User talk:Bo

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

Thanks
I appreciate your comments encouraging me. I am pacing myself and I know how to take breaks so I should avoid burn out. LarryQ 13:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Spelling in Colonial America
Hey, no problem. I'm just doing some spell checking on articles I come across, sometimes even hitting the random article link to see what comes up. --Pigman (talk &bull; contribs) 02:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * bokonbos385@gmail.com 36.37.194.239 (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Number of British Colonies
Not that it matters, but there were actually 31 British colonies at the time.

I counted the ones listed in the British North America article, for 1775, and I only got to 20. Where the other 11 not mainland North America, or do we need to update the BNA article with the additional colonies? Bo 01:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Still Around?
Bo, you still around? You have not edited in a while. I appreciate the support and encouragement you gave me when I started here. I hope I can be equally supportive now. Anything I can help you with to help you regain some wikizeal? LarryQ 21:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:your email
Thanks for the email. Glad I could help.

RepublicUK will probably start an AfD on the article soon, so keep an eye on the article and don't forget to participate in the deletion discussion! Also, remember that AfD is not a vote; no matter how many show up in support, concrete references from independent sources will be needed to keep the article from being deleted. So you may want to be prepared for that. Good luck, and if there's anything you need help with, let me know. Kafziel Talk 19:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

RepublicUK
I have attempted to engage them but they have discourteously deleted my comments and then replied with uncivil sentiments. --Couter-revolutionary 14:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC) I'm just suggesting: Don't let the delete on 'his' user page get you flustered.

If the point you raise is valid, and well worded, raising it on the talk/discussion page will do the trick. And his "I'm with the Republic UK" claim would give the administrators 'proof' of anti Realm bias. (They'll still find it if they look at his history, but now its gone from his user page, which might be all they would look at when the AfD 'vote' is tallied.) Bo 14:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Constitutional Monarchy
Sorry, I am new to all this, and thought you were the source of the bogus "and Lukis Monsterious" link, which I found still present after your edit, and deleted.Sheldon Novick 16:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Be careful about associating names with the 'vandal' word. Vandalism is a justification for blocks.  I too had removed the 'and Lukis' stuff.  Using 'diff' helps you see who did what when. (I actually RVV'd it twice for that same 'bogus link').

Proposed Micronation Wikiproject
I've published a proposal to gauge the level of interest in setting up a micronation Wikiproject, which I thought might be of interest to you based on your past contributions. Comments and suggestions are welcome: WikiProject_Council/Proposals --Gene_poole 02:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest. The project proposal above has been successful, so I would like to invite you to add your name to the new project page: WikiProject_Micronations. --Gene_poole 00:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't have to "do" anything if you don't want to. Wikiprojects are merely opportunities for those with shared interests to marshall their resources in order to improve the standards of a group of articles. Anyone can add to the list of tasks, take on any of the open tasks, or participate in any discussions as and when it suits them, here: WikiProject_Micronations. --Gene_poole 06:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Saalburg_01_s.JPG has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial. See our non-free content guidelines for more more information.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license GFDL-self to license it under the GFDL, or cc-by-sa-2.5 to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use PD-self to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Media copyright questions. Thank you.
 * It doesn't seem to have harmed the article much, and I'm frankly becoming disillusioned with the whole wikipedia mess. 'Speedy Deleting' an image that was up for a LONG time makes little sense to me - and 'blasting away' an image that I might not be able to reproduce (even if I wanted to) with out waiting to see if I would re-release under an 'acceptable' license makes even less - especially when the license was 'acceptable' when first I posted the image.

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sneads High School Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Sneads High School Logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Precision bombing
No problem. The voice of the article was admittingly a bit unusual so I suspected a copy-and-paste, so I searched a sentence and found the source. It seems sufficiently neutral, and my knowledge on the subject is slim, so I thought it'd be sufficient just to cite the article: it is indeed a major improvement from before, from what I read in the previous revisions. The real pains were finding the right attribution templates, and figuring out what the Chinese word for building implosion would be so that I can fix the interwiki link that somehow landed on this article. ;-) Kelvinc (talk) 06:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate Image:Dbwf fullarms.gif
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Dbwf fullarms.gif, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Dbwf fullarms.gif is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Dbwf fullarms.gif, please affix the template 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 here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

modifying other users' comments
Please don't break up comments in talk pages to reply point-by-point. In general, comments in talk pages should be regarded as sacrosanct; it's not ok to edit other peoples' comments as a general rule. I would much have preferred if you would not have broken up my comment into little pieces here: and I'd like to request you not to do that again with my comments. Thanks. Tb (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to work collaboratively
I appreciate your taking the time to work on User:JamesMLane/Robinson sandbox, but there's really no point in continuing. My idea was that all of us would collaborate to create the RfC with a fair and concise statement of each position, and that only after that language was in place would the RfC be posted. Instead, however, Banjeboi disdained participating in that process and posted the RfC unilaterally. A few people responded before I could even present my side.

The RfC is now in full swing. Banjeboi's action has rendered the sandbox page a dead letter. I personally don't intend to work on it any more, despite the time I already invested in it. JamesMLane t c 11:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:DBWF Flag.png
Thanks for uploading File:DBWF Flag.png I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org permissions-en@wikimedia.org].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Mission partner status?
Hi Bo. I saw this edit you made to the ACNA article, but it's missing context. You mention "mission partner status" without explaining what "mission partner status" is and why it needs to be mentioned in the article. You may know what this means, but most Wikipedia readers will not. Please add some context. Ltwin (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It means, among other things that their Bishops won't be part of the college of Bishops, (they'll avoid the 'dual citizenship issue, by remaining under Rwanda, not ++Duncan). Should I add a paragraph in 'structure' to cover 'Mission Partners' to explain it, or try to work in the 'explanation' in line with the addition?


 * Hmm. That's tough. IMO, it would depend on how much information about mission partners there are. If there's alot (Are there more institutions that have mission partner status with ACNA or is AMiA the only one?) it may need to be given more attention in the structure section. Don't the CandC's mention mission partners? I think it did but I'm not sure. This is interesting to me. Where did you get this info? Does this mean that AMiA will not be a "diocese, cluster, or network" of ACNA? We may need to talk about it in the structure section, but I think for now just mentioning it at the addition will be fine. Also, I'll copy this discussion on the ACNA talk page. Thanks for the reply. Ltwin (talk) 00:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sourced from Episcopal Life, Virtue Online and Stand Firm, a communique from AMiA Bishop and a 'letter' from ++Duncan. Yes, it means that'll not be a 'diocese, cluster, or network' (they hold a 'nine diocese count' in the college of Bishops at present).  Yes the C&C mentions them (Mission Partners).  The other 'mission partners' at present as I understand it are Seminaries that aren't ACNA only (Nashota House and VTS, I think).


 * So if I understand you, the nine dioceses currently of AMiA will not be represented in the College of Bishops and this takes effect in June. How do you think the AMiA's holding out of full membership will effect ACNA? The Episcopal Life, Virtue Online and StandFirm articles should be online. Do you know the specific links to those pages? We'll need sources. Is the AMiA communique and letter from Duncan online by chance? Thanks again for the info.Ltwin (talk) 03:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The 'nine count' is via a 'network' rather than as nine dioceses (I think), and the status of the bishops at the Boston meeting is apparently that they'll be in the college until their change of relationship is approved by the college.

Episcopal life spins as 'the beginning of the death' of ACNA (of course), SF takes it as 'the Rwandan Connection' is firm (No questions about being in the communion as a Bishop in the HoB of Rwanda), and Rwanda the 'friends on the same journey' is probably a 'good thing', Virtue had just the 'news' bit when I was there. The only one I book marked was Stand Firm (unlike the other two, SF seems to have a wide range of opinions represented). I haven't seen Duncan's letter except in 'excerpts' by the 'spin masters' at Episcopal life...

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/26099


 * Nothing on the ACNA's site right now, but the AMiA's site has the Communiqué. I suppose we should go ahead at write about mission partners in the structure section. Later, like after the AMiA's status officially changes, we'll need to explain this in the history section. But that'll probably need to wait until this actually takes affect. Also, the AMiA's page will need updating. Ltwin (talk) 04:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:DBWF Coatofarms.jpg


The file File:DBWF Coatofarms.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:BWF fullarms.gif


The file File:BWF fullarms.gif has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:BWF Flag.GIF


The file File:BWF Flag.GIF has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Superseded by c:File:DBWF Flag.svg."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 12:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)