. Otto4711 (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry, saw one of the subcats tagged and just wanted to be sure you knew the whole process. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big deal at all, but did you inadvertently sign your comment on the arbitration page from the wrong account? Just per your userpage, you might want to change the signature. (I'm thinking very carefully about your comments, by the way.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A new round of discussion has been proposed in order to resolve some of the outstanding issues regarding the Core list. Since you've already participated on the talk page, I thought you might be interested in joining in! Happy editing, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pichpich. Is there any formal procedure involved in reviewing categorization? or is it just a matter of removing cat if OK or else categorize as usual? I was cleaning Batavia Downs, but decided to keep the review cat, just in case. – Leo Laursen – ☏⌘ 10:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that your userpage announces that this is an alternate account and won't get involved in policy. Did you always have that attitude, or is it since December last year? Relata refero (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if that came across as unclear - the actual question was asked because I was one of the people (probably a majority on that talkpage at that time) arguing on WT:SOCK for language that continued to permit legit alternate accounts, and also permitted those accounts to edit project-space. I rarely come across alternate accounts that are so carefully playing by the current excessively restrictive rules, though, so I wondered if you had had any input on that debate, or it had affected your attitude at all... Relata refero (talk) 14:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey mate, serendipous and some other fixed the prose problems on the Oort Cloud article. Would you take another look and see if there is something more to be improved? Samuel Sol (talk) 14:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could I get your opinion on something ? I noticed you opposed at the The Chronic FAC and I agree with what you said. I have been working on Doggystyle and it is currently up for Peer Review, and I was wondering if you could look over it and see if there's anything that needs improved to bring it up to FA status, Thanks. - Guerilla In Tha Mist (talk) 13:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I noticed your comments at the Couples for Christ and related articles.
Okay, I understand your concerns. However, I hope you could put them in a more constructive manner. I am contributing in those articles, and I admit that those articles are far from perfect, but your way of pointing them out (by labeling them as "glorification pieces", among others) is a bit too aggressive. (Well, they appeared aggressive to me, which is troubling because experienced users aren't supposed to frighten newcomers.)
So, I would like to solicit from you what can be done to improve those articles, so that soon they would be more objective and less glorifying. I hope you can reply; I'm new around here (relative to you, since I only joined in February of this year), so I would like to learn from experienced users like you.
Lists and categories supplement each other, not replace each other. Both can and do exist for the same subject area, as each has their own benefits and drawbacks. Removing the political section of List of United States magazines and linking to a separate article is fine, but not sufficient. No one maintaining the current list has seen fit to make the fine distinctions you propose. The fact that a WP article (which is supposed to be supported by published fact) says that a magazine has a certain political stance is sufficient for me to put that article into a category: I use no other facts to put any any article into any category than what the article itself says. The fact that American liberalism has many shades is not an argument that American liberalism does not exist and that American liberal "whatevers" (such as magazines) do not exist and should not be categorized as such--if it can be listed it can be categorized. No different than the corresponding American conservative "whatevers", which continue to exist--as they should--without these deletion challenges, which I see as completely POV based what is said in the deletion discussions. Hmains (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI when using twinkle; it tends to choke up when creating XfD's, either messing up the link on the XfD listings or on the page itself. I dont pretend to understand how, but it creates a working link (right syntax and address) that somehow displays as a redlink. It can be fixed by editing the page and then just clicking "save page" without changing anything. Problem solved! I find it's best to check the page over after using it just to make sure. Ironholds 01:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and would you be able to post the name of your main account just for clarities sake? Thanks!Ironholds 01:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no: that was sort of the point of creating an alternate account. But if curiosity is killing you, I can email you the details. Pichpich (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your additions to India Edwards; she is pretty interesting, isn't she? You're right, it is kind of sad that no one had made an article for so long, I didn't know about her until I stumbled over her obituary on the New York Timeswebsite. Anyway, thanks again. Cheers! Hawk08210 (talk) 01:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for cleaning up the Archie Bell & the Drells albums. I plan to add more info to the first four and to other AB&D albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.16.158.235 (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Let me know if I can help. Pichpich (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
we've edited the article on belgian buddhism. would prefer it if it doesn't get deleted. thanks.
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from [[{{{1}}}]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
Artibuxi (talk) 09:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Without a Trace episodes, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you consider taking further discussion of Speer to the article's talk page? That way it is widely available to readers when the FAC closes. Also, the FAC is getting very long now and I'm afraid we're discouraging potential supporters who don't want to read through all that and will go on to look at other articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Pichpich, I've been doing some peer review style work on Millenium '73 too and came across this little encounter. I see this more of an argument over semantics rather than any serious sockpuppet issues. However, I think a quick note on the user page saying this alternate account does wikignoming on FACs may prevent these types of flare up happening in the future. Take care! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This post is in response to the deletion of the recently posted article on the new musical What Happened to Eden. We have edited the page so that it no longer expresses that it is in the "concepts" stage, for the musical is very much underway. We understand that the name of the author is not well known, but would like to point out that an article on the Author would not be relevant, while the musical is perfectly adequate for the website. As for it not being staged, there is nothing we can do about that now, but please recognize that talk is currently underway for the Detroit Opera House; and it is also expected to be shown at a more local off-Broadway venue by Winter.
Hi - noted your edits on A, dealing with people who are now on Wikipedia. Good to have more people looking at this list!
Most of the list is fairly good on blue links now, I'm doing some sorting of things into "not notable" and "notable", which is kind of a judgment call, and creating an occasional biography. The easy stuff's almost all done.
note - when you update the top level counts like this, could you remember to update the numbers inside the comment and the total too, like this? It's so nice to see the percentage growing... --Alvestrand (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine with me, but I worked hard to find the confirmed games. I would like to have them put back if you don't mind.
Best, Tomkoolen 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC +2)
Thanks for uploading File:Bulletin cover (Belgium).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 06:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Logophilia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JD554 (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}