User talk:OhanaUnited/Archive 16

GA Sweeps July update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 290 articles were swept in June! Last month was our second most successful month in reviewing articles (after May). We are currently over 70% done with Sweeps, with just under 800 articles left to review. With nearly 50 members, that averages out to about 15 articles per person. If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. This may sound difficult, but if everyone completes their reviews, Sweeps would be completed in less than two years when we first started (with only four members!). With the conclusion of Sweeps, each editor could spend more time writing GAs, reviewing at the backlogged GAN, or focusing on other GARs. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

GA articlehistory errors
When updating an articlehistory, please see instructions at Template:Articlehistory and scroll to the bottom of the article talk page when finished to make sure the red error category is not lit. Thanks, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Another Question
Hello again. I have read through the links, they are very helpful. Thanks. I have made the changes to the headings and subheadings, italics instead of bolds and moved the external links to a "links" section rather than in the article. I have changed the footnotes (thanks for help on that!)and I believe I did as you instructed for the reference list but a strange thing has happened in the Reference section of my article. I have the references repeating themselves multiple times. I am not sure what I have done to get this result?

Also, I am interested in building a "sidebar" with a picture and summary of Mulford's life (similar to what is found on Carl Sagan's Wikipage) but for one thing, I don't know what to call it so I can't search for help on creating it within the article. Can you direct me further?

I believe I have otherwise met the verifiable and reliable sources requirement (although I admit that I have wondered if interviews/personal diaries can be considered valued biographical sources in Wikepedia); I believe I am maintaining a neutral point of view, and I believe Mulford's life to be notable as evidenced by the large collection at UCF of his life's work.

Once I have everything done I'd like to ask for one last "preview" to see if you see any other glaring problems. Thanks for your help. DianeRR (talk) 04:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Opera and Portal:Finger Lakes
You said you were promoting them, but, um... they aren't listed at WP:FPO, they still say they're FPOCs on their talk pages, etc, etc. Should we consider them featured or not? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, I'll help out get it. I did Featured sounds for months, so I'm used to it, and have a fair bit of free time today. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry. was jsut trying to help. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OSVH 2

 * Thanks for the note. Actually the user who created this article was banned for massive copyright violations. It was suspected that alot of the articles he was involved in were cut and paste. Good eye I'll count this :)Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NODRAMA reminder
Thanks for signing up for the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Wikipedia stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 22:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hey OhanaUnited. :) I'd like to ask you whether you were willing to train me as a SPI clerk? I have already asked, who replied that they were taking a break from training and , who replied that he has too many trainees already. Many thanks, — Aitias // discussion  22:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ready for Prime Time?
I think my article is just about ready to go live. How do I get editor feedback? I would like to do so before posting it to an article area. Thanks.DianeRR (talk) 13:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!
Thank you again for your support of the Great Wikipedia Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:


 * T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
 * WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
 * WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
 * WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
 * WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32. talk . say no to drama 02:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Amakusa Airfield
Hello! there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath and respond there as soon as possible.

Rhode Island portal
Hey, if you get a chance, comments are welcome at Portal peer review/Rhode Island/archive1. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

FA request for comments
Hello again, Food waste in the United Kingdom is currently an FAC and any comments, criticisms and/or suggestions would be much appreciated. Thanks. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps August update
Thanks to everyone's dedicated efforts to the GA Sweeps process, a total of 215 articles were swept in July! We are currently nearly 80% done with Sweeps, with under 600 articles left to review. With 50 members, that averages out to about 12 articles per person. Once the remaining articles drop to 100, I'll help in reviewing the last articles (I'm currently taking a break). If each member reviews an article every other day this month (or several!), we'll be completely finished. Again, I want to thank you for using your time to ensure the quality of the older GAs. Feel free to recruit other editors who have reviewed GANs in the past and might be interested in the process. The more editors, the less the workload, and hopefully the faster this will be completed. If you have any questions about reviews or the process let me know and I'll be happy to get back to you. Again, thank you for taking the time to help with the process, I appreciate your efforts! --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Ten case backlog "waiting clerk approval"
There are 10 cases that have been waiting for over a day to get clerk approval/denial for a checkuser.&mdash;Kww(talk) 20:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Delisting portals
Since you hang out at P:FP, is there a delisting process? I've seen a few portals, like Portal:Disasters that no longer impress me.  Zoo Fari  15:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

community reassessment of Special Relativity
I noticed that you weighed in on the discussion regarding the participation of scientific (for lack of a better term) and mathematic articles in the GA process. Here is the link:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics. I did the GA Reassessment for Special Relativity found here. This along with GaryKing's review have helped to trigger this issue. I do try to tread lightly in subjects that I am not familiar with and I am attempting to apply the GA Criteria. I don't feel as though I am being myopic, which is why I submitted it to a Community Reassessment rather than summarily delisting the article. So far the reassessment has not been very robust and so I'm writing to seek your opinion on how to move forward with this particular "hot potato". If you feel it meets the Summary Style requirements that Septentrionalis is advocating then I'm all for keeping it and moving on. Economy of effort and cost vs. reward are to be considered. Your thoughts would be appreciated. H1nkles (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:rude
Only the 2 main opposers (Dbachmann and Roux) have been generally rude. I didn't want to call them out by name, but because of the way I explained it, some interpretted it as if I was talking about everybody.

I was only talking about the main opposers.

Oh well.

Never mind.

 Th e Tr ans hu man ist   02:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

SPI
On this edit... Were you planning on performing the blocks? It doesn't look like a CU was requested, so I'm not sure if your decline refers to the prospect of blocking or the need for a checkuser (although your comment suggests the second). Nathan  T 20:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

SPI on Dr.Jhingaadey
I have been away on vacation, and now I see that the last request has been closed. User:Avathaar, who is Dr. Jhingaadey, has now reappeared and is speaking out. I have replied to him. We need to do something about the situation. His indef block should be reinstated. Actually it has never been rescinded, but he was allowed by one admin, in spite of objections, to create the Avathaar account. It is that account that needs to be indef blocked. He simply should not be allowed back under any guise. Brangifer (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Employer Objections to Contributions
I am concerned that my employer, USDA/ARS, may ask me to remove my contributions on Diorhabda beetles from Wikipedia (and possibly WikiSpecies and WikiMedia; see for example Diorhabda carinulata) on the grounds that my agency did not approve the content and the content relates to my work. Since most of my contributions were made on my own time, they do not purport to represent my agency, and they summarize information from public domain articles, I am not sure of a basis for complaint. Nor has my employer indicated any particular objection to the content. One of their concerns may be possible future editing by others that may not reflect favorably on the agency. But my employer is not anywhere credited with the content of the article.

In case my employer asks me to remove the articles...how is this done? Also, can you provide any advise for discussing this with my employer?

Sincerely, JamesLTracy (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Employer Objections to Contributions
Thanks for your response. I'll keep you posted on what happens. JamesLTracy (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured portal candidates
Is everyone on vacation?  Zoo Fari  03:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Email Notifications of Changes on Watchlist
Is there a way to set up email notification of changes to Wikipedia articles on my watchlist? I saw this option available under my preferences/user profile/email options in MediaWiki but not Wikipedia. JamesLTracy (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sister project interviews
Awesome! I look forward to it.--ragesoss (talk) 17:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Rationale for move of Senkaku Islands to Diaoyutai Islands
Hi. Could you explain your rationale for moving Senkaku Islands to Diaoyutai Islands? There's a lot of discussion on the talk page about that, including a few votes for keeping it at Senkaku. On your edit comment you stated "no objections on the move" - where could objections have been voiced? Just a curious question from a fellow admin. Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you would have gotten more response if you would have discussed the move on the talk page rather than a request for citations . Consensus can change, but this was a bit too unilateral for my taste. You probably will get a few comments on the move on your talk page within the next few days. For the reference, my preference would be Senkaku, but my preference is not strong enough to undo another admins actions. Cheers, -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Enjoy your camping ;) -- Chris 73 | Talk 19:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Sharks
Hey, I'm contacting you because you offered a review last time I asked for one, and now I'm working on a new portal. It's nowhere near ready for a full-blown review yet, I've only started hacking at it today, I was just looking for some input before I started on a lot of menial stuff- there are currently only two shark-related FAs, but there are over 30 GAs (all of the GAs are species). I have already added the FAs as selected articles, but do you think I should use the GAs as other "selected articles", or should I list them all as "selected species"? I don't really consider two selected articles enough, but, on the other hand, I'm not really sure what to have as a secondary "selected article" box, if not "selected species"... J Milburn (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess I've missed you, but I probably won't be about tomorrow anyway- thanks a lot for the advice (I hadn't touched the introductory stuff yet- that still needed some attention!) but would you say there was a problem without a "secondary" selected article section (selected biography, selected species, etc). Do you think the portal could be featured without that? Sorry for the poor phrasing, not all here... J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've worked on the portal significantly over the last couple of days, and it's really starting to take shape. There are now well over thirty selected articles, so no problem there, and I've found a couple more pictures for the selected picture section (up to four now). I've left a few questions lying around, so hopefully some more content will emerge in the coming days. I've also reworked every section (and removed some entirely). I think it's looking great, but it still lacks a section that is usually filled by selected biography, and was filled with selected species in my fungi portal. This means that there's only the three "look at our lovely content" sections (selected pictures, selected articles, DYK)- do you feel another is needed? I thought maybe a "selected distribution", showing maps like this one- there are literally hundreds, and they are in use on the vast majority of shark articles. This adds a little visual interest while remaining very encyclopedic and factual. What do you reckon? Any comments you have on the portal generally are very welcome. J Milburn (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Great- so bump up to around ten selected pictures (selective choices, obviously) and then you feel it is ready for FPOC? Is there anything you feel the portal is obviously lacking? J Milburn (talk) 20:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh, I didn't realise it was so many. Would that include 20 batches of DYK hooks (totalling 100 total hooks)? J Milburn (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll keep this as an ongoing project, now that I've done most of the work- hopefully it should be ready to nominate in a couple of months. Thanks a lot for your comments. J Milburn (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikispecies
If you're going to be adding Wikispecies links to shark articles, could you put them under an "External links" section rather than "References", so it doesn't screw up the columns? Thanks. -- Yzx (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

GAR and ArticleHistory
Hi there, when you complete a GAR, please remember that the process of updating ArticleHistory is a bit different from what you did over at Talk:National Football League playoffs: You probably know this already (I'm guessing this was a slip-up or a copy/paste issue), but I thought I'd remind you anyway&mdash;sorry for being a pain. When you update ArticleHistory for any article, it's a good idea to scroll to the bottom of the Talk page and check whether a redlinked category, Category:ArticleHistory error, is present. If it is, then something went awry :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The GAR action is noted as "GAR", not "GAN".
 * 2) The date should be the date of your reassessment, not the date of the original review that passed the article in the first place.

Counter-Strike

 * 18:06, 3 April 2008 OhanaUnited protected Counter-Strike ‎ (heavy and persistent vandalism from multiple IP addresses [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

That was nearly 18 months ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. See talk:Counter-Strike. --TS 17:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Email
Hi there. I just sent you an email. Amsaim (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability article
Alan and Ohana – the latest edits on the Sustainability page are, to my mind just not acceptable. The article is at present of a high stabndard, aiming for GA at least and possibly FA. Aden and Skip have been suspected of at least tandem editing and possibly sock puppetry (see enquiry). Both are editing the Lead which has been worked on by a team of editors extensively. This is provocative to say the least. The editing is not IMO constructive in any way. I understand that editing is “ongoing” and that “ownership” is always an issue but the review process of the article has taken over a year by a team working together, with the exception of Skip who has constantly created difficulties. Unfortunately, IMO the article can only deteriorate under this sort of editing. Can nothing be done?  Granitethighs  05:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

GA sweeps
I realize I'm a bit late to the process, but do you think I'm qualified to participate in reviews? For a list of my GAN reviews, see here. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Baseball FPOC
Just an FYI, I replied at FPOC. How many lists would you prefer? Staxringold talkcontribs 18:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There ya go, the list count is at 20 now. Lemme know if I can do anything else for you! Thanks, Staxringold talkcontribs 01:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Heyo, the Portal has continued to improve, I'd love any further opinions you have on the matter! Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI
Hey there. I was cleaning up the SPI clerk list, and I was wondering if you still intend to be active there, as I had not seen you around in a while. If not, I can put you on the inactive list, so that users looking for a clerk don't accidentally try to get you to help them. Please let me know what you want to do. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 18:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

fun with wikispecies :)
If you ever feel like writing up an update on Wikispecies -- like about the main page redesign, the collaboration with Zookeys, or anything at all really -- for the signpost, feel free :) See Sage's last letter from the editor. It'd be great to have something about 'species published. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Strange conversation
I just happened on this rather strange conversation. I wonder if it is appropriate for an administrator to give such advice? LK (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Counter-Strike
Namaste. You protected this in April 2008 for IP vandalism. Is protection still necessary? Thanks, Skomorokh,  barbarian  11:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Apelbaum
Please see the discussion at User talk:Flowanda. I don't understand if and how persistent self-promotional spam fits into the code qualifications listed. As I said on my talk page, there is an ongoing cycle of editing abuse, and these editors' recent actions after the latest Afd and SPI initiation (blanking pages, removing large chunks of their content from an article about a company it appears they no longer work for) indicate they have no intention of respecting any of the policies that have been explained to them a number of times by a number of editors and will instead continue to recreate the same kinds of NN articles and make the same non-policy arguments when they are contested. If there's a better way to prevent this and help turn these users into productive editors, please let me know. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 16:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. I thought this was strictly a Checkuser issue and that I was screwing up the entire SPI because I filed it the wrong way. I'll add the code letter and the diffs to support the above. Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 17:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Sister projects interview
Hey OhanaUnited. Are you still planning to do some more Sister Project Interviews for the Signpost? &mdash; PretzelsHii! 21:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Haha, I'm not so active on any sister projects, so I'm probably not worth interviewing. I just wanted to make sure you hadn't forgotten as I think it's really good to get other projects covered in the Signpost - and I'm keen to get lots of great content in time for the issue on December 7th, our 250th issue. &mdash; PretzelsHii! 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice one. That's a really nice piece. I've posted it to Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/Sister projects, re-done the templates, and adapted the introduction - edit as you wish. It's set to be published this upcoming issue tonight, but Ragesoss may well have to hold a few pieces til next week as this issue is really jam-packed! Thanks so much, I look forward to the next project! &mdash; PretzelsHii! 21:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, brilliant! Nicely handled. I get the impression you may have to resort to   :) &mdash; PretzelsHii! 23:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, why not. &mdash; PretzelsHii! 00:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
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, The Four Deuces (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary interview
Hi, I have just write something there: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-16/Sister projects. Regards, Otourly (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:HK Book Fair.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:HK Book Fair.jpg. 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.  Zoo Fari  02:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Okey doke. :)  Zoo Fari  04:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary welcome template
Thanks for your criticism. It is a common one, and something I have been meaning to look into. My take is that while the text of a template may be uninviting, I think it is clear from the actual interactions at wikt:User talk:Peregrine Fisher that Wiktionarians can be helpful and welcoming. It is actually supposed to be a welcome template, not a caution. I don't think that welcome template reflects well on us. I have given it a close look, and rewritten what seem to be the most hostile parts. As someone who had a negative reaction to the original template, I would be grateful to hear your opinion on the new wording: Template:pediawelcome. Thanks! Dominic·t 07:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Barnstar
At last we have some breathing space. Thanks for your help too. The article can now progress steadily - we are still working at it - and we'll get there.  Granitethighs  23:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, totally agree. I think the Sustainability article will make a great FA! Johnfos (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you also, and more thanks for the way you hung in there. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Clerk
I have stumbled across the clerk option on the sock puppet investigation page and I considered that I might like to become one, could you tell me a little more about it? The C of E (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Vancouver
- Dear FA Team member, we could use your help if you're available. Mkdw talk 06:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Chinese/Cantonese assistance requested
Hi there, OhanaUnited. Recently someone added the section Cattle in religion, citing sources that I believe are in Chinese or Cantonese. Most of them appear to be blogs (or worse), so I am not hopeful that they would meet WP:RS, but I was wondering if you could give them a quick look? I recognized your name amongst the translators for Chinese and trust your judgment to recognize reliable sources. I've started a section at Talk:Cattle in religion. Thanks in advance for any assistance you can provide! -kotra (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

-kotra (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Here, bet you've never seen one of these things before ;)

The Great Wikipedia Dramaout
Hi! As you have expressed an interest in the initial The Great Wikipedia Dramaout, you're being notified because we are currently planning another one in January! We hope to have an even greater level of participation this time around, and we need your help. If you're still interested please sign up now at The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd. Thanks, and Happy Holidays! JCbot (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of top prize winners on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of top prize winners on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of top prize winners on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

FA-Team revival
I've made a proposal to bring the FA-Team out of inactivity—with a mission a bit different than we're used to. This is just a generic note I'm sending to members asking for their input. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Portal Peer Review for Portal:Kansas
Aloha OhanaUnited! Just notifying you of this portal peer review as suggested on WP:PPREV. Any input you could give would be appreciated. Thanks, Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. 06:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)