User talk:CJ/Archive 15

Removed links
Dear Cyberjunkie - can you please let me know why you systematically removed the external link I added to 4 pages (links to Indendent Crown of Australia Network) only a few hours after I added them? Have I broken some rule? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thungarra (talk • contribs) 11:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC).
 * I actually did more than just remove your external link; I took the opportunity to trim the links to the most relevant/appropriate. My reason for removing your link is twofold: firstly, that it was added systematically to several articles was an indication of spam; and secondly, I believe the best and most balanced approach to avoid a slippery slope is to limit links to advocacy groups to the major players. The guideline is External links.--cj | talk 08:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

ACOTF - NSWRFS
Thanks for fixing that for me. I will try to be more careful and attentive in the future.--Mattinbgn/talk 04:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No problems :). The instructions weren't very clear.--cj | talk 05:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
That's exactly the way these things are supposed to work - the insulted party shows restraint, whilst an uninvolved party takes immediate and firm action to uphold standards. Hesperian 03:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Meatball:DefendEachOther :-)--cj | talk 03:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right on! Hesperian 03:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Meetup
Don't know if I can make it to the meet-up, being so young and at school and all. Tell all the Wikipedians I wish them luck though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sven the llama (talk • contribs) 15:32, 24 March 2007

Revived discussion concerning fair use in portals
I am contacting everyone who participated in the discussion that became inactive in December. Due to the length of the previous discussion, I have proposed a new amendment and you like you to weigh in so that we may actually have a consensus on this matter as it doesn't seem there exists one either way. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria

Peter Debnam
Don't you think you were being slightly pedantic changing the date back. I think most people would prefer the American date format anyway.CEP78 06:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I don't.--cj | talk 06:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh?
Sorry but I do not understand why you gave me a warning. I didn't edit any articles! Disruption?! What the hell are you talking about?! Thelegendofrogi 21:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Stalking
Cyberjunkie, you seem to be stalking my edits, removing my poor spelling, correcting my capitalisation, grammer and addiction to innapropriate apostrophes.....thank you. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just watching my watchlist ;-)--cj | talk 00:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Continental map
Hello. I based the animated map on the 7 continents model that was already part of the article. I can easily correct the map, just tell me what to correct and I'll do it. Do you want me to correct only the 7 continent model or also the 6?

In the 5 contients model the islands of the Pacific (north of Australia and NZ) are considered part of Oceania. "Australia" is not the name of the 5 continents. Alex  Cov   ( Let's talk! )  01:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi again. I will do the changes. However, in the 5 continents model (mainly used in Latin America and parts of Europe like Spain and Italy) the continent Australia just doesn't exist. Instead it exists Oceania, but it does include the islands of the Pacific. Of course this only in this particular continental model. I'll do the changes in the others models. Alex  Cov  [[Image:Flag of Mexico.svg|15px]] [[Image:Black ribbon.png|10px]] ( Let's talk! )  01:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi! If you're able and comfortable, can you peruse and weigh in at Talk:Continent when you get a moment? I really don't know what this editor is trying to prove; read the discussion and carefully review the article edits/reversions to see what I mean. Thanks. Corticopia 10:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems a pointless edit war. Fortunately, it seems to be coming to an end. Please just avoid commenting on the contributor.--cj | talk 15:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes -- I hope it ends soon. Do you have a preference for a proposed arrangement?  Thanks for the input.  Corticopia 15:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not particularly. I would still like to see the map corrected (to show Australia's actual bounds), but that's rather a separate issue.--cj | talk 15:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I actually thought about including just a map (in the animated one or what have you) where the continental mainlands are highlighted only (e.g., excluding islands like British Isles, Japan, West Indies, Malay Archipelago, Tasmania etc.), and yet another (more complex) one which exhibits the lands and their continental shelves (which is also a geological criteria).  I think these can still be fulfilled somehow and somewhere in that article without sacrificing anything.  Merci!  Corticopia 15:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

YGM
Scuse the insert - theres an email I would appreciate you looking at SatuSuro 14:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding.--cj | talk 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Gylfie
Hi! You just deleted Gylfie under A7. I don't think it applies - the article is about a fictional character in a series we have an article on, A7 specifically says "real person". Perhaps the article shouldn't be merged into the article on the series, but I don't think it should be speedied. --Tango 14:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Tango. I think it's clutching at straws to dispute the deletion on that basis. Regardless of whether it was a real person or a fictional character, the article failed to "assert the importance or significance of its subject".--cj | talk 14:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Being a character in a series is an assertion of significance. The character is clearly significant in the series, and the series is significant enough to have an article. I think that's enough to protect the article for being speedied. What kind of assertion would you expect for a fictional character? None of the assertions we use for real people are relevant. --Tango 14:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would expect something asserting the significance of the character to the game itself or external to it (say, in popular culture). You're welcome to reverse my action, of course, but I don't feel it was incorrect.--cj | talk 16:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Page move vandalism
Thanks for trying to fix this mess. Given the talk page at Talk:Tourism in Thiruvananthapuram, it appears the article at Tourism in Thiruvananthapuram is missing. Gimmetrow 14:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Restored. Should be fixed now.--cj | talk 14:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you delete this edit where I screwed up? Gimmetrow 14:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I'm still waiting for the devs to improve the interface for selective deletions, because it sucks...but I digress.--cj | talk 14:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks. Gimmetrow 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Far out, this guy could give us a break. – Riana talk 14:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Much work, much work :/ At least WoW was somewhat humorous...--cj | talk 14:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and just a quick note to keep an eye out for any personal info this guy inserts (he's out to get Sir Nicholas de-Mimsy Porpington, inserted his details into an ANI post a few hours ago, only just got oversighted). I'm off to bed now, thanks for the help. Cheers, – Riana talk 14:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

 * Thanks for voting in my RfA. I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns.  I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor.  Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockipsuccesstext
Oh have a sense of humour, its viewable by admins only! :P Viridae Talk 11:02, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your idea of funny is not everyone else's, and it certainly isn't an excuse to vandalise.--cj | talk 11:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * April fools day, its a wikipedia meme and its viewable by admins only. No harm done, just because you don't find it funny doesn't mean everyone doesn't (as evinced by a couple of reverts to that version apart from mine). Viridae Talk 11:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If even one participant finds your edit disruptive, you should cease immediately. I, and several others, do. To continue to disrupt behind the guise of April Fools day is unacceptable; your personal satisfaction is not that important. --cj | talk 11:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting take on events. Serious lack of a sense of humour here. So much so that not only do you avoid having fun yourself in the spirit of the day, you must stop others from doing the same. Viridae Talk 13:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you need to re-assess your priorities. If your devotion to April Fools day – which is not celebrated universally – drives you to be disruptive and generally uncivil, I would suggest that devotion is misplaced.--cj | talk 13:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * In no way was my change disruptive, it simply changed the wording of a message that only an administrator that has just blocked someone will see. It did not affect the usability of the page and nor was it overly obtrusive. Far from devotion to the day, this is the only thing I have done . Finally, while not universal, it is largely universal to those countries where english is the primary language ie England, Australia, America and this IS the english wikipedia. Viridae Talk 13:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree strongly that the change was not disruptive (it caused an edit war) or obtrusive (it completely detracted from the established format). I would dispute further your conception of universality, but too much time has be wasted on this issue already.--cj | talk 13:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow. The above so closely mirrors conversations that I had yesterday that it's almost scary. Anyway, Cyberjunkie, I just came here to thank you for helping to counter the April Fools' Day vandalism. I was labeled a humorless killjoy too, so I know how frustrating that is. —David Levy 04:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw your predicament on the day too. I was just so amazed by the irrationality of many seemingly good contributors. Until next year...--cj | talk 11:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Aust AfD notice board
Cj do mind leaving the Ian King discussion up there for a day or so, I suspect my closing may be a little controversial have a read, since I applied commons sense and evaluated it based on the arguments presented not the number of "votes". Gnangarra 14:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course not. You did the right thing, in my view.--cj | talk 14:31, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Anon edits at my talk page
I appreciate your edits to remove the anonymous comments at my talk page, but you needn't have bothered. Comments, even misinformed ones, are welcome on my talk page as long as they're not abusive, obscene or totally off-topic. Rocksong 02:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well. I just viewed it as trolling, in light of the anon's other contributions.--cj | talk 02:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:AUS hierarchy
Orderinchaos78 approached myself several days back at my talk page about the possibility of layering WikiProject Australia to assimilate Wikiproject statistics to contribute to their parental projects (example, WikiProject Perth contributes to WikiProject Western Australia). The discussion is here. Have you got any magic remaining up your creative sleeve that could get such a device functional? I'm busy for the next few days and haven't had a good chance to sit down and thrash out this decent proposal. Comments? I must add that your recent changes to the template at WP Australia are most welcomed also. I noticed a growing trend to streamline the template and your edits brought the project to the front of things with ease. Cheers. -- Longhair\talk 14:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed that discussion, and was thinking about it in the context of WP:ADEL. I have been considering reforming WP:ADEL into a WP:SA, as it would unsustainable to maintain both, and a need for WP:SA is becoming clearer. At the same time, it would be useful to retain Adelaide statistics for more focused editing. I'm not yet sure how we would integrate child (ADEL) statistics into the parent's (SA), whilst retaining the grandparent's (AUS). A possible crude hack might be to simply piggyback the parent's assessment categories on the child parameter. Thoughts?--cj | talk 15:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your ideas above sound good to me. I've had a fiddle with multi-level assessments, using WA and Perth as a starting point. No luck yet, but I feel I'm close. WP:SA sounds like it's an appropriate step forward considering other states have formed such a project for themselves. Once my head gets back into gear and feels able to look at code again, I'll take another look at the assessment side of things. I prefer to do that kind of work early in the morning when I'm alert, and not at the end of a long day :) -- Longhair\talk 11:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Television External Links
Hi Cyberjunkie, I am currently involved in a discussion concerning the IMDb and TV.com links in Infobox Television, however the consensus reached in the discussion seems be reverted when applied. A consensus exists at the main Television WikiProject (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television). May I please ask for your assistance in the matter, to allow for the issue to be resolved as soon as possible. Thanks. Stickeylabel 09:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Stickylabel. I'm not sure how much assistance I'll be, but I'll add my bit to the piece at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. I'm reluctant to make a change to the actual template, however. Thanks, --cj | talk 10:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cyberjunkie for your assistance :). However, would you be able to recommend the best course of action in regards to this issue. As can be seen here, there seems to be alot of reverting. I have also added the discussion to the Village Pump, however there seems to be no response. It is just that I am not sure what the appropriate circumstance would be, that I would be able to make the neccassary changes to the template without being constantly reverted by the same person. A high percentage of discussion participants can see a geniune reason and consensus for the sections removal, and believe that the discussion is going in circles and is not resolving to gain an outcome, however there are a few wikipedias that persist to revert changes, stating that there isn't a consensus. Stickeylabel 11:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think at this point it might be useful to hold a survey or straw poll.--cj | talk 13:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review of 'Outlook Redemption'
Hi. I was in the process of updating the above page which was under threat of deletion, but you deleted it before I was finished! Can you re-instate it so I can complete the noteworthiness. Thank you. Please post to my user page too.--peterl 01:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter. I've moved it into your userspace at User:Peterl/Outlook Redemption so that you can work on it. Let me know when once you've established notability, and we'll see about moving it back to mainspace. Thanks,--cj | talk 01:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How's it looking: User:Peterl/Outlook Redemption.--peterl 05:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied at user talk page.--cj | talk 10:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Done a bit more research. How's it now? peterl 11:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Replied at user talk page.--cj | talk 16:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of our popular Wikipedia page Omerta (MMORPG)
I would like you to put our Wikipedia page 'Omerta (MMORPG)' back online. You deleted it!

Go delete World of Warcraft's page, go delete pages about television programmes made by commercial companies! STAY OFF our page.

FYI Omerta is a volunteer-lead project which has a bottom-up volunteer organization of 250 people running it - not some half-assed teenage code-hacker NOR a greedy commercial company. WE are proud of what we put together and that is why we have people working on the Wiki entry.

My I add to the mix that the game at the heart of our 2 million regsitrant online community is TOTALLY Free to play. There are NO Advertisments, no subscriptions - we pay for the servers etc PURELY by voluntary contribution and those who contribute towards the cost ate given NO ADVANTAGE over other players.

In the light of this please reconsider your rogue action in deleting our hard work. We feel that we belong in Wiki a long way ahead of commercial organisations who charge for their product.

Omerta - coded and run by it's own community, no Ads and no spamming - Wiki deleted by oh-so-radical Cyberjunkie WoW - coded in Korea by commerical 3rd party studios for an American publisher with a STARTER budget for advertising of over $100 million

Now who is the advertisment - they have 8 million and we have 2 million. We don't NEED and advertisment - we DO want our article back in place please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.100.231.149 (talk • contribs).


 * Please respond to my polite request instead of just deleting it.
 * I might add that I was a little peeved to get into the office this morning and find our deletion. Since then I have had a good troll around Wiki and found many MMORPGs listed - admittedly most are smaller and/or more commercialised operations than our own, and advertisments from everything like Coca-Cola and Mickey mouse downwards. I still think that your arbitrary deletion of thw Wiki page we have carefully maintained these last three years is wrong.
 * I hope that when you wake in your time zone that you will relent and return our page - I stress again that it is there for pride, not as an advertisment. We get about 3k new registrations every day and do not need spammy ads anywhere. We do like Wiki though and we like it that we are in Wiki - well - we were until yesterday.
 * Please reconsider :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.100.231.149 (talk • contribs).


 * The deletion was not arbitrary. It was done in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. You've not provided me with any valid reason to reverse my action. Have a nice day,--cj | talk 10:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Have a nice day is some kind of perceived wind-up I guess? We are not based in the States but in Holland and the UK, with volunteers accross the globe. Think again, cobber! :)
 * Under which criterion is that deleted and how on EARTH's name does 2 years count as 'speedy' deletion?
 * Is there any kind of appeals process to which you can refer me?
 * WILL you be deleting the pages of commercial MMOs like Eve-online and World of Warcraft?
 * 'We have not provide you with any valid reason to reverse your action' - I see that rather the other way around. What *is* your reason to remove our page? It is NOT an 'advertisment' it is an informative page about the Web-game and community which we collectively manage.
 * Do I have to repeat this in block caps to get a straight response?
 * NB Stacks of 'adverts' for small scale commercial projects in Wiki - plenty of 'ads' for intensively commercial big-budget productions and we - a volunteer lead, bottom-up organization are deleted because you say you 'can'?
 * I call that unfair - and I don't accept it either. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.100.231.149 (talk • contribs).


 * If your project really is notable, then somebody outside of your project will create an article, with 3rd party sources. Writing about your own projects makes it impossible to write in a manner appropriate for an encylcopedia, using a Neutral Point of View. Nobody believes that every article that is on wikipedia belongs here but we do our best to work towards this. ...maelgwntalk 13:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that Maelgwn :)
 * Our Wiki entry was created 2 years ago by player-members of our community and has since been added to by both players and volunteers alike.
 * They found it significant enough to undertake that. We consider ourselves to be a radically structured organization more like Sourceforge than Blizzard - both of whom *may* feature on Wiki... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.100.231.149 (talk • contribs).


 * I've listed the article for a deletion debate.--cj | talk 16:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. May we take part in that debate - how do we take part in this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.100.231.149 (talk • contribs).


 * Given you have a conflict of interest I would recommend against participating in the debate. If you do, please first read WP:AFD. --cj | talk 03:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Doba (company) page deleted
You deleted a page about the company, Doba. This article was carefully writen to be encyclopedic and informative. The reason WP:CSD#G11 does appear valid or legitimate. The main and clear purpose of this article was to provide information about a company and it's orgins. The information provided was useful and similar to other company pages (Omniture, Flexsim, Media Play in Wikipedia.

The reason WP:CSD#A7 also is not viable. The use of this reason appears rather subjective. I can provide plenty of information to state othewise, if desired. Please reinstate the article or substantiate the claims you have made for deleting it. I disagree with them, and encourage your feedback and relisting the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ryskis (talk • contribs).
 * Hi Ryskis. While I feel the article did fall under the criteria, I've restored it as matter of good faith. I've listed it on AFD for wider input.--cj | talk 10:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
 * CJ, I appreciate the measures. We'll see what the community has to say. Ryskis 16:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Re meetup on 23 April
Thanks CJ. I wasn't aware of it. And I don't read my messages too often these days either because I'm not very invovled but I think breakfasting with Jimbo is worthwhile. Ta -- Donama 23:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good to see you're still about Lisa. I hope to see you there :)--cj | talk 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Libel
''Do not make allegations against someone unless you have provided evidence from a reliable publication, and then make sure you describe the allegations in accordance with our content policies, particularly Verifiability and No original research. Don't rely on hearsay, rumours, or things you believe without evidence to be facts, and don't use sources to create a novel narrative, as you did in 9am with David and Kim. Wikipedia requires reliable sources for all claims. Please see our policy on biographies of living persons. If you continue to introduce defamatory remarks to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thanks, --cj | talk'' 11:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Would you please kindly advise which of my statements was defamatory. This is not transparent to me, as I for one did not
 * intend to issue defamatory remarks
 * due to the wholesale nature of the removal of my contribution to the article have no clue which part thereof was considered defamatory.
 * Further to that, apparenmtly a number of people were envolved in this issue, a transparent, public discussion is nevertheless not traceable.
 * To this point I feel compelled to regard this as a point of arbitrary censorship, but am comfortable to learn.
 * That, on a note of interest, the main illustration to the article, an official Ten release, documents issues which I have noted in fringe discussions to the article (but not within) is cheerfully interesting, albeit, it matters not. The wordcount of pictures is always uncertain, unless you trust the song. Oalexander-En 19:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * CJ - I would kindly appreciate a reply at earliest convenience. Regards, Oalexander-En 12:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Alex. I'm not sure what you're getting at in the second part of your message, so I'll simply address the issue at hand. First off, it would be greatly useful for our discussion to ensure that you are familiar with Wikipedia's policy on biographical material about living persons. It is because of that policy, and the policy on libel, that I am reluctant to (and advise against) repeating precisely what was written. It is these policies, also, which guided my action. The specific reference which aroused my concern was that which alleged a host of the programme possessed certain intellectual deficiencies. This sort of statement, without a reliable source, has the potential the land Wikipedia and the editor responsible in trouble (à la Seigenthaler controversy). Regards, --cj | talk 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad to having received some reply now. Thank you cj. Nevertheless, I believe, that only the offending part should have been removed then, and not a number of further other amendments too via a wholesale revert without trace. I still think this was administratively inappropriate.
 * The co-operative nature of the venture ahould also be owed that contributors are given a better hearing in such cases. I pride myself a great number of contributions including numerous new topics - not only in EN, but also DE and PT, and IP only signed even in ES. However my record in EN alone should more than substantial enough to consider me a reliable contributor, that should not lightly be accused by fellows of vandalism. This after all, is about the grossest statement that can be made here about one another.
 * I surely believe that there was quite a bit documentary relevance in my amendments, aiding to understand the subject matter more thoroughly. Therefore I will re-issue a suitable edit. For the sake of good order I shall then make arrangements to give you an opportunity to a preview so as to avoid any after the fact quagmire.
 * Also, I haven been aware of the by now longstanding policies re biographies of living people, which I find generally meaningful and I go so far that they should in as much this is possible also be applied for biographical content regarding deceased people.
 * I'd respect your early acknowledgement of my reply. Cheers, Oalexander-En 15:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have not once accused you of vandalism, nor have I suggested you intended to defame anyone, so I'd greatly appreciate if insinuations otherwise are avoided. Furthermore, I must reject the characterisation of my action as "administratively inappropriate". All revisions I have removed from the page history either contain the offending section or were made in the context of its presence (ie, reverts).
 * You are, of course, welcome to edit the article freely, just so long as your edits are in accordance with our content policies. I'm personally relieved that you are familiar with WP:BLP; it is becoming more and more vital to Wikipedia's credibility – with more controversy just this last week. Happy editing, --cj | talk 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

CJ: You have not accused me of vandalism. With stating that I was accused "by fellows of vandalism" in this matter, I in no way intended to imply this was you. Rather, this was User:Michaelbeckham, who would have sent you on the scent. If there is any way to construe my statement to imply you, which I suppose should be difficult, I formally re-iterate that is a misinterpretation and apologize unreservedly for having caused a misunderstanding and a wrong impression about you.

The term "administratively inappropriate" may have been too strong, I nevertheless sincerely feel that your action was also too strong. Well, that's the semantics bent into shape. Can we carry on now and try to mimic human beings.? Happy administrating ;), Oalexander-En 15:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- ForteTuba 13:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal talk:South Africa
Hey, can you help me out... all shall be explained in here Bennelliott •  Talk  •  Contributions  15:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Municipal Tramways Trust
Left or right image. What was the difference? (aside from the edit conflict it caused as I was almost finshed on a minor addition/ tidy) Ozdaren 07:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style recommendations.--cj | talk 10:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

comments
Thanks for the tip. If I think of something to say, I will put it there. Fred 12:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Meet up
Thanks for meet up message. Would love to come but will be o/s plus I have lost my internet connection and will be netless for the next year. *waaaah* Frances76 07:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Gordon Cheng
I've added sources if you want to recheck the article. JRG 13:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)