User talk:HereToHelp/Archive 9

Main Page redesign
Hi HereToHelp, you just left some comments on the Main Page redesign talk page. You wrote "The semitransparent book or puzzle globe behind "Welcome to Wikipedia" (which needs to be the first thing on the page for screen readers) looks cool but won't work properly in all browsers." When you've got a moment, it would be really helpful if you could explain the problem with using a background image in more detail? Thanks - P retzels Talk! 17:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, look for an updated comment there.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:57, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your concerns regarding my proposal on the page and hope they will change your mind about opposing. If not, leave me a message on my talk page letting me know how I can make things better for you. Best wishes, P retzels Talk! 19:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote you a nice long paragraph there.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support of my design in this poll. I just wanted to drop a note to inform you that the wrong version of my design was placed in the poll. The current version is here. The differences may or may not affect your decision. Regards, لenna  vecia  02:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi HereToHelp. You expressed many concerns regarding my proposal, most of which I have now taken note of and rectified. It would be great if you could take a look at what has changed and get back to me on your thoughts. P retzels Talk! 17:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

iMatthew
I think iMatthew is going over the line with WP:SNOW—or rather with something else now. Can you talk to him? I have a thread going in his discussion. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding RFC Closure
Call me Canvassing, but if I may: I need a comment in regards to the nature of our closure of the MPRP RFC. The discussion is currently ongoing between myself, Jennavencia, and an administrator called Jc37. ChyranandChloe (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks HereToHelp for your comment, though what you posted in WP:AN can really hurt. You see David Levy, was the one who struck down our Watch-list notification, which we could have gotten more community support, opinion, and transparency.[1] But aside from that you have a point. Goals is perhaps something we need to concentrate on. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I lack the authority to "strike down" a watchlist notification. I (and others) merely opposed it, and you failed to achieve consensus for its inclusion.
 * Given the fact that some of us regarded the poll's format as highly flawed, counterproductive and contrary to Wikipedia's core principles, do you not understand why we felt that inviting the community to participate was a bad idea? —David Levy 04:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand it's implications. At the time of its proposal, I believe it was the most appropriate method of increasing the diversity of the the editors involved in the MPRP and therefore allowing for a Proposal candidate to better represent Wikipedia as a whole. It was a risk as you well know, but we (Jennavencia and myself) believed it was worth taking. See WP:AN for my reply over the interpretation of "striking down." ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

ChyranandChloe (and everyone, for that matter): please do not be personally offended by any of my comments; if I have done so, I sincerely apologize. I mean to point out flaws in a method, not ad hominem personal attacks. I'm of mixed feelings as far as what happened (or didn't happen) with watchlist notification. If the polling methods are unfair, all the more reason to make them fairer with transparency. However, I can see the concern that a large number of people might legitimize the results of a flawed process. Such, I think we need to improve the process and then use the watchlists, WP:CBB, and Signpost to get the word out. Let's leave the bitterness of the past behind us ad retain only its lessons. Let's focus on the new process, which is best done out of the User talk: namespace.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 17:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks HereToHelp. When you wrote your message I think you've really upset a few people. Accusing us of lacking transparency, self-promotion, and campaigning isn't in good faith. I'm ok with it now and I think Pretzels is too, but I think you need to talk with Jennavencia. She's fought perhaps the most where as I tend to stay more towards the middle. In my opinion, I think the process is worked out, and we're past the most difficult phase: legitimizing a workable number of proposals. I believe that's phase was the most controversial, we knew that from the start (there were actually several proposals towards creating a straw poll, I'm surprise no one have accused us of WP:NOT: it was the big thing we had to get past before this RFC/Straw poll); but it's over and let's leave the bitterness behind. One of the interesting aspects of the RFC/Straw Poll was disowning the proposals from the sponsors: I think this can work in your benefit in getting your ideas across. You see, without an authoritative voice such as that of a sponsor, getting something passed is simply an agreement among several editors creating a Proposal candidate variation or editing the original in that case. ChyranandChloe (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll go apologize.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:41, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Main page redesign
Indeed, this has been quite a mess. The most frustrating part is that several of us saw it coming, but our warnings were ignored.

Thanks very much for the advance barnstar, which I fully intend to earn. —David Levy 03:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The emerging, unwritten, consensus is to ignore the results of the election (though not fully discard the designs) and use the Goal header system to brainstorm. ChyranandChloe has asked you to do this repeatedly; I think you could use some credit as an active, positive contributor instead of negative, "you're doing this wrong" cynic. I think it's a process that we can be proud to advertise on the watchlists (once we go through less drastic channels.) Besides, I want your ideas.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What has ChyranandChloe asked me to do repeatedly? I'm confused.
 * I tried to positively contribute to the proposal, and my input (as well as that of others) was dismissed. If, as I've consistently requested, we can finally eliminate the "competition" in favor of collaboration, I'll be glad to participate (though I think that the community needs something more concrete than an unwritten decision, as one of the biggest problems with this proposal has been the continual appearance of little organization).
 * What do you suggest we advertise via watchlists? —David Levy 00:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion. You know how you've been talking about "initiat[ing] a discussion in which the designs' individual elements were evaluated, leading to the creation of one consensus-based candidate"? That's exactly what's going on here, although we never formally said, "okay, this is what we're doing," but CaC has "advocated" it and began it by bringing up ideas from the very beginning; I created a header system to keep everything organized; and Pretzels has joined in. This is exactly the process you wanted, so take part - and get others to do so, too. That was the idea of the watchlists; I'm going to prepare a press release for the Signpost (on the talk page where people can comment, of course.)--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed the discussion, and I absolutely will post my thoughts when I have the time. But I strongly feel that we need to firmly establish the status of the poll before we can seriously proceed with anything further (because the proposal's unclear nature has led to a great deal of reluctance to participate).
 * I don't support the use of a watchlist notice until a (more or less) final draft has been agreed upon and is ready for the community's attention. That's what we did last time, and there was no shortage of participation.  This proposal already has received a watchlist notice, and it only fueled the chaotic atmosphere by drawing scores of random editors with little understanding of how to collaborate in the appropriate manner.
 * I wholeheartedly support advertising the proposal via other channels, as that's what draws constructive contributions. But it's very important that achieve a reasonable degree of organization first; relatively few editors are interested in cleaning up a mess, and no one wants to waste their time on efforts that don't appear to be leading anywhere.  —David Levy 00:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing much clarity, after all, and I haven't exactly been made to feel welcome. —David Levy 09:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

--HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC) Hi David. Given the number of people who edit wikipedia we are never going to decide on one main page which everybody likes. Why not keep the front page as standard but allow a new preferences option where the editor has the choice to select his/her main page preference? So when I go into "My preferences" and select "Skin" there should not only be the option for overall skin type but underneath a "Main page skin" choice which has 5 or so options. This way everybody wins and those editors who loathe the front page can select which they want without having to worry about coding it in their monobooks as in the past.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 10:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I responded to Dr. Blofeld on the design page - David: I know you have a lot of criticism about the way that the poll was conducted, and I'm trying to lead everyone to resolution, which has to happen before this goes much further. But again, the Goals section is "initiat[ing] a discussion in which the designs' individual elements were evaluated, leading to the creation of one consensus-based candidate". (You said that!) How that unified design will be formatted, we're not yet sure. But it's the sort of discussion you've been pushing for, and you're doing yourself a disservice by not participating.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 13:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My free time is limited. As I said, I desire clarity regarding the proposal's status before I invest it.  In other words, we should know exactly what we're doing (and not doing) to avoid further wild goose chases.  —David Levy 16:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

re: Featured lists on the Main Page
In my opinion, the featured list department hasn't produced enough variety to be presented on the Main Page. It is media, music, and sports-heavy (with sports being the heaviest). Just my 2 cents. The Transhumanist 23:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Roxy Theatre
Dear Editor: Please check the secondary editing page of the Roxy Theatre (New York City) page, for multiple mistakes, probably caused by electronic interference. By Jack Johncock (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC) Jack Johncock at:
 * @yahoo.com.
 * Not sure what you're getting at, but it looks ok. I am not fighting you edit war.

Main Page Wikiproject
I think we should form a Main Page Wikiproject. As Jennavencia has said, Wikipedia is the eigth most visited site on the internet and it deserves more attention than its getting. One of the challenges is that there's little coordination—when it began there was so little cohesion that there were over a hundred proposals. I've brainstormed a few ideas of what we could do between the redesign proposals, but I'd like to here your opinion first. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert addition of Asus EEE Top in 'See also' section
Hi, Why did you revert addition of ASUS EEE Top in See also section, given both are similar concept? Regards, Vjdchauhan (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC).

iphone
i am an iphone user. i do not hold a grudge against the iphone, but problems must be recorded for history and evaluations. in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism Locating evaluations: There are two main forms of positive and negative criticism in a Wikipedia article on a certain topic. The most obvious is the evaluation in a section, often titled "Criticism" or "Reception".

it looks like you are an apple apologist. mobileme and iphone are tightly intergrated. mobileme is THE email service for the iphone. they were both sold to me at the same time. buyers need to know this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danalpha31 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

MPRP Transparency
Since the header you seem to be rather silent, and I believe that you are underrepresented in the discussion. I'm sorry that you may feel that we are not acknowledging your opinions, and I find that as a rather disheartening trend, but a MPRP is a real challenge. I'm sure that you have a lot on your mind, do you mind explaining? ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that what you are doing is the best for the MPRP, and that David and I are destroying it. I cannot judge without bias who is unreasonable, or whether or not I can effectively work with David. But the MPRP comes first. I know this decision is a burden on you, but do you think that I should leave or attempt too compromise and consolidate? ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll think about it. Thanks though. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

iPhone
I have begun the review this article.  miranda  02:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll see you at the assessment page. HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Image request (Je voudrais que vous fassiez une image...)
Hi! I saw your animation File:IPod shuffle.png. Can you please make an image like that with all three generations (versions) of the iPod Shuffle? 1st generation, 2nd, and 3rd, from left to right, like File:IPod_Line.png. I admire your work and think it would make a valuable contribution to iPod Shuffle. Thank you in advance. --HereToHelp (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, i just did the one for the 1G here and i'am on the Third generation one. Kyro (talk) 09:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here it is : File:IPod shuffle familly.png. Kyro (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

iPod chargers image
Hello. I recently saw your picture of two Apple iPod chargers at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IPod_Chargers.JPG and that reminded me of another picture I saw on wikipedia that I cannot seem to find (even after hours of searching). The picture I'm looking for was a size comparison of many Apple AC adapters stacked on top of each other on a brown desk, smallest to largest from top to bottom. In fact, it was similar to your photo. Did you make the photo I'm referring to or would you have recalled seeing it here on wikipedia? If so, can you link it? It would be a huge help. Thank you very much! -Ed


 * I don't recall seeing such an image, and I can't find it. It's possible that it was deleted as a copyright violation, but otherwise, I don't know what could have happened to it. I've been trying to get all four something chargers together for a new picture, but don't count on it being up any time soon.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 23:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply! It'd definitely be a great pic if the 85W (old) 85W (new), 60W, 45W, (older 4G) iPod, and iPhone (1G) chargers were shown as size comparisons.  :)  -Ed, 4th Apr 2009.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.43.218 (talk) 22:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? I can't find any information about the history of these chargers, but I remember four generations: (1) Firewire (2) USB, same size as FW (these two are in current picture) (3) USB same shape but smaller than previous two (lent out to my cousin - that's the hold up) and (4) USB current like what comes with the Phone 3G . But that's just my personal memory.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

"Blown" Highlights
See my response. Not even close to blown. I'll upload a highlight recovery edit which will tone the whites down a bit, but they are sitting at 230-240. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC) G'day, I added an edit reducing the highlights a fair bit, it should address your concern. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy
Well done indeed! Tony  (talk)  17:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for message
Thanks for message. I agree iPhone needs to be a featured article and me and brianrading have started categorizing articles. We really need more members so if you want to help out please do. Im looking over iPhone now and once ive found all articles in scope will make a to do list. I think a project would be useful to the topic and hope for it to be successful. By the way Myst is in our scope and is an FA! But if as you said an apple project is made with the taskforces that would be awesome  I Smashed   TALK!  14:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of iPhone
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article iPhone you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 3 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Pmlinediter  Talk 11:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

iPhone referencing
Perhaps you will like to check the referencing in the iPhone article. Ref number 97 and 102 encounter 404 while 108 requires registration. I give you one more day to improve this. While the dead links may be fixed, I suggest you check out references for iPhone 3rd party apps. Also, check the GA review where I have pointed out one uncited statement. Best of luck in improving the article. Work hard and it'll soon become featured. Cheers! Pmlinediter  Talk 09:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of iPhone
The article iPhone you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:iPhone for things needed to be addressed.

I have put the iPhone review on hold mainly due to the existence of uncited material and dead links. They are minor and so I am not failing the article. Tell me as soon as you have them fixed. Pmlinediter  Talk 09:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Apple
I have moved WikiProject Apple Inc. to WikiProject Apple Inc.. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. Thanks.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 20:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Pmlinediter  Talk 08:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Game of Life


Just wondered if I have your support on the Game of Life animation? Thanks. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes! Thanks for the reminder.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 01:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured Picture
Hi, Just wanted to let you know that Featured picture candidates/Bahá'í gardens by David Shankbone has a new edit and needs your vote. You have voted before, so vote for the new edit (edit 2) if you like it. Thanks, AndrewrpTally-ho! 21:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Pmlineditor  Talk 15:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for everything you do at iPhone!

 * Awwwww........--HereToHelp (talk to me) 21:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

iPhone
Sorry don't really have the energy for long drawn out arguments on Wikipedia any more. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on June 12 2009 to IPhone
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a little fairer, at least. Mt response is that Dario promised ("I will") to defend his position of the talk page. After what seemed like a reasonable amount of time, I challenged the material and wrote my defense of it, which took 13 minutes. On User talk:Dario D., Atama points out that my "reversions were done with a request to discuss matters on the talk page, not with a declaration that they're going to stay forever as you [Dario D.] have done." I quickly justified why I thought my version was better. These are (I feel) legitimate concerns, not that I wanted to make sure that my "version of the article is shown over the other sides" version. If unblocked I will avoid editing iPhone for the would-be duration of the block, except for the most obvious vandalism, and instead discuss the matter on the talk page. Thank you.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * At first, it is difficult to admit how a reverting to a version that I feel is superior, for reasons I justified and linked to above, could be wrong. However, in the face of a edit war, content becomes irrelevant. What matters is by forcing my version over his, I exerted superiority in ways that did not reflect the legitimate content concerns behind the edit. I should have let the argument speak for itself, and let his version rot in the article until it became clear why mine was superior. Such superior can come only from justified reasons, which I had, but profaned with reverts.--HereToHelp (talk to me) 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if that isn't good enough than I'll serve the 24 hours. I don't see why I'm blocked--originally for reverting unhelpful anons, now for edit warring-- when a dickish user who made more contested reverts is not blocked. Is this what Wikipedua a coming to?HereToHelp (talk to me) 00:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Um. This is becoming a bit silly, methinks. What people (or at least, what I) like to see when granting an unblock is that you understand the rules and promise to abide by them in future. I don't see that in your comments above. But I'm going to leave it to other reviewing admins to decide William M. Connolley (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated iPhone chart
I have updated the iPhone chart with information about iphone releases. Let me know if its sufficient MySchizoBuddy (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Ok another version uploaded, the top timeline's height is dependent on the total number of sales of each model. MySchizoBuddy (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Btw how will you show combined iPhone 3G and 3Gs sales. with another color or a hash with same color, to signify two different models MySchizoBuddy (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

List of iPhone models
All of your changes sound good. In my opinion, I think it's better at List of iPhone models simply because it follows List of iPod models but I don't object if you move it to what you suggested. - Epson291 (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right that it is a good idea to include the iPod Touch information here as well. The timeline looks good as well. - Epson291 (talk) 03:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

iPod number issues
Can you check this. MySchizoBuddy (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 9aa48c32c89dcc4a52b7d94959213537
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

ArbCom
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dario D. (talk • contribs) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

iPhone GA
I'll complete it tomorrow. I've been inactive lately owing to my real life issues. Pmlineditor  Talk 12:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration request rejected
Hello, HereToHelp. A recent request for Arbitration which you were listed as a party for, "IPod Touch Criticisms Section", has been rejected by the Arbitration Committee. The reasoning for the arbitrator's refusal to hear the case may be viewed at the archived version at this link. If this is still an issue requiring resolution, you are encouraged to seek out other forms of dispute resolution such as a request for comment or Mediation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. For the Committee, Hers fold  (t/a/c) 16:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

GA
Can you please fix the article history template on the iPhone article? Thanks, Pmlinediter   Talk 16:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC).

Your GA nomination of iPhone
The article iPhone you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:iPhone for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Pmlinediter  Talk 16:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

iPhone Images
Hi there, I'll get a new photo taken when I can find my Digital camera, I had to use the iSight for that one. Would it be better for the screens to be on or off? Not sure about copyright reasons.Linux insidev2 (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've uploaded two of them now, one with the screen on and one off. File:Iphone2g3g3gson.jpg and File:Iphone2g3g3gsoff.jpg I hope this helps. Linux insidev2 (talk) 06:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Thank you so much. HereToHelp (talk to me) 10:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Apple Rainbow Logo
Hi. I have noticed that you helped with the FUR for this file, but the date for speedy deletion has passed now, and the banner has still not been removed. I fear that it may be deleted if nothing is done. Maybe someone could make a jpeg of the right resolution to replace the image? I have no experience in editing files on Wikipedia, otherwise I may have done it myself. I do however think that the image is an important part of at least the Apple Inc. articles, if nothing else. Thanks, GeiwTeol 17:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. I'll remove the tag and see what happens. GeiwTeol 20:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/User page indexing
Please note Requests for comment/User page indexing has been repurposed from the standard RFC format it was using into a strraw poll format. Please re-visit the RFC to ensure that your previous endorsement(s) are represented in the various proposals and endorse accordingly.
 * Notice delivery by xenobot  14:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Template:Timeline of Macintosh models
I'm rather confused, too actually. The edits for the Template page seem to be fine, it's confusing that he edited it 20+ times, but.... I can't see any problems (but I've only skimmed it); that's not the confusing part. As for the Timeline page, it seems some sort of timeline rendering error occurred? I'm not quite sure what's going on, but it seems he set up an alternate timeline for the page? I guess there's some bug with the timeline coding stuff, but I'm not too good with the technical stuffs, so some of the people that know the behind-the-scenes parts of the timeline generator might need to be tasked with checking it out. It's not a problem with any edit he made, I reckon; previous versions of the timeline in the history have the same issues that the timeline in its present form has. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. The error went back to the creation and evidently a software update uncovered it. Thanks.--Mac128 (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

one-button mouse reversion
I'm not sure that was good text to restore. It contained weasel words, and no cite to back them up. - Denimadept (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to strategy
Hi there -

Just a quick note to welcome you to http://strategy.wikimedia.org; the Wikimedia Foundation's strategic planning wiki. We look forward to your input! -  Philippe 13:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

ITunes Store importance
I was responding specifically to the change by Ipodnano05, whose edits occasionally have uncompelling justification. (That's true for all of us, I wasn't making a particular issue of it.) In his edit, changing the article importance, he wrote: "This is not of mid- importance.... It is the top selling digital store in the world (has to be TOP)".

So, being unsure it was appropriate to change article importance without group consensus, and not convinced that earning a lot of money was a valid reason for changing the article's importance, I reverted his change. It wasn't meant as any definitive statement, but rather "Uh, are you supposed to do that?" Yours truly, Piano non troppo (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reporting my "vandalism"
Hi there.

I am just coming from your translation of a French proposal on metawiki call for proposals. Although not a French scholar, I saw a couple of spots I felt very strongly that I could bring a little closer to the intended meaning. I jumped in and did it. If you care about this and want to see what I did, please tell me so. Also, seing that you are someone who truly means to be useful (your page is pretty inequivocal about that) I could use some help here. Saludos, Thamus (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
And please drop by my page whenever you got a minute. Also, if you happen to know someone who can help with personalising my page, and my signature, I'd appreciate it very much. Not being altogether immune to vanity... ;)

Cheers, Thamus (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Radura international.svg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Radura international.svg. 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. FileBot (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)