User talk:MARussellPESE/Archive02

NU Buildings
I think many of those buildings listed aren't really "notable"; also the part about mccormick tribune isn't parallel structure. But I think the current revision is fine. It doesn't matter that much. Deen Gu (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Useful links



 * valign="top" |
 * valign="top" |

Editing

 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Manual of Style
 * Help desk
 * Templates
 * Citation templates
 * Source templates
 * Talk page templates
 * valign="top" |
 * valign="top" |

Wikepedia policies and guidelines

 * Attribution
 * No original research
 * Neutral point of view
 * Dubious sources
 * Cite your sources
 * Reliable sources
 * Wikipedia Manual of Style

Other

 * }




 * valign="top" |
 * valign="top" |

Misc

 * List of colors
 * Web colors
 * Reverse DNS lookup
 * Requests for CheckUser
 * Rouge admin
 * valign="top" |
 * valign="top" |

Wikepedia Administrators' Noticeboards

 * Incidents
 * 3RR
 * Fringe theories
 * }

Treatment of Bahá'í subjects in related articles
For anyone who's interested in collaborating, I'd like to try to address the treatment of Bahá'í subjects across various articles in Wikipedia. In reviewing some of these there appear to be, in my opinion, some questionable presentations. These seem to fall into these areas:
 * Undue weight
 * Weak or absent references
 * Poor references
 * Original research
 * Flat-out wrong
 * Tangential to the subject
 * POV or hyperbole
 * Needing a closer look

You'll find a complete list on the project page linked to above. Please feel free to log you own articles and/or grab a few and fix them.

Userboxes
User:MARussellPESE/RobZombie

User:MARussellPESE/SE

Thank you
Thank you for wished me to come back. best wishes. --- ALM 17:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ishmael
I was editing the page as you were editing. Take a look at what I've added and see if it's correct. -- Jeff3000 13:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Baha'i Stuff in Alchemy
not a problem. i've noticed a certain upsurge in Baha'i-related posts on the internet in general (most recently, a short article praising Baha'i for wanting an international language over at langmaker). i'm supposing that they are stepping up their online efforts. Whateley23 06:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
Thanks for the words of encouragement, they are truly appreciated. By the way, have you ever had a chance to see the Baha'i temple in Chicago? Its truly an amazing building, the only synthesis of Sullivanesque ornament and Middle Eastern aesthetic. Only in America do we have these beautiful fusions resulting in these diverse architectural hybrids as different groups 'import' the language of their sacred architecture into new surroundings. Incredible.--Orestek 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

WP from China
Look at me I'm in China editing Wikipedia! I'm leaving tomorrow but I thought I'd check anyway. Let's hear it for freedom of information! Wait... never mind, the Chinese WP is blocked still. Cuñado  -  Talk  02:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A36 steel
Out of curiosity, what's your source for A36 no longer being the most common structural alloy?

I don't find it unbelievable, but I would like to know where the data is coming from. Thanks... Georgewilliamherbert 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Citing Sources
Thank-you for your Message. I appreciate it and will keep the idea in mind. Matarael 00:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Changing bibliographical reference in Baha'i divisions
Thanks for your note. I understand your concern and I have changed the reference on the nature of splits in religious traditions and particularly in the Baha'i Faith.--jofframes 09:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Somewhat related, shouldn't Baha'i divisions, be renamed to Baha'i sects? I realize that Baha'i forbids sectarianism, but this is what the article is about, no? &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 01:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

"Baha'ism"
I edit this article with great diffidence, as it is so outstandingly good (not to mention the most important article in the whole of Wiki to me, as a Baha'i) - BUT...

I really think that this term (which is very highly POV) does not deserve a mention at all - the brief note I suggested explains that the terms concerned are unacceptable, without repeating the two patent untruths that the terms were "formally in use" (NOT so, at least in English) and that they are "fading from use" - also NOT true - their use is if anything increasing (as pejorative "deliberate error"), with increasing opposition.

I am certainly not going to go into revert war mode over this - but I would appreciate your comment, please! Soundofmusicals 09:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

John Esslemont
Hey MARussellPESE - hope things are going well with you. I've backed into doing some work towards the Esslemont article. I was doing some non-wikipedia work when I ran across the Esslemont family website which had/has a poor page about him. However they were very welcoming of the information from Wikipedia and Momen's article about him and have proposed a revision to their webpage. All well and good and nothing about Wikipedia really. I then began to beet the obscure parts of the web for information about Mr. Esslemont and compiled some tidbits in the talk section of Esslemont's page. One tidbit explicitly references him as someone knowledgeable enough about Esperanto as instructing Abdu'-Baha in Esperanto. I then saw a reference in the history of the article where you removed the category of Esslemont as an Esperantist. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but I think it's worth asking the question and since you thought it clear enough to remove the entry you might know more to bring to the case. So - comment?--Smkolins (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Architectural engineering
Hi Mike. I noticed you have contributed to the AE article and wonder if you can help clarify some issues I have. As a non-American engineer, the article does not tell me what this engineer is or does. The article takes a "matter-of-fact" approach to the description, but it gives no answers. I've also tried to stir some discussion on the talk page, but it is ignored (I wonder how much traffic it gets?). As a last resort, I've changed some of the article to remove unsubstantiated statements with hope someone with actual knowledge would fill in the gaps (simply undone twice as "I disagree- period"). I don't wish to start an edit war. As an American engineer, would you be able to shed some light on this confusing situation? I'm not looking for someone to "back me up"... I really don't have a stance but I'm interested in finding answers. Mariokempes (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing original research on "Bahá'í Faith and science: Life on other planets"
I am removing your interpretation of "creature" as "anything created" or "anything not self-existent". You are relying on an ambiguity of the English word "creature" that we have no reason to believe exists in the Persian or Arabic word that was used by Bahá'u'lláh. It is original research. Be careful in using a synthesis of different sources to make a point because that is also original research. Regards, -- Mavaddat (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad
I think it's in your interest to know that due to a petition, we're getting a huge wave of anons rushing the talk page in support of removing all pictures of Muhammad. You may want to come before a huge edit war ensues. Zazaban2 (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there
Greetings. I scored a 37% (well, a little more than that, but I don't recall the rest of the decimals) on the geek test, by the way. Boo-yah.

All kidding aside, it's nice to know that there's another NU engineer out there who's not your typical apathetic engineer. And yes, I spent a great deal of time south of North Campus, though, since my advisor was Tai Te Wu (you may have heard stories about him), I usually went to Dean Holtgreive for advice instead. Hey, when you live in Plex (you might have called it Foster-Walker; I've found that there's no particular consenus, but "plex" is easier for me), you can't help but go south. And how could I leave out Chipotlé, my most favorite restaurant (franchise or not) ever?

Thanks for the congrats, and thanks for even considering my time in the Marines, even if it was short and in the Reserves. I'm not sure what you mean by "Rumsfeld's watch," but I assume that you're asking me if I was in the military while he was in the Cabinet, and the answer to that is yes, I was. I was not ROTC, but enlisted at the end of my senior year in high school (which was in 2001, shortly before 9/11). Being in the military (from boot camp and beyond) was an eye-opening experience, but I might have gotten more out of it had I actually been more careful about everything else I was doing as well (as you might guess, military service and a Northwestern education are difficult to juggle, and I had trouble doing that). Even so, I loved the Marines, and had things worked out better, I could have probably gone to OCS and made a great officer too.

Re:User:Thamarih
The page in question has not been protected. If you have evidence of sockpupeteering, and wish to post such a warning on his user page, I will not stop you... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 04:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Maitreya
It's obvious that User:Thamarih is not going to stop deleting your material from the Maitreya page. So, I have placed a vandalism warning on his page. I will place a new level of vandalism warning each time he vandalizes the page until he reaches the limit. I will then report him to the admins in charge of blocking vandals. It appears he has been blocked 3 times already. I have a feeling that he will be blocked indefinitely this time. Just thought you might like to know. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I Wholeheartedly Agree.....
...with your sentiment about Wiki. I have been a member for about 6 months or so, and from what I have seen, if I were a teacher, I would not accept any type of research or essay that relies on WP for information. Some of the edits I have made have been either reverted or flat out removed because (and this is just a perception on may part) the editors removing/reverting are pushing an agenda.Hx823 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

CFD
Hi, you previously commented on this CFD, and a similar one is up for deletion here. Please comment when you get a chance. Cuñado ☼ -  Talk  06:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Side Project
Allah-u-Abha! Thank you for inviting me to be included in your project. I will gladly participate, but I would like to mention that I have come to be of the opinion (largely because of this) that perhaps there should be a Bahá'í Faith Wikiproject that would encompass this capacity as well as others.

I would also like to thank you personally for the dedication and effort you have put into wikipedia articles in particular expanding the coverage of articles pertaining to the faith. I am quite firmly of the opinion that in the long run that Wikipedia shall become a truly dominant source of information to which people will turn, and that through these efforts that perhaps those truly hoping to learn about the faith shall be assisted. '' May you go in God's care. '' Peter Deer (talk) 04:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR
Howdy. I could be misunderstanding these matters (wouldn't be the first time ;), but I understand the policy is that evaluations and analysis should be avoided and the information from primary sources should stick to reflecting the information presented and avoid conclusions. Am I misinformed about that? I wouldn't suggest Ministry isn't a valid source, but it's being heavily relied upon as a sole source for a lot of details, and it often ventures into "evaluations and analysis". Isn't it possible to present the information without that? Cheers.

p.s. I do regret my behavior during our last exchange, and would like to extend a sincere apology. I will take the utmost care at avoiding such hostilities and carrying on in the future. Surly these matters can be worked out while avoiding such uncivilized exchanges. Take care. Baha'i Under the CovenantJeff 04:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ruth White
Quick note. I see you undid the add's to RW. I think the editor is referring to yet a third Ruth White who is apparently a current author. I'm working on the RW disamg page to see if I can document this third Ruth. Have a good day. Wjhonson (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Mavaddat
I would not bother trying to reason with him or explain to him the nature of the relationship between Baha'is and homosexuals. He is a former Baha'i who has left the faith and now pursues an active internet campaign against the Baha'is to promote the notion that they are oppressive towards homosexuals. You can see his YouTube page here, and my conversations with him on this video. Rather than attempting to reason with his opinion, I suggest you allow him his bias but remind him of and constrain him to the wikipedia guidelines. If he wants to spread the notion that Baha'is are intolerant, he is welcome to, provided he can provide neutral, verifiable, and notable sources of information which support his claim. I think he shall find that a nigh-impossible task, and his prejudice will not stand up to any real scrutiny. Best of luck. Peter Deer (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ayahuasca
Just wanted to let you know I've sent you an e-mail in conjunction with the protection of this page. Since I know you may not see it right away, the short version is "everything's under control". -- jonny - m t  07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Flabbergasted
Am I reading this right, or have you been dealing with this abuse for several years with little or no action from the community? Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you made the pilgrimage to Haifa? If not, I highly recommend it.  Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's strange. I was there the same year.  What month? Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. I spent the summer in the country, and I think I was in Haifa in late June or July.  I was curious if we had actually walked by each other on the street; The world is really a small place.  And yes, I do live in Hawaii, on the island of Maui. Viriditas (talk) 02:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm watching what's going on with the sock drawer. I suggest ignoring them (WP:DENY) but keeping the CU updated. It's pretty obvious that it's one person using separate accounts. Once we get the confirmation we can work on refactoring the talk page and removing the trolling. But for now, try not to engage them if you can help it. We'll work through this. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Move and WikiProject
Okay You wrote:
 * "Uh, yeah. You might have invited the editors who've been here for some years to join, or at least flagged it on the main page's talk."

First off - and I can't speak for anyone other than myself here - I think that when someone writes a sarcastic "uh" on the Internet, I'm already disinclined to listen to anything he has to say. If you want someone (i.e. me) to take you seriously, please don't write ironic crutch words. While you are correct that I did not invite anyone to join, that is because I was advised to stop tagging talk pages until there was more interest shown. I was going to lay low for a couple of weeks and see who - if anyone - posted about it. Since then two other persons have joined and I wrote the same thing on their talk pages. If you're talking about flagging (tagging?) the main page's talk, I did just that. So, I seriously have no idea what you're suggesting here.

In regards to moving Bahá'í literature/Bahá'í texts, I moved it in order to conform to the name of the main category (Category:Bahá'í texts), not the name of a template. Since the words "literature" and "texts" are not generally considered distinct, I figured that it would be of little consequence which name the article had, and since renaming a category is a lengthy process, I went with moving the article instead.

I have made over 12,000 page moves and if I sought consensus for every one of them, most of them would never have happened because I wouldn't have bothered checking 12,000 talk pages. You are correct that if a move is controversial, consensus should be sought. Since I thought this was not controversial (and I still don't see that it is), I did not seek consensus. What makes you think that the terms "literature" and "texts" are not basically synonymous in this instance? If you think that there would be a consensus to move it back, I would be happy to post to WP:RM and start a discussion. In point of fact, this is precisely the sort of thing that a WikiProject could help coordinate. Please respond on my talk if that is not too much trouble. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem Thanks for your note. Again, I do not have the same associations you do with the words "literature" and "texts;" if you still feel strongly about it, I have no problem listing it for WP:RM. To the best of my knowledge there is not a "WP policy or guide practice to have articles named after the categories they discuss in part," but I can say that I have made the argument "X category should be renamed to Y because the main article is at Y" on several occasions and it has been persuasive (e.g. Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_15, Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_13, Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_12, and Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_11.) I'm essentially indifferent to which one should be which; I simply want them to match.
 * I am quite literally walking out the door for some real-life stuff, so please post here or e-mail me if you need me and I will get back with you in three days. Thanks for your patience. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Back I suppose I missed another point you made on my talk about potentially interested editors. I would be happy to have anyone's help, and I have personally interacted with a number of them before in a positive manner. If you want to encourage their involvement, please do. It appears that there is talk happening there and I'll check in myself. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

ayahuasca
just wanted to say thanks for going through the links, i've been out of town for the last week or so. so, thanks. -- he ah  22:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Most Great Name
Hi and sorry for the confusion. By interesting I mean at first look it looked like an interesting subject (real or not) and in trying to find out if this was a hoax / non-notable I found that a bunch of the main editors of the article have been banned for sock puppetry and then right in the middle of the AfD is a huge chunk of text (probably should get a hide/show box) which is normally the sign of an editors who doesn't know Wikipedia policy. So, it's the behavior of the main creators of the article that are making me wary on a subject that (once again, if real) I'd like to include since we have a huge bias in amount of articles against religions which don't write prolifically in English. And you'd think from all of the sources thrown at us in the article that it's legitimate but, with the users who created it I'm very wary. So, hopefully the AfD will lead to clarification on the subject matter. Sorry for the confusion. gren グレン 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: It's an attack page
No, it isn't. It is a sockpuppet report page, and there are plenty of them. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did look; thank you for asking. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not commenting on the merit of the report, nor am I going to continue talking to you about this. You however, must assume the user has a legitimate concern. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Saw the Incident page. How can anyone insist on assuming good faith towards a vandalistic sockpuppet when they falsely accuse you? I'm not sure anything will be done on the incident page; but don't let it get to you. The sock and his recent puppets are blocked, and while I'm sure they'll be back (much like the Barbaro family hoaxer or the POV pusher on 1957 Georgia Memorial to Congress) there's a lot more attention on this anti-Bahai puppetteer, so hopefully future attempts will be more easily squashed. I posted a rebuttal on the puppeteer's false report page, hopefully that will get taken care of soon. Edward321 (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Just got your message
Looks like I only check in here to see what's upset Nima most recently - apparently, I haven't used my login since 27 June, and here it is near the end of July. I'm here now for the same reason, and came across Antandrus' page (and read a couple of his essays which made me smile - I was just about to thank him, which is why I logged in and found your message).

You've upset our friend recently, because today he's posted a mystical Death Threat to you on talk.religion.bahai. My guess is that you possibly removed a picture of some occult symbol, or else made an edit to Ayahusca, or whatever that mystical drug page is called. It's all "now you've really torn it! This isn't just an insult to Bayanis, it's upsetting to powerful forces, more powerful than you could possibly imagine! etc. etc. etc." I think its the funniest thing I've seen in ages, and crossposted it to alt.usenet.kooks. You might find it less amusing. He thinks you're called "Mark" incidentally, though I have corrected him on that before. He said "thanks for confirming your name", like it was some big secret rather than something that's written on your user profile, but 2 weeks on and he's calling you Mark again.

Anyway, thanks for the offer of drinks. PaulHammond (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see Nima's started naming his sockpuppets after me now. Do you think I should be flattered or insulted?  You're obviously going to die because you dared to take him on and nominate the Most Great Name article for deletion. PaulHammond (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Abrahamic religions
made this deletion which appeared to be based on a narrow interpretation of the article. I reverted hoping the editor would take it to the talk page. If you have time, could you briefly address this issue and determine whether or not the deletion is justified? Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome
Hi MARussellPESE, Thank you for your welcome in my 'talk' page. My reference to 'sophistry' was not meant as an attack, but simply to point out that any of us can use 'selected' sources to back up an untenable claim. We may 'work within the rules', but not with dignity.

Anyway, I've posted an extension to that thread in the discussion page about the wives issue. I think the whole thing can be easily retired if we don't have sub-headings such as "Facts" & "Baha'i apologia". The first one (Facts) makes it far too cut & dried, as if no one could possibly disagree with it. The second one (apologia) makes it embarrassing, 'apologetic', like "sorry for saying this". The best thing is simply have one sub-heading: "Baha'is assert"... It says: There, take it or leave it, this is what Baha'is accept. I can live with that. It gives you more freedom to write what you want. Regards, Thereisnohope (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

AN/I Thread

 * A thread has been started regarding you here. Thought you should know. JuJube (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can't be objective. As a Baha'i, I have to see people who go against the Covenant as Covenant breakers, which means I've done more than I can already.  I hope you understand. JuJube (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

AN thread removed
I removed a thread from WP:AN to avoid harm to the organization you mentioned. Instead, please contact Oversight. Explain the nature of the problem and supply them with diffs of the content you added that you think needs to be removed for security/privacy concerns. They will take care of it. Don't post Oversight requests anywhere publicly because that only draws more attention to the info that you are trying to remove. Thank you. Let me know if you need further help, either online or via my email link. Jehochman Talk 06:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

muhammad talk
Hi, I see you reverted my edit to move the section asking for the removal of Muhammad's images from the main talk to the Image subpage. That is what we are supposed to do on that page, any discussion of images belongs on the image page. Nableezy (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lodestone
Thank you for your guidance. At Jeff3000's suggestion, I have reviewed 3RR and also looked at the 'block' policy. From what I can see it is not designed as a punitive measure or one that would result in a permanent 'blemish'. However, the finer points of wikipedia etiquette are lost on me. I can only speak in terms of social etiquette in which context in would be unusual for a new member of a group to receive qualified accusations (you appear to be engaged in an edit war), threats (But I can ... [edit the page]) and apparent bullying (you have 3 experienced Baha'i editors who are willing to change the word back). It is particularly disappointing that the only place on wikipedia I have encountered this is from Baha'i editors. I'm sure your group work effectively together as a team but I would suggest that it is worth cultivating outside viewpoints, especially given the comments of the only non-Baha'i editor. Print encylopaedias I have examined use the word 'declare' without qualification. Kind Regards - Ali Nernst (talk) 09:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ali, you've managed to take every comment personally. I wonder how familiar you are with this medium. WP:AGF is worth reviewing and would serve you better. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Shoghi Effendi
Thank you so much for your correction! I shall be more careful in the future. .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.  19:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

International Space Station
Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Peer Review as to whether you feel your original comments have been dealt with, if you see any new issues with the article, and whether or not you believe the article will meet the criteria for Featured Article status. Any new comments you have would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Michigan/Detroit
Hi! A task force in WikiProject Michigan has been started about Detroit and its suburbs. Please see WikiProject Michigan/Detroit WhisperToMe (talk) 08:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ISS FAC4.
Hello there! As an editor who has posted a comment in one of the recent Peer Reviews, GANs or FACs of International Space Station, or who has contributed to the article recently, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind commenting in the current Featured Article Candidacy with any suggestions you have for article improvements (and being bold and making those changes), whether or not you feel any issues you have previously raised have been dealt with, and, ultimately, if you believe the article meets the Featured Article guidelines. This is the fourth FAC for this article, and it'd be great to have it pass. Many thanks in advance, Colds7ream (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

`Abdu'l-Bahá's journeys to the West
Several of us have for some time wished to lengthen the journey's article. Still lots to do but it's been suggested to go ahead and post it so more hands can easily access to improve. Smkolins (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania 2011 • Haifa, Israel, August 4-7, 2011
Hello MARussellPESE. Are you going to visit the Wikimania in summer? I am Baha'i Wikimedian from Belarus and it would be nice to meet you during the event.--Da voli (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Stories Project
Aloha!

My name is Victor Grigas, I’m a storyteller at the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco working on collecting unique and interesting stories from Wikipedians that can be used to compel donations for the 2011 fundraiser.

I found your user name on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_in_Chicago

If you are interested in participating, and would like to schedule a telephone or Skype interview with me, please send me an email (vgrigas@wikimedia.org) along with any questions you may have.

Thanks for your time!

Victor, User:Victorgrigas Victor Grigas (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

PS If you know of anyone with whom I should speak please let me know :)