User talk:Otebig/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Karmafist 02:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Central Asia
WikiProject Central Asia has finally been created. Would you care to join us? Aelfthrytha 21:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Saudabayev
No, this is not how Wikipedia works. You must provide a source for this information. The fact that this is stated on another Wiki article is meaningless. Provide a specific source that states he was the Minister, and also sources that show his predecessor and successor are whom you say they are. Otherwise the information cannot go up on that page. KazakhPol 06:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I enforce Wikipedia policies regardless of people's feelings. KazakhPol 07:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The New Central Asia project page
Hi

I revised (a bit radically) the navigation system of the WikiProject Central Asia. You are a member of the project, I would appreciate if you would compare with the old page and give a feedback on the talk page. Thanks. cs 22:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

WPOR Collaboration of the Week
Greetings WPOR member, we are starting a weekly collaboration project where we will announce two articles that are currently stubs that we hope to work together to improve. No pressure to help, but if you would like to, just stop by one of the articles and see if you can find information to expand the article with, copy edit what is there, help with formatting, or add some images. This week’s articles are: Alis volat propriis and Fusitriton oregonensis. Aboutmovies 22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

WPOR Collaboration of the Week
Greetings WikiProject Oregon employees. Well a big thanks to all those who helped improve Alis volat propriis and Fusitriton oregonensis last week. This week’s Stub improvement are: Government of Oregon which should be easy, and Miss Oregon. Again, no pressure to help with the collaboration, choose one, both, or neither. Also, feel free to opt out of the notifications at the new page dedicated to collaborative efforts at WPOR (newsletter is in R&D). Aboutmovies 18:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WPOR Collaboration of the Week
Hello again WikiProject Oregon team members, its time for the next Collaboration of the Week. First a shout out to Sprkee for putting together some templates for this project. Now, in honor of Labor Day weekend and the outdoor nature of the activities that often accompany the three-day weekend, this week’s item is to de-redlink as many parks from the List of Oregon State Parks. Some may even by going to one of these places, a great opportunity to take a picture or two for an article. As always, participation is not required, though it is appreciated. And if you are caught, we will disavow any knowledge of your existence. Since we don’t want to waste any effort through duplication, please make a note on the talk page of which park article you are going to start. Good day! Aboutmovies 19:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

September WPOR Collaboration of the Week
First off, great job to all WikiProject Oregon folks for last week’s List of Oregon State Parks work. We pounded out six new state park articles: Sarah Helmick, Bald Peak, Bob Straub, Sumpter Valley Gold Dredge, Tumalo, and Peter Skene Ogden. Plus numerous other edits to improve the existing articles. As a reward, we are introducing the COTW award WPOR COTW award, and this time it goes to User:Woodstein52 for starting three of the articles.

On to this week. We are back to the usual two Top importance Stubs: Sunstone and Oregon, My Oregon. Both are stub pluses, so it shouldn’t take much to upgrade them both. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Good day! Aboutmovies 22:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WPOR Collaboration: 09172007
All righty WPOR ladies and gentleman, great job last week with our state song and gemstone. I have bumped them up to Start class. I haven’t looked at the contributions, so the COTW award will be later. This week’s articles are Darlene Hooley, by special request, and another Top stub, our very own state rock, the Thunderegg. Yes, apparently we have a state rock and state gemstone. No word on whether there is a state stone too. Hooley basically needs some sources to make it to the next level. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. In the words of Beaver Joe, whoop! Aboutmovies 18:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Fall WPOR COTW
Welcome to autmun and the weekly COTW news. Great job to those who helped out with last week’s articles: Darlene Hooley & Thunderegg. Both made great improvements. This week, something a little different. With fall upon us, the photo ops are going to be harder to get, so we have a photo request fulfillment drive. Take a look at the requested pictures for  Oregon category or the graphics subproject for what’s needed. Then go take a picture, or search online for a free picture to upload (US gov sites are great and there are links available from the above links). If you fill a request, be sure to remove the request template from the article’s talk page. Our other item is another red link removal drive, this time on the flagship Oregon article. Like the state parks red link drive, try to coordinate on the talk page. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 01:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Week 1 October WP:ORE COTW
I know everyone has been waiting anxiously for this week’s COTW, so here they are: Barlow Road and Columbia River Plateau. Both are almost Start class, just some formatting and referencing, plus a little expansion and they will be there!

As to last week, it is difficult to track the items we were working on, but I know some pictures were added and at least three red links were removed from Oregon, so thank you to all those who participated. The award winner will be GoodDamon for their creation of the Oregon Forest Resources Institute article. We have now worked through all the Top class stubs and are into the High class stubs. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Happy editing, and remember if you see a downed power line, don’t pick it up. Aboutmovies 20:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

WPOR CoTW: Don Schollander & Conde McCullough
Greetings WPOR world. Last week was great with the Barlow Road seeing lots of improvement, maybe even B class. Columbia River Plateau also saw some improvement, maybe enough to bump it to Start. On with the countdown, another two Stubs in the High category, both happen to be people: Don Schollander a multi-gold medalist; and then world-renowned bridge architect and all-around swell guy Conde McCullough. Schollander needs sources more than anything, and McCullough needs more of a bio, plus maybe a nice chart for the bridges with type/year/location/length. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. This week’s safety tip, stranger=danger. Aboutmovies 18:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't me
who went around rating in a perplexing way -- well, at least not in the cases in point you offered, I haven't touched those. I agree completely that those articles should be moved and have downgraded them myself. If you see any others like that, let's flush them out - they might be important to other projects, but each article can have a different relevance to each project. Aelfthrytha 05:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiOregon COTW
Greetings once again WikiProject Oregon members. Thank you to those who help out with improving Conde McCullough and Don Schollander last week. This week is a Stub break, with a Ref improvement drive for Oregon and a request for work on Portland Police Bureau. For the ref improvement, this means sourcing tagged statements and standardizing all existing citations, both of which are needed for GA and FA status. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 18:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week
Howdy doody ya’ll WPOR poke, time for more COTW. Thanks for the work on Portland Police Bureau and improving the references at Oregon. This week we are back to Stubs with Eastern Oregon and Fort Vancouver National Historic Site. Both need just a little TLC to make it to Start. Again to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts click here. Aboutmovies 01:54, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sotsijaldy qazaqstan.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sotsijaldy qazaqstan.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

SPAM ala COTW
Ladies and Gentlemen its time for another episode of Collaboration of the Week. Last week’s show starring Fort Vancouver National Historic Site & Eastern Oregon received high ratings. This week’s show star two more stubs, Johnny Kitzmiller & John Wesley Davis. As always, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Don’t delay, act today! Aboutmovies 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

New COTW
Hello again from WikiProject Oregon. A round of applause for the project in October when we added three GAs, one FA, plus 10 DYKs! Next, thanks to all those who participated in last week’s Collaboration of the Week, John Wesley Davis & Johnny Kitzmiller. This week we have the Cayuse War, and in honor of the home opener, the Portland Trail Blazers. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies 18:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

WPOR's newest COTW
Thank you to all those editors who helped improve Cayuse War and Portland Trail Blazers last week as part of the Collaboration of the Week. They are looking much better. This week, with the election season over, we’ll tackle a request for Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004), which should have plenty of WP:RS available to work with on improvement. Our other article is another Stub in the High category, our only Miss America, Katie Harman. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Legal disclaimer: WikiProject Oregon and its affiliates are not liable for any personal injuries acquired while editing on the COTW including but not limited to carpel tunnel syndrome, Wikistress, alcoholism, anxiety attacks, or extreme emotional distress. Aboutmovies 20:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oregon COTW version 11.20
Welcome to the jungle folks. Thanks to those who helped out with Katie Harman and Oregon Ballot Measure 37 (2004) last week. This week, we have two high priority stubs, one of the two major hospitals in Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center, and Oregon Department of Education. Enjoy your turkeys, or for some enjoy your tofurkeys. As always, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WPORE Civil War COTW
Hello again to WikiProject Oregon members, time for this week’s Collaboration of the Week. Thank you to those who helped out improving Legacy Emanuel Hospital & Health Center and Oregon Department of Education last week. This week, in honor of the annual Civil War, we have the University of Oregon Ducks and the Oregon State University Beavers. Or if you attended some other school, feel free to improve your alma mater’s article. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

FA for WPORE COTW
Greetings boys and girls from the fine folks at The Wettest Place on Earth! A thank you to those who helped last week make some good improvements on the U of O and OSU OS articles. For this week, the next stub on the list is Fortune 1000 company Lithia Motors, Inc. way down south in Dixie, which only needs a little added to make it to Start. The other is a bit more of a challenge, but Linus Pauling I believe is our only Nobel Prize winning Oregonian, and a former FA. So hopefully we can get it back to FA, check the talk page’s article history template for comments. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies 20:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Central Asia project
Actually, that wasn't the only project where that was done. Basically, I am in the process of updating the project directory. The biggest stumbling block to completing it is what to do with the various smaller countries, which at this point fall exclusively within the scope of at least one regional project, but generally get little if any real focused attention even there. By having the new dedicated work groups for each country, the number of proposals, and often separate projects which fail and have to be turned into workgroups, drops dramatically. Even if the countries in question never gain any real large numbers of editors for their work groups, if there is even one editor who has a particular interest in a given country, that one individual would be able to eventually standardize the content regarding that country if the assessments are done separately for each country. The WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church is one such project where one individual is doing almost all the heavy lifting for the project, and getting the articles improved almost solo. However, the importance assessments can't be differentiated between the importance assessment for the project itself and the importance assessment for the individual country. The importance parameters actually remained in place, they just weren't displayed because it is often the case that the importance for the regional project and the importance for the individual national subgroup differ. Having said that, yeah, I should have checked first. Yesterday, having gotten approval from the Africa project for new work groups for all the separate countries there, I was bold and went ahead and created separate work groups for each other individual country which falls within the scope of a regional project, and started the assessment for the Kazakhstan project. The assessments for each national project also appear in the main project assessment statistics page as well, although at this point I think I only created the categorization for assessment for the Kazakhstan group. John Carter 14:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have now consulted with you regarding the changes to the banner, as you requested. You have yet to respond. As such, you are now the one who has enacted a change which has been contested without any comment, and your behavior is now suspect. Please inform me why you have yet to make a reasonable change to the banner, or even request the return of the importance parameter to the appearance of the banner, but have basically acted as if your own action were somehow completely appropriate and in no way required any response to me. Thank you. Personally, the "problems" which so far as I could tell were only to the appearance of the banner, could have been solved very easily had you bothered to ask that it be restored politely, to the benefit of all involved. Instead, you have apparently decided that your action was authoritative, and have no need to even respond to questions regarding your own conduct, or even acknowledge earlier comments. I personally cannot see how such behavior is even remotely in accord with civility guidelines. Your questions could be very easily resolved, if you had bothered to give a clearer indication of what your objections were. They still could be, to the satisfaction of all involved. I wonder why you have chosen not to make any response whatsoever. Perhaps you could enlighten me? John Carter (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Help on Template:Countries_of_the_Indosphere
There is a dispute as for whether Afghanistan and Balochistan are fair game to be considered part of the Indosphere. A user:Atari400 insists that it is not, making the absurd claim that it has not been, or only minorly been, influenced by (the rest of) South Asia. Considering that you RfC'd Template:Asian capitals I am requesting that that you put in your input on the matter. Thank you, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oregon COTW #25 (or so)
Hello again from the COTW of WikiProject Oregon. We thank ye who went forth through the rain and mud and helped out with last week’s articles Lithia Motors and Linus Pauling. Hopefully Linus can return to FA status early next year. This week we have the request of Oregon Ballot Measure 5 (1990) and High importance article Portland Rose Festival. Whatever work you can contribute would be greatly appreciated by our master. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays from WP:ORE
Hello again from the Collaboration of the Week for WikiProject Oregon. This week are two more stubs, the Oregon Garden and former Congressman Robert B. Duncan. Both are close to moving up to Start class, so only a little work is needed. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 23:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Holiday COTW
Greetings to all the WikiProject Oregon crew. Happy holidays to those who celebrate holidays. Thanks to those who helped out with last week’s articles Oregon Garden and Robert B. Duncan. Due to the holidays and people likely to be spending less time on Wikipedia, the new Collaboration of the Week will run for two weeks (OK actually I’ll be out of the country, but same difference). The first item will be a general Reference Improvement Drive. So find an article, source an tagged sentence or bring all the citations up to WP:CITE standards. The other item is a Tagging Drive, looking for those random articles about Oregon that do not yet have a WikiProject Oregon tag on the talk page. In the past I’ve found the Category:People from Oregon and its sub cats fertile ground for the lost Oregon souls. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Safi (Medicine).jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Safi (Medicine).jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

New Year COTW from WP:ORE
Happy New Year to all the Oregon WikiProject People. A big round of applause for everyone last year, we got a lot done. A thank you to everyone who helped with the last Collaboration of the Week, I saw a large number of articles in the unassessed section and our total number of articles is over 5000 (we were around 4000 in June when the assessment program finished the initial run) so I know at one person was busy tagging. This week we are back to a High importance Stub article the one and only max security prison, first prison, and only one with a death row in the state, the Oregon State Penitentiary. Then, by request we have one of the most prolific ballot measure sponsors in Mr. Bill Sizemore. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oregon GA COTW
Howdy to WikiProject Oregon members, time for another edition of the Collaboration of the Week. As you may have already noticed, our flagship article Oregon is up for the third time as we make a push to get WP:GA status before going for WP:FA. Since this will take some time to get where it needs to be, this will be the COTW for more than just a week. Also, so we hopefully don’t trip over ourselves, try to coordinate on the article’s talk page. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here.

On another note, just a general good job/pat on the back to the project for a great 2007, the first full year of the project. We had 83 DYKs about Oregon, improved one article to FA, and went from around 4 GAs to 17 GAs. Plus numerous new articles, improvements to existing, the introduction of the COTW, and the introduction of article assessment at the project. Again, great job and here’s to a new year. Aboutmovies (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Snowy COTW from WPOR
Hello again from WP:ORE. Please note the Collaboration of the Week is running two hours late, no morning kindergarten, and routers are on snow routes. Thank you to those who helped improve Oregon, we are inching towards GA quality. This week we have another High importance Stub in our official state insect (who knew?) with the Oregon Swallowtail, and then a new article I came across, Biglow Canyon Wind Farm. Help if you can get out of the snow. Once again, to opt out or suggest future collaborative efforts, click here. Good day! Aboutmovies (talk) 16:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Central Asia projects
Please see WP:OWN, a policy which your statements regarding the need for certain projects elsewhere clearly seem to be in direct violation of. In fact, such statements could be seen as being a violation of policy, perhaps most clearly WP:NPA, and make you even subject to being blocked. Also, as I know probably better than most, there is no specific need to consult anyone regarding creation of new projects. Several, in fact, get created with no real notice whatsoever to anyone. Trust me, as the person trying to create a new version of the directory, I have found several Projects which have few if any other pages link to them at all. Also, please refrain from making clearly dishonest statements, as you did on the miscellany for deletion page. They call very seriously into question your own objectivity and honesty, and are among the most obvious forms of violation of wikipedia guidelines imaginable. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Way to focus on the issues and concerns, and not devolve into personal attacks. It really moves the process forward... Otebig (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Additional comment
Hopefully, you at least read the comments regarding your conduct before archiving them. A few other statements I had been trying to add before you archived, and got caught in an edit conflict.

If you were to regularly visit the WikiProject Council/Proposals page, which I and others try to maintain, you will note that many projects get created with minimal support. WikiProject Indianapolis recently got created when the proposer got one other interested party to join. That project, with its own separate banner and so on, will almost certainly have to be merged in time, creating yet more work which could have been avoided had they planned adequately in the beginning. You will also note that there are extant project proposals for at least a few of the countries whose projects I created. By having them use the existing banner, it reinforces the importance of that parent project. Also, it helps to reduce the amount of banner clutter. Both of those factors are relevant. I believe you could be reasonably called "ignorant" of those matters, because they would be ones about which you are not aware. It is possible to use that word in a non-judgemental manner. The majority of the projects I created, which you so adamantly object to, are of the kind I made here, separate pages for national groups which use the existing regional project's banner. By creating such pages now, before someone else does later, we ensure that the amount of banner clutter is reduced, and reduce the amount of work required if they later get merged. Also note that, regardless of name, those projects all still use the parent project banner, and indicate that they are children of that parent.

Also, it would help if you knew just how many subnational projects get created. Just about every capital city, at least, sooner or later seemingly will get its own abortive separate project. Such projects inevitably will result in the creation of more articles. I know of one individual who has said he intends to create separate pages for every settlement in France and Thailand. I don't want to think about how many articles that will create. This can be particularly problematic when the number of articles which a given banner deals with gets too large, and the assessment bot basically stalls. The Biography banner is currently the worst offender in this regard. And, of course, none of us can tell when something might happen anywhere which will result in the creation of a spurt of additional articles. If we proactively name the national projects as "WikiProjects" initially, regardless of later developments, it will ensure that, if and when that time arises, less work has to be done then when a new separate banner has to be created to "unburden" the bot.

In all honesty, if you were aware of many of the recent discussions regarding WikiProjects in general, none of this would be news to you. Unfortunately, you seemingly aren't. I apologize for assuming you were rather better informed than you evidently are. However, I believe that, if you could suspend your existing, all-too-apparent biases, even you would see that there is nothing to be lost by the creation of new, but clearly "dependent" projects now, and potentially something to be gained by providing a focus now, rather than having those parties create an entirely separate framework later. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I had never encountered the degree of virulent, dare I say irrational, opposition I have encountered here before, thinking primarily of Latebird. In fact, in every situation the creation of the new subprojects was welcomed. And, regretably, making clearly inaccurate, prejudicial, false statements as you have made on the MfD page hardly encourages anyone to think of them as rational editors, although I acknowledge that not everyone looks at all discussions everywhere first, yes, including me, and I apologize for the overreaction. What basically I found, and still find, appaling is primarily the conduct of Latebird, who has, as per his user talk page, evidently shown more than a few tendencies to act contrary to policy and or reason himself. Your appearing to "pile on" with him led to concerns that somehow, the pages which I created in the first place were now being "taken over" by individuals who had decided that their joining those subprojects I created gave them the right to "take control" of them. And, without seeming too accusatory here, what strikes me, if I may be so bold, is that you evidently didn't know about the proposed projects. Trust me, it would really help if people from geographical projects monitored that page more than they do. A lot of the proposals there relate directly to regional/national entities, and not even I can keep track of all the projects that get created. Although I do try: User:John Carter/Alphabetical listing of WikiProjects.
 * As someone noted, I had tried to change the banner before, and those additions were reverted because they didn't continue to provide general "project-wide" importance. On that basis, I abandoned trying to change that banner until I had gotten a bit more work done on others, and found how to create such assessments. I thought I had said something to that effect then, but evidently didn't or didn't publicized it.


 * Most of the other projects, like WikiProject Caribbean, WikiProject South America, WikiProject Central America, WikiProject Western Asia, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Melanesia, WikiProject Polynesia, WikiProject Micronesia, WikiProject Antarctica, and there's probably one or two more, I forget, which I worked on in the interim, didn't respond at all. Personally, I myself seriously question the creation of some, like WikiProject Ajman, which I think has about seven extant articles, but someone else already created the new WikiProject Dubai, ignoring the rest of the United Arab Emirates, and it seemed the only way to ensure that that content regarding the others was addressed. My apologies for my own overreactions, by the way. Like I say on my user page, and said again when I got nominated for adminship, I know I have a short fuse, and it does come out at times. It also unfortunately hadn't occurred to me that, in the two months since I created the pages, which didn't even seem like that long to me, finding that my own work was now "hijacked" by others was, well, more than a bit aggrevating. And, like I said, I thought I had already said somewhere that these were intended to be, basically, "accounting projects", not real, stand-alone, entities.
 * Also, for what it's worth, there are probably further changes coming, probably enacted by me, although agreed to by others. The question of banner clutter is still a very real one. One possibility I am going to try to enact, if I can figure out how, is to enable banners for certain "topical" projects (thinking of WikiProjects Cities, Rivers, Mountains, Lakes, and the like) to have assessment criteria for the various regional, national and subnational entities which relate to given articles, so that one banner can work for all those projects. And you may be interested in the new discussion I have tried to start at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council regarding banner functionality, which will directly relate to the proposal above. In time, it may be possible, eventually, to get the main "geographic" project banners completely unnecessary, if the various "topical" project banners can receive enough work such that the various "geographic" project banners becoming, effectively, redundant. That is still a long way away, though, because I still haven't figured out how to provide for all the national/regional projects in a single banner. To make this even possible, however, I had to ensure that the entire world was covered by at least one project. You don't want to know how many that's been. Ajman above, for instance, God help us.
 * Once again, my apologies for my own overreactions, which I actually, unfortunately, acknowledge were overreactions. But, like I said, no one even noticed my actions before, except for one or two comments from Africa, whose banner I have to work on a little more today or tomorrow to provide separate national importance assessments, and I had gotten more than a bit too used to having my actions not questioned. Again, my apologies. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: Please also see User:John Carter/Adminship and make any comments you deem relevant. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)