User talk:CharlotteWebb/Archive/002

Your edits to NY 1A and NY 2
Your recent edits to New York State Route 1A and New York State Route 2 violate both WP:GTL and WP:NYSR. Please consult both pages for the proper layout of these articles. Thanks. --T M F T - C 03:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps yours violate WP:OWN. Could you explain what it is you find objectionable enough for a full revert? — CharlotteWebb 04:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how WP:OWN plays into this, as I have little to no personal affection, for lack of a better term, with those articles, nor did I create those articles. My edits are made only to comply with the two policies I mentioned above. As for why I reverted, I'll explain.


 * 1) There's no need at all for a "See also" section containing a link to a list of the state routes, when a link in the infobox does the same.
 * 2) At WP:NYSR, we use "References" for a header, not "Notes" or "Notes and references", or any variant.
 * 3) Some of your edits rearranged the lower sections in violation of WP:NYSR, and thus WP:GTL (since WP:NYSR is compliant with WP:GTL).
 * For discussions regarding the above points, particularly point 1, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York State routes/Archive 1. --T M F T - C 04:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Bow tie
Hi,

You may have an interest, since I saw your name in the history list of the Bow tie article: There's a separate article, List of bow tie wearers and an admin is suggesting deleting it. When I looked into the Bow tie page, I found there's already a list there. I don't have an opinion on which list should remain, but one really should go. I'd appreciate your advice on the Talk:Bow tie page, if you're interested and have the time.Noroton 00:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 9th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 16:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources
It looks like most of the sources you have been citing are books or other matter not available online. Could I persuade you to migrate these to the format outlined in WP:FOOT/Cite.php? This would make clear which portions of article content are supported by which sources. It is important (for various reasons) to know what goes with what, but it with a dozen books in a clunky summer reading list, it becomes difficult to verify even one statement, and impossible to do it quickly. — CharlotteWebb 16:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice on the citing of books. I am pretty busy with work at the moment, so I will get onto improving the references when I have some spare time.  In the meantime, if you think it better, I am happy to delete the references until I can update them properly.  --Chaleyer61 03:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well if you remove them somebody might assume the entire article is unsourced content, and that would make things worse, possibly. As it is now, we only have to worry about bogus content being added, and later editors taking no action (not reverting) because it appears that generic references are intended to pertain to the article as a whole. Just a thought. — CharlotteWebb 03:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually you have raised an interesting issue. One of the challenges in trying to develop a verifiable timeline for fifth century BC Europe (or China/India for that matter), is that the primary sources are very few and far between (e.g. in the case of southern Europe and the Middle East, a small number of Greek and Roman historians who mainly wrote a century or two after the events occurred).  Also, these historians were not particularly accurate when it came to clearly identifying the year, let alone the date, of an important event in ancient European or Middle Eastern history.  So any timeline is really based on the best interpretations by various modern authors of the information from these primary sources.  Therefore, I have tried my best in adding information for these particular years to not only look at material I have available from various academic and popular texts, but also to try and match the dates to information already on Wikipedia that seems to be reasonably authoritative.  The last thing I want to do is see more inconsistency between information provided under each of these years based Wikipedia articles and information that is contained in historical articles on ancient Greek and Roman cities and towns or articles about famous Persians, Greeks and Romans. So some of the changes I have made to information for some of these years mean that now dates match what was already in Wikipedia (e.g. birth dates and dates of deaths of famous individuals).  So the issue for me is that for historical periods as old as the fifth century BC, what is acceptable from a Wikipedia point of view in terms of authoritative references when any information about the likely year of an event will be subject to controversy and/or uncertainty?  Or should we put some sort of qualification at the bottom of the information for these early years to indicate to readers that all years (let alone dates within a year) should be taken with some caution and should not necessarily be taken as factually accurate?  --Chaleyer61 10:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 16th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Qiryat Gat
You did a "Reverted edits by 69.199.119.144 (talk) to last version by 213.42.21.75" on the Qiryat Gat article. The material added by the anonymous author 213.42.21.75 was really quite good and some parts of it are vital to any sensible account of this town. But this person has probably gone over the top and added too much. Furthermore, this anonymous account (which could be several different people) seems to have been accused of vandalism according to their talk page. WP:NPOV might be better served with a version that only covers the bare bones of the ethnic cleansing of the town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.146.112.233 (talk • contribs) 22:49, October 20, 2006

Hmm... You're probably right. I did not see the first edit (with the descriptive edit summary), only the second one, but incidentally I reverted both edits. I'd suggest that accidental reversion would be less likely if everybody edited with a registered account. — CharlotteWebb 00:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 23rd.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:15, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA
Thank you for supporting my RfA that I have passed with 73/2/1.--Jusjih 10:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Just letting you know...
...that I fixed your close of Articles for deletion/Foetry.com. I wouldn't have bothered with this post to explain what I did, but I copied your signature from the above section and timestamped it, and I've know some people who have cried "impersonation" etc. (not saying that you would - this was purely precautionary :D). I would have used, but considering it was closing an AfD, that wouldn't look too good. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn, thanks for catching that. Not sure what happened there. Let me know if I screwed anything else up ;). — CharlotteWebb 09:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 30th.


You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yogh?urt
I am bemused. How did you manage to find a ratio of 42.5:1? Did you misspell "yoghurt" when you typed it into Google or something? When I do a Google or Yahoo! search for the two terms, I get back a ratio of between 2:1 and 3:1. A Google fight brings back about 3:1. And Google results are not compelling evidence in any event, unless they are truly overwhelming one way, like they would have been had your 42.5:1 ratio proved correct. If the choice was based entirely on the population of people using a word, then the US English spelling would come out on top every time. But it's not, so it doesn't. - Mark 11:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I just read the talk on the discussion page for Yoghurt. I've noticed Google comes up with different results for different people, and I'm not sure why it does this, or how it reorganises links. Maybe it has something to do with that "Smart Search" function, and your past browsing history? Google tends to put Australian links at the top of my results now, even though I'm not searching google.com.au. Weird. - Mark 11:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Gender vs. Noun Class
Please be so kind and read my explanations and my evidence that genders and noun classes are two different things: Talk:Grammatical gender

Grzegorj 06:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to argue with your evidence because it seems quite irrelevant now. If these are two different concepts, it would be appropriate to create an article discussing each. Moving an existing article from one title to the other would make no sense (given the circumstances as you've just stated them). — CharlotteWebb 06:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are two different concepts. But the article treats about noun classes, not only about genders. Is this also irrelevant? -Grzegorj 07:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And have you noticed this? -Grzegorj 08:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for drawing my attention to that... wait... you wrote it yourself. Nevermind then. — CharlotteWebb 11:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo! vs. Yahoo
My name is BJ Nemeth, and we are currently involved in a discussion at Talk:Yahoo%21 about whether or not to use the exclamation point at the end of "Yahoo!" I'm addressing you here to clarify that we're arguing about the same issue.

I lessened my stance on the move from "Yahoo!" to "Yahoo" down from "Strong Support" to "Support." I'm still passionate, but I realized that the technical context of the discussion was the article title itself. Speaking for myself, I don't have a big problem with the exclamation point in the article title. My objection is with the punctuation showing up in the sentences inside the article. In my opinion, it creates confusing and distracting situations where a statement like "Mr. Smith bought 100 shares of Yahoo!" would be read as an exclamatory sentence, and weird punctuation combinations like "Yahoo!'s purchase of Company X." End-of-line punctuation (such as ! and ?) in the middle of a sentence is distracting and affects readability.

Here's one proposal: How would you feel about keeping the title of the article as "Yahoo!," and mentioning that as the company's own preferred usage in the introduction, before transitioning to the "alternate usage" of "Yahoo" in the rest of the article? Since you seem to be the most involved Wikipedian supporting the use of "Yahoo!," I wanted to get your input first before proposing it at Talk:Yahoo%21.

Thanks. :) BJ Nemeth 07:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would not have considered the mid-sentence punctuation issues to be a factor at all. Maybe I subconsciously read it as a six letter word, who knows. Anyway I look at it, it doesn't appear any more awkward than a comma or full stop looks when placed before a quotation mark (to people of a non-literary background anyway). I might write a sentence like this: The company's name is "Yahoo!". The other sanity-checking factors in relation to sentence syntax are more subtle, and the result of a wider context: It's an encyclopedia. It doesn't shout at you. It doesn't ask questions. :Hopefully it tells no lies either. Like a good lover, in a way. So, if I see any of these {!,?,‽} in an article I generally know it's part of a title, trade mark, proper name, etc., or part of a direct quote, or factorials, boolean operators, regular expressions, or some other non-prose. The risk of actual confusion, I feel, is grossly exaggerated. — CharlotteWebb 10:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That answers my question, and I think I have a better understanding of your position now. I'm afraid we still disagree, but there's nothing wrong with that. :) If you have any questions for me, feel free to ask. BJ Nemeth 13:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Neil Bush
Why do you keep reverting the Neil Bush article to an obnoxious version? The third party mentioned is dominating the article with negative links, and is opposed by several editors. Attempts to moderate keep being shot down. The article should be about Neil Bush and not Boris, but apparently someone has an agenda. Another note: Story they insist to dominate article happend over a year ago. Even if it were significant, it is not timely. Please consider your reverting policy so that a fair balance may be reached.Schlotzsman 14:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm also confounded by your silent reversions. Could you please enter the talk and explain yourself?BlazinBuggles 03:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Otheruses
Please revert yourself. All but one person on the talk page agreed the new version is an improvement. The word "uses" is ambiguous and needs to be clarified for the sake of first-time google visitors. If you don't like the new version, discuss it, don't revert. — Omegatron 16:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Rhetorical only, or were responsive answers desired?
Did you ask those questions because you wanted responsive and informative answers? If so, see above. Please tell me what your specific objection is to my statement that "other uses" could reasonably be expected to be understood by newbies to mean other uses of Wikipedia, and to my other specific objections to this obnoxious template. Michael Hardy 19:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 6th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?
Hey, you just reverted my edits on the New Orleans, LA page. Why? I live in New Orleans and I'm trying to get our page organized instead of having the info scattered all over the place. Wikiwopbop 01:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You removed a lot of valid information (including the pronunciation guide, the name etymology, and two category links) and did not give a reason for it . — CharlotteWebb 01:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my question (some RC patrollers don't even do this). Here are my responses: Anyway, the point is that I left my edit summary absolutely blank. Had I not done this, maybe I wouldn't have been such an obvious target for overzealous RC patrollers. Also, you guys do serve a very important role in making Wikipedia an excellent encyclopedia. Therefore, I am proud to award you the award attached below. Wikiwopbop 00:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The pronunciation guide: I deleted the local pronunciations because it reads as follows on my computer: "(local pronunciations: /nu????li?nz/, /nu????li??nz/, or /nu????l?nz/)" -- with no links to anything. Is this just because I don't have some sort of proper text installed on my computer? If that's the case, I've never had this problem before, and I'm sure many other people will have this problem as well.
 * The French translation (and corresponding pronunciation) of the word New Orleans: I deleted this because it is completely irrelevant in an English-language article about an American city.
 * The etymology of the word New Orleans: I cut the sentence about the fact that New Orleans "is named after Philippe II, Duke of Orléans, Regent of France," because this information is redundant -- it is already clearly explained in the history section (where this info belongs).
 * The two category links: I'll admit that you probably have a valid point regarding one of the category links. However, the other category is silly -- a category for former state capitals? How is that useful to anyone? Why not have a category on cities that end in the letter "s" and hundred's of other such trivial links? You have to draw the line somewhere. Regardless, this is something I should take up on the discussion page for that category.
 * As for the two paragraphs of the text that I cut from the intro to the article, that stuff clearly did not belong in the intro paragraph and was obviously put there by someone who is not familiar with Wikipedia. That stuff belongs in the proper subcategories and/or subpages... which is where I was moving it before I got the immediate revert from you.


 * I have no problem with moving content to subpages, but it would be a good idea to use an edit summary there so that somebody can look at the history and actually see where it got moved to. As for "Former state capitals", if you don't like the category, you could nominate it for deletion. But as long as a category exists, it should be kept fully populated with any articles, unless they more appropriately belong in some sub-category. As for the ??????? question marks instead of IPA symbols, get a real web browser instead of Internet Explorer, which I assume you are using. — CharlotteWebb 06:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm using Firefox. Any idea what the problem is? P.S. Thanks for posting my award on your user page. That's cute :) Wikiwopbop 18:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess try setting your character encoding to UTF-8 and/or downloading more fonts. — CharlotteWebb 03:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Redirect
Hi, I notice you redirected Distortion (album) to Distortion (disambiguation), and moved the original page to Distortion (Forbidden album) – however, what you may not have realised was that there were about five articles which now link to the disambiguation page instead of the Forbidden album page. I have fixed these now. Thanks. Bubba hotep 19:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I redirected it to the Distortion (disambiguation) page that I just recently created. I did this because that title Distortion (album) is still ambiguous. I found two albums called Distortion, and I moved them to Distortion (Rev Run album) and Distortion (Forbidden album). Previously one of them was at "...(album)" and the other one was at "...(Album)", which is bad for several reasons. Apparently each of the two articles was created without knowing that the other existed (Note: I found and fixed dozens of other cases just like this one.). Additionally there are probably other albums called Distortion that have not yet been written about under any title. Rather than making incorrect guesses about which link is supposed to go to which album (especially if some of the links are supposed to point to articles that don't exist yet), I figured I would leave that to somebody who is familiar with the content. An ambiguous link is better than an incorrect one, but I assume you know what you are doing, so thanks for your help. — CharlotteWebb 06:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I was pointing out the fact that you maybe didn't check the What links here page after moving it. I have no problem whatsoever with the move, in fact I am 100% behind it. It's just 5 more edits you could have had! Bubba hotep 08:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that
That's some pretty fast vandalism reverting on my userpage there. Good catch. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input
Thank you for taking part in my RfA. The RfA was not successful, mostly because I did a pretty bad job of presenting myself. I'll run again sometime in the next few months, in the hopes that some will reconsider.

In the meantime, one of the projects I'm working on is A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook. This is a wikibook how-to guide intended to help new administrators learn the ropes, as well as to simply "demystify" what adminship entails. If you are an administrator, please help out with writing it, particularly on the technical aspects of the tools. Both administrators and non-administrators are welcome to help link in and sort all of the various policies regarding the use of these tools on wikipedia in particular (as well as other projects: for example, I have almost no experience with how things work on wiktionary or wikinews). Users who are neither familiar with policy or the sysop tools could be of great help by asking questions about anything that's unclear. The goal is to get everything together in one place, with a narrative form designed to anticipate the reader's next question.

A second project, related but not entailed, is a book on wikimedia in general, with a history of how various policies evolved over time, interesting trivia (e.g., what the heck was "wikimoney" about?), and a history of how the wikimedia foundation itself came about and the larger issues that occurred during its history (such as the infamous "Spanish Fork").

Again, thanks for your input on the RfA, and thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide for the handbook. -- SB_Johnny |talk|books 13:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 13th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My userpage
Hi, thanks for reverting "vandalism" on my userpage...added by a friend it seems in good taste, copied from a site listed in Google with a search for Gary Kirk - it isn't me though! — Gary Kirk // talk! 09:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you know how to warn users?
I noticed you have been reverting vandalism without warning the user that posted them. It is generaly a good idea to do so. I noticed that several users above have questioned why you reverted their changes. Their questions may be more specific or simply "I'm sorry" if you warn them. Warnings also allow admins to track who needs to be blocked. There is a page that you can add users to if they have a level 4 (final) warning on their talk page. Once on that page, if they have their final warning, the user gets blocked.

I don't want to be condensending, but this might help. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Depends on what the real goals are. I don't want to be condescending either, but I edit for my own enjoyment. If an IP's talk page is taking longer to load than the article I've just reverted, there's a good chance I'll close the tab and move on, because I'm already seeing more stuff to revert. Firefox is nice that way. Version 2.0 ships with a spell-checker even. I love it.
 * I know all about WP:AIV, though I'm surprised you do.
 * Of course, whenever I'm not even dealing with vandalism (like right now), I spend a fair bit of time sifting through short, low traffic articles about things you've never heard of. Sometimes I find little surprises that have gone undetected for over a day, but a belated warning would clearly be a wasted edit.
 * Maybe you're upset about something in particular, but it was probably five hundred odd edits ago, so I'm not going to worry too much about it. Worrying about the flippant comments of others is unhealthy, and makes Charlotte a dull girl, and an unproductive one at that. Now if you and your sig-monster could excuse me for a while... — CharlotteWebb 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Redlinks in Freedom
Hi. I notice you've put the large numbers of redlinks, which I'd commented out, back in the above. I see your point about encouraging article creation (although I don't really see the need for articles about specific, not particularly notable songs called 'Freedom'). But the way the page was before and now is again, it gets multiple additions, from mostly anon users, of every random use of the word 'freedom', the whole time. This swamps the page with pointless redlinks. So, I'd like to put it back the way it was. Thoughts? Cheers, Sam Clark 10:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The songs should probably be redirected to the article about the album they were released on. That way, if an article about the individual song is created, all of the pages previously linking to the redirect will immediately point to the most specific article without the need for serial changes after the fact. If something completely useless gets added, just remove it. But any distinct, legitimate topic should be listed, whether an article exists yet or not, or whether it's been merged and redirected somewhere, because sometimes articles get unmerged. It's not possible to know in advance which cases this will apply to. — CharlotteWebb 11:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Eleutherion "Greek for 'Freedom'" is probably one that need not be included. Two of the albums might be removable — if we don't even have an article about the artist/group, we may not ever have an article about their albums. But the remaining entries appear perfectly legitimate. In particular, the the geographical locations, the towns named "Freedom", should never have been commented out. — CharlotteWebb 11:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 20th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Db for malls
Hello! I see that you have removed the speedy deletion tags from a series of mall articles created by in a spam campaign which have got him blocked. You rationale is that the articles need "cleanup not deletion". I have to say that I find this quite puzzling because I really don't know what kind of cleanup you might have in mind, except maybe complete rewrites. The articles do not conform to not a directory, nor do they meet the criteria of WP:CORP. And I really think that they are exactly the kind of articles that fall under both CSD A7 and even CSD G11. Pascal.Tesson 02:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: e-mail
I'm not convinced that every one of those shopping malls is notable, though I'm sure some are. I could go snap a free, high-resolution photo of one of them, and even add more information to the article, but it would be kind of pointless if it ultimately got deleted. I do agree that a group AFD is not the best way to handle the situation. — freak([ talk]) 23:06, Nov. 24, 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 27th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ice Age (band) DRV

 * The DRV was already on. Regards, &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 11:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you nominated this page for undeletion. You may want to check out my slightly earlier nomination at the bottom of the DRV page and/or User talk:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington where it is discussed. Eluchil404 11:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for watching my back and removing the vandalism from my user page. It's much appreciated. Regards LittleOldMe 12:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * same, thanks for the vandalism revert ;) --Fabio 08:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Very much the same :) Wikipeditor 00:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Twin Paradox edits
"Chrolette" - You need to see talk:Twin paradox. The removal of material by is in accord with the discussion on that topic! IMO, you owe 12.30.216.138 an apology! This editor has done his (or her) best to be an asset for this article. Even if you disagree with that edit, it was discussed and therefore was NOT vandalism in the least. I understand why you would be suspiscious of an anonymous editor removing that much material, but this is one time that you are just plain mistaken about it. --EMS | Talk 22:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your support with my RfA. My nomination succeeded. I appreciate your support. Thanks again! =) -- Gogo Dodo 23:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi CharlotteWebb
I am in need of your help in Cypriot refugees article. As I do not know where to turn to; I turn to you being impartial on the article and aware of the situation here Articles for deletion/Cypriot refugee. User:A.Garnet who was the nominator, now unilaterally deleted/rewrote the whole article in a way that the article does not in any way resemble the scope of the original that through the afd the result was to keep. I have disengaged after the afd, giving a chance to other editors to contribute. After Garnets major rewrite here I reverted him/her. Garnet wanting the article deleted (personal opinion) is rounding up buddies trying to find ways to achieve this. What can I do in this case? Now the article is locked in Garnets version of course.

Please have also a look at the talk page and notice Garnets reply if any in the next couple of days; to this editors question: ''“And all I am trying to say is why could the same not be done with the previous version? •ΚέκρωΨ• 15:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)”'' Your advice would be highly appreciated. Thank you. Aristovoul0s 08:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you could either edit it back to its previous content, or find some sort of compromise, or merge it into another article, or give it a second AFD nomination if it begins to appear hopeless. — CharlotteWebb 08:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A few comments. Firstly, the article in its orignial state did not even resemble the scope of its title, it was not about Cypriot refugees, but about Greek Cypriot refugees, effectively whitewashing the history of the island in favour of one ethnic community (if your not familiar with the history of Cyprus Charlotte have a look at Cyprus dispute. Second, it survived the afd on the grounds that it was a notable topic BUT nearly every contributor has recognsie how grossly POV your version was and despite repeated calls for you to change it, you left it completely untouched. Third, i have not been "rounding up buddies", thats a complete lie. My only actions was inform one Greek user, User:Michalis Famelis and the recently launched Greek and Turkish Cooperation board. Why you would lie like this is beyond me. Thanks. --A.Garnet 14:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 4th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi. Thank you for voting in my request for adminship. With your oppose vote, you asked me why I had lied in the opening sentence of my self-nomination. I have added this question below your vote but could you tell me where you think I have lied? Also, could you answer below my question. Thank you. Wikiwoohoo 21:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know that I have replied to your message. Sorry for any confusion caused. Wikiwoohoo 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have replied again to your comment. If you still do not believe me then that is up to you. Wikiwoohoo 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have replied again to your comment. Thank you for taking the time to vote and make your concerns known. Wikiwoohoo 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Grover Loening.jpg
You tagged Image:Grover Loening.jpg as lacking a license and a source (diff), however your edit also removed the fair use license tag and website attribution. I have reverted your edit, since the image had a license and a source. Also please try to be more careful in the future, such edits could be considered vandalism (abuse of tags) if done in apparent bad faith. You could however add, since the image lacks a detailed fair use rationale. --Oden 22:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Update:I have added the tag to Image:Grover Loening.jpg.
 * A side note: I appreciate your efforts in keeping after User:Pixel ;-). Keep up the good work! --Oden 23:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I did mean to use "nrd" rather than "nsd", but must have pasted the wrong tag. — CharlotteWebb 23:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

new toy
Some military history coordinators have developed a new toy (discussion):

Implemented in an article it can look like in Mongol bow (including some misunderstanding) or Indian Wars. While we (mostly me) think it is a great thing (contrary to the long frustrating negotiations for images that can not keep up with the rapid expansion of articles and new requests), it would require some people to use it and not overdo it. So any wikignome comes quite handy. You just have to google missing images and insert the url with a short description. I would really appreciate it, especially for the feedback. Thank you a lot. Greatings Wandalstouring 06:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * finished template with guidelines. Wandalstouring 17:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Username

 * The concern about my sig is surprising; I've been asked about it only twice in all my career. My sig has always been this; changing now would mean disavowing my former edits and be perhaps more confusing. Some editors think of me by sig, some by username; changing either will puzzle somebody. If I must choose one, I would prefer the sig, which I intended as my wikipedia identity; but I have usually, and may have now, too many edits to change my username; nor do I wish to put that quite considerable burden on WP:CHU. Septentrionalis 18:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Polls
Thank you for closing the poll. I was wondering how poll closing works. I'm asking because I made a poll. I think I two weeks would be a good length to run it to give everyone a chance to make their opinions known. I'd appreciate any help you could give me. Thank you! Jecowa 04:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Signature
I did not see any way of changing my sig without causing more confusion, but I trust this, as suggested on my talk, will answer your objection in my RfA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Unless a rush of support comes through, I will decline any invitation for a third until two months have passed and then consult. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting


Thank you for voting in my RfA which at 51/20/6 unfortunately did not achieve consensus. In closing the nomination, Essjay remarked that it was one of the better discussed RfAs seen recently and I would like to thank you and all others who chose to vote for making it as such. It was extremely humbling to see the large number of support votes, and the number of oppose votes and comments will help me to become stronger. I hope to run again for adminship soon. Thank you all once more. Wikiwoohoo 20:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 11th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Jennings occupation
The question is, should the occupation field reflect the subject's current occupation, or should Jennings be listed under an occupation he hasn't held for several years, and a claim to fame that isn't an occupation at all? Robert K S 05:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Leo Fender article - Thanks!
Thank you for changing the title of Clarence Leonidas Fender to Leo Fender. I thought having his spelled-out full name as the article title was silly too, but I was not sure why it was done (and maybe I was lazy, too...) so I didn't change it. Respectfully, SamBlob 22:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration
Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, however, you did not mention any concerns. I am more than willing to discuss any concerns you may have you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 12:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)