User talk:Cerejota/Archives/2010/July

TU issue
Hi. Could you have look at Korean Teachers & Education Workers' Union? I removed an obvious pov passage, but I think there might be other problematic passages as well. --Soman (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Soman (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Another issue, which might be of interest for you is Articles for deletion/Venezuelan nuclear program and related edits regarding WFTU, WFDY, etc.. --Soman (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure man, nice to collaborate ;)--Cerejota (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 18:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
The June 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

israel and apartheid
re: this edit.

speaking as mediator, I need you to do two things: If you don't handle this fairly quickly I'll need to do it myself - last thing I want is to let things get out of hand. -- Ludwigs 2 06:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) refactor this to a simple statement, and move the argument to the discussion section below.  the 'arguments against' area is not the place for you to make an actual argument like this.
 * 2) If you're going to contribute to the mediation, please sign on to the mediation, and read and abide by its rules.   it's not the correct place for a free-for-all discussion.


 * Eh, I've gone ahead and hatted your comment - you can remove the hat and cot templates when you have moved things around and signed onto the mediation. -- Ludwigs 2  07:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Any interest in peer reviewing the Rosetta Stone article?
Hello there:

I saw you listed as a peer reviewer who *might* be interested in the the subject of the Rosetta Stone. It has undergone extensive revisions in the past month I am looking for potential reviewers who can ensure that it will be able to pass Feature Article review.

Hope you can help. Cheers! Captmondo (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)