User talk:Richwales/Archives/2010

February 2010
Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Another Gospel. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Another Gospel. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not WP:RS sources. Cirt (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding material to the article Another Gospel that violates WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my comments and request for a broader discussion at Talk:Another_Gospel. Richwales (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw them, thank you. In the future, please take care to not violate WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV - and especially not to add unsourced material to articles on Wikipedia. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Another Gospel
We brought in a neutral third-party opinion from the WP:3O process. This individual advised you to come up with suggestions backed up to specific sources. You have failed to do so. Instead, you have chosen to continue to make vague complaints on the talk page. You have refused to back up your claims with any sources whatsoever that support your positions, let alone sources specific to this book. Please stop this, your continued posting to the talk page in this manner is bordering on getting disruptive in nature. You appear to be using the talk page purely to advance a POV as your own personal forum, in violation of WP:NOT. Please stop. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your ask for help
I would reccommend you take it to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and see what happens. Get help or see what other administrators think. I will keep a close eye on the situation either way. Hope this helps! House1090 (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not the proper place, actually. I will start the next part of dispute resolution, which would be RFC. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that, but it looks like its becoming more of a conflict between the two. Its just a suggestion, you guys might be able to resolve something there. House1090 (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I fear the issue may have gone too far to be resolvable in a simple way. However, if Cirt is willing to try an RFC, so am I.  Richwales (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC for Another Gospel
Please see Talk:Another_Gospel. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I will be involved until it resolved, may I suggest you have my talkpage on your watchlist as I will reply there. House1090 (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Are we done???
Can we please be done with addressing your complaints yet? Do you accept and acknowledge that I have been working very very hard to expand the contents section using additional research from secondary sources? Do you see how I have addressed and responded quickly to multiple different specific points you have brought up on the talk page? Thanks, Cirt (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Another Gospel


 * The quality of discussion and editing on Another Gospel has improved dramatically over the past two days. I believe more work still needs to be done on the content of the page, but the process is no longer at an impasse and doesn't appear to continue requiring special outside attention.  If you would like to cancel the RFC at this time, I have no objection.  Richwales (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, if you "believe more work still needs to be done", even after all of the very very hard work that I have put into this in order to respond to your multiple complaints, and even after I have quickly addressed many of your concerns, even quickly removing content, myself, from the article, then the RFC should (unfortunately) probably remain open for the time being. This is most unfortunate and regrettable. It is too bad you cannot realize that conflicts are ideally resolved through compromise, and not acquiescing to one party's complaints all the time. :( Cirt (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that I believe the process of working on this page is back on track — through the constructive efforts and hard work of many people (you as well as others). There will obviously continue to be ongoing discussions about ways to improve the content further (including possibly some more improvement along some of the lines I had originally brought up), but it appears to me now that this can all be accomplished in the normal way, and that this page no longer requires extraordinary oversight to any greater degree than the average Wikipedia article does.  Richwales (talk) 18:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

IPA
Hi,

I don't know if you've made other IPA changes like you did a few months ago at paradigm, but we don't normally list pronunciations in the various dialects of English. It gets to be a real mess, and the reader can't tell from the key which one they should be using. kwami (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd be grateful for references to policies on this. With all possible respect, I disagree with the way the pronunciation is shown in the article now, because for many English speakers, /ˈpærədaɪm/ is just plain wrong — for speakers in areas that have undergone the Mary-marry-merry merger, the only correct pronunciation is /ˈpɛrədaɪm/.  If we need to insist on showing only one pronunciation, /ˈpɛrədaɪm/ is probably the majority North American pronunciation.  Richwales (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should US English get precedence? This isn't US Wikipedia. Check the IPA key at the link and its talk page. /ær/ is the sound in "marry"; it doesn't really matter whether you pronounce that [æɾ] or [ɛɻ] or s.t. else. If you pronounce "paradigm" with the same vowel as in "marry", then it will be correct no matter which your dialect. However, if you pronounce it with the vowel of "merry", then it will only be correct if you have the merger, but will be incorrect for everyone else. Better to use the pronunciation that is always correct than the one that is often wrong. kwami (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I've raised the issue on the article's talk page. Let's see what others say.  Richwales (talk) 07:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Bringing back pantyhose content removed in cleanup
You are invited to join the discussion |here. Juventas (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC) (Using )

Stana Katic
Thanks for trying to fix the issue at Stana Katic here. I had a feeling it wouldn't last long, though, and I actually think someone tried that once before. But it was a good try on your part. Much appreciated. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars

 * Thanks. Richwales (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops — White Trillium turned out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user. Let's just forget this happened, OK?  Richwales (talk) 00:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your comment
This is with regards your comment:

rv heavily POV set of edits; I imagine you probably feel the existing text is POV in the other direction, but this is the result of a very long and painful discussion process on the talk page, which you need to join if you really want to contribute

I believe you are arguing in favor of misleading and subjective information about Cyprus. I do not need to join any conversation to remove falsified material from Wikipedia. Some of the information on the page is heavily biased and so we decided to amend it. Unless you have an - official - non-Turkish source to reference your contributions, then the amendments stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.251.223 (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Legend of the Seeker fan campaign.
The "Save our Seeker" campaign is actually really common knowledge now...every Seeker fan there is should know about it, not only did we publish an ad in a magazine, we have the actors and actresses support, even Terry Goodkind is helping us out. We have been heard and noticed by the higher powers that be..."if this is for real" shouldn't even have been said because I was under the impression that EVERY fan of the show knew about it, we have done a lot and chances of season 3 are looking better and better...we are even saving up money to get a commercial. I'm telling you season 3 WILL happen.

I'm not sure how to put in a source so here is a link or two for YOU to out as the source...

Source 1: http://www.legendoftheseeker.org/

Source 2: The saveourseeker site which for some reason is blocked by wikipedia...

Seekeroftruth469 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:51, 17 May 2010 (UTC).


 * It looks like someone has already added back material about the renewal campaign, along with sources (at least one or two of which may be OK). Fan sites, blogs, and other "self-published sources" are generally not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia material (see WP:SPS); this is probably why the "saveourseeker" site you mentioned is being objected to, and it's possible that the "legendoftheseeker" site may end up being removed for the same reason.  This may seem frustrating to you, but you need to read the Wikipedia "verifiability" policy (WP:V) in order to understand why some kinds of sources are OK but others are not.  Richwales (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand but if you think about it...an official site can't really exist for a fan campaign since it's been organized by fans. One can't really exist...there has never been anything official about fan campaigns for any show, but the facts that it's happening are incontrovertible. The campaign is real and you should look into it. I think among the things cited there are official sites mentioning the campaign. You can delete the fan campaign reference from here if you want, but I'm not a troll nor do I vandalise. Look into the campaign yourself and see what all we have done. Seekeroftruth469 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC).


 * I'm personally sympathetic to what you're saying, but you're arguing with the wrong person. This sort of discussion, if it needs to take place at all, belongs in the talk page for the article.  As for your "the campaign is real, look into it yourself and see" argument, the standard counterargument is fairly well described (by some other editor, not by me) at Talk:Legend of the Seeker.  If material in a fan site is sufficiently notable, reliable, and neutral, it should in theory be mentioned in a more conventional source, and that source should be cited.  I am not questioning the good faith of your editing efforts here.  Again, if and when the sources you've most recently placed in the article are objected to and removed, the most appropriate place to conduct a discussion would be in the article's talk page.  Keep in mind, though, that (quoting from the verifiability policy) "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."  Richwales (talk) 16:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing at all...I think you misunderstand me, I didn't suggest you look into the fan campaign to prove it exists, but merely so you might get interested in it as well. The more support the better. :) You make fair points as well. Seekeroftruth469 (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. Richwales (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Ilknur at Northern Cyprus
According to this evidence, Ilknur appears to be a possible sock puppet of the banned User:Justice Forever. --Taivo (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, and for reporting this. I'm sorry this user apparently just doesn't seem interested in following the rules.  I realize the Cyprus conflict is an extremely polarizing topic, but that doesn't excuse inappropriate editing behaviour by people who are so thoroughly dedicated to their point of view that they can't tell the difference between NPOV and a POV opposite to their own.  Richwales (talk) 14:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So now we're just waiting for an admin to wander by and decide that the issue needs dealing with :) --Taivo (talk) 14:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Reattribute old IP edits to my account?
I made five edits in 2004, using my (static) home IP address at the time; this was before I signed up for a Wikipedia account in March 2005:     

Additionally, I made the following edit in 2006 via my (static) work IP address at the time; I had an account by this time but had inadvertently neglected to log in: 

Would it be possible to have my username (Richwales) added to the above edits so that they will show up as having been done via me?

The IP addresses in question were statically allocated; I was the only user of these addresses at the time, and I know the edits were performed by me.

Thanks for any help. Richwales (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's not really possible. You can mention this on your userpage, but 5 edits is insignificant really--best thing to do is not to worry about it.  — fetch ·  comms   22:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

My signature.
I'm sorry if my signature is not appropriate for a possible administrator; I'll go and change it back to its original form right now. And, action! (talk) 09:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination
Hello! Your submission of Article at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The only concern I have is the stub tag. Personally, I think the article is long enough to remove the stub tag, but I wanted to leave that to your judgment. If this is resolved, I would be happy to approve the hook. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I see that NativeForeigner already agreed with you and removed the stub tag — and, as I indicated on Template talk:DYK, I have no objection if others feel the page is past the stub stage.  Richwales (talk) 05:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Promoting your own articles as you did with White Horse Prophecy is discouraged. Generally it's only done when there are no other options available to an updater. I'm not going to remove your hook as it was independently verified, but please leave the choice of promoted articles to updaters. If everybody promoted their own articles, we would have chaos. Gatoclass (talk) 17:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for misstepping. I had (mis?)understood that since my article was the oldest approved article on the template talk page at the time, it was a proper candidate for any editor (myself included) to move into the prep area.  I wasn't trying to mess up the process — the rules seemed straightforward enough to me when I read them, but if I missed an important issue (on this, my first venture into the DYK world), please accept my apologies.  Richwales (talk) 17:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The Hungarian Language
Errm, excuse me? It's not original research. It's the truth from the other side - East. Be sure to watch theese two videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWPCVMEsyeM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf-Q9rAieWU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.236.52.194 (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Truth from the other side" may be OK — but you must provide suitable sources for such material before you can use it here (see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:SPS, and WP:OR) — and the article as a whole "must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (see WP:NPOV). Deleting mainstream material (together with the sources backing it up), and replacing it with unsourced claims is not considered acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia.  If you can find sources of the proper quality (see the policy pages I mentioned above), you are certainly free to add material suggesting an alternative view (and say something like "an alternative view from Turkish scholars" or whatever), but this would have to be in addition to the existing material describing the mainstream scholarly conclusion.  These are core Wikipedia policies, and flagrant refusal to abide by them is likely to get you blocked from editing the site and deprive us of whatever constructive contributions you might otherwise have been able to make here.  Richwales (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!
Richwales - Thank for your participation and support in my RfA.

I can honestly say that your comments and your trust in me are greatly appreciated.

Please let me know if you ever have any suggestions for me as an editor, or comments based on my admin actions.

Thank you! 7 23:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for White Horse Prophecy
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 12:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome
Bine ai venit, Rich! It's a pretty stale project (not surprising, since its original founders were blocked/banned), and I'm just barely keeping it alive, pretty much on my own. So glad to see people are still taking an interest. Dahn (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll be glad to do what I can.  In the past, I've done some minor cleanup work in the Romanian language article.  Also, a couple of years ago, I did an essentially complete rewrite of the article in the Romanian Wikipedia about the LDS (Mormon) Church (ro:Biserica lui Isus Hristos a Sfinţilor din Zilele din Urmă), after discovering that the original page was basically an anti-Mormon pamphlet from Noua Dreaptă or some equally virulent source.  I've never been to Romania or Moldova yet, but I studied the language for a couple of years during my time as a graduate student.  Richwales (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!
TFOWR 21:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Not thank spam, but check your inbox - you've got email! TFOWR 14:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. – xeno talk 16:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Q&A
Rich, that's an excellent summary and I agree with your views on the matter. FWIW, WP:SOCK now says: I haven't checked to see if there was any comparable language back then, but it shows the community has moved in that direction. I haven't participated in RFAs in a while, so I can't offer you advice on your other answers.  Will Beback   talk    07:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that editing under multiple IP addresses, without registering, can be treated the same as editing under multiple accounts where it is done deceptively or otherwise violates the above principles. Registered users who edit without logging in are treated the same as if the IP was an alternate account. 


 * Thanks. I'll try and take a look at the edit history of WP:SOCK and see if I find anything relevant there.  Richwales (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears the above statement in WP:SOCK was added here. The main discussion seems to have taken place here.  Richwales (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, though I've heard that there was also some similar language earlier that was removed.
 * I agree that your draft responses are probably too long, especially the answers to the "additional questions". Succinctness counts. I'm heading out on vacation, but if you send me an email I'll find a connection so I can add my !vote.   Will Beback    talk    21:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Looking for feedback on a possible RfA bid (Richwales)
I added some thoughts in response to your query at my talk page.

CIreland (talk) 18:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA
Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you very much for signing up for the July Backlog Elimination Drive! The copyedit backlog stretches back two and a half years, all the way back to the beginning of 2008! We're really going to need all the help we can muster to get it down to a manageable number. We've ambitiously set a goal of clearing all of 2008 from the backlog this month. In order to do that, we're going to need more participants. Is there anyone that you can invite or ask to participate with you? If so, we're offering an award to the person who brings in the most referrals. Just notify ɳorɑfʈ  Talk! or Diannaa  TALK of who your referrals are. Once again, thanks for your support! -- Diannaa TALK 20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

East-West schism
Here is an article about the whole thing (it relates to all three articles, filioque, East-West schism, Catholic-Orthodox theological differences). Please if you could. Just read over the section about Neoplatonism. Thank you LoveMonkey (talk) 15:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've started reading this; it's clearly going to take a while to absorb it, and I think I should probably go ahead and read the whole thing in order to be sure I really understand what is going on.  Richwales (talk) 16:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me as I am trying to grasp at things that are very cultural in a Greek and Russian way and say them in an English Western way. The metaphysics of Orthodox Christianity are called stochastics (this is a very poor way to say this please forgive me). Pagan metaphysics of the philosophers is called determinism, fatalism, destiny and or predestination. The best term of this metaphysic is necessitarianism. In that all can be reasoned and or rationalize and that one finds the truth through reason. The position of compatibilism was rejected with the monophysite movement in the East. What is uncreated can not be rationalized and what the Eastern forms of atheism, mysticism (nihilism) did was stated that if something can not be rationalized then it is an illusion or it does not exist (i.e. God, love, freedom etc. etc)

As against monophysitism Jesus Christ had and has free will his human will was not a show or act but was an actuality (energeia). It is not absorbed or lost in the infinity of his divine nature. The attempt to pagan metaphysics-up Orthodox Christianity (through political intrigue by the Pagan rulers and powers that where at the time of the initiation of the conflict). LoveMonkey (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see one big challenge in writing / editing this material is that the article (whether it be the East–West Schism page itself, or the History of the East–West Schism page if we do go ahead and merge everything there) needs to adequately explain both viewpoints, preferably from a neutral vantage point that treats both positions fairly but favours neither one. Do you know of any writers who have done a reasonable job of explaining both the Western and Eastern theological views, and the differences between them — understanding both sides, but without taking either side (and also without just summarily rejecting both sides)?


 * It is also probably fair for the article to explain (at least in general terms) why each side of this schism rejects and/or misunderstands the other side. This is going to be hard to do, obviously, because apologists and polemicists on both sides of the divide have very firm ideas about why their position is obviously right and the other position is obviously wrong.  If we can't find any source that is widely accepted by both West and East as dealing justly with both viewpoints, we may have no choice but to present the pro-Western and pro-Eastern positions (each one as fairly as possible), and then make sure that discussion of the various unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation documents the mutual inability / unwillingness to find common ground.  Above all, though, the article has got to stay balanced — if the Orthodox have their reasons for believing the Catholics simply don't get it, then surely the Catholics have their reasons for believing the Orthodox simply don't get it, and we need to acknowledge both of these positions without introducing our own biases.  Richwales (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No. The best you've got there is David Bradshaw's Aristotle East and West. As I said on the article talkpage it is best to just post each perspective and for each one to leave the other alone.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding then surely the Catholics have their reasons for believing the Orthodox simply don't get it, and we need to acknowledge both of these positions without introducing our own biases. Both articles are out right LYING. Here is an article by the New Advent (just one) that calls the Orthodox clergy ignorant. Our saints (Palamas) as heretics teaching heresy. Our theology (based on hesychasm) as crude auto suggestion. This is just one article that is very easy to find. It also implies that the Roman Catholic named the Orthodox Church and all kinds of rather nasty ugly things that we as Orthodox have experienced first hand. But to look in the articles here on Wikipedia the Roman Catholic are just preaches with the Orthodox and us Orthodox are just being big cry babies. They Esoglou just thinks we are crazy and cant figure out where all this animus is coming from and the Orthodox are just making stuff up and Esoglou knows better then all of these other sources. VERY FRUSTRATING.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you are taking your task very seriously. I wish you all the best.  Unfortunately, I can suggest as balanced accounts only what you probably know of already:


 * 1) Henry Chadwick, East and West, the Making of a Rift in the Church (Oxford History of the Christian Church 2005)
 * 2) Laurent Cleenewerck, His Broken Body, Understanding and Healing the Schism between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches (Euclid University Press 2007/2009) - LoveMonkey found in this book some considerations that he liked and quoted.
 * 3) The Encyclopaedia Britannica article.
 * Much of the two rather lengthy books are on Google books. Esoglou (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Re:Still having popup problems with secure server
— MC10 ( T • C • GB •L)  18:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 June 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog Elimination Drive Has Begun
Hello, I just wanted to take a moment and announce that the July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive has started, and will run for a month. Thanks for signing up. There's a special prize for most edits on the first day, in case you've got high ambitions. Enjoy! ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 04:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 5 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

RFA Thank spam
-- White Shadows There goes another day 16:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Reminder
Hi! This message is just a friendly reminder that you signed up to participate in the GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive. I noticed that you haven't logged a single copy edit yet. We'd love to see you participate! The drive runs three more weeks so there's still plenty of time to earn barnstars. Thanks! -- Diannaa (Talk) 22:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm working on History of Bălţi. I have had limited time at the moment, and the article is requiring serious and careful work, but I am continuing.  Richwales (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update! I am glad someone is willing to take on these trickier articles. :-)) -- Diannaa (Talk) 23:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I just finished copyediting History of Bălţi. Did I do the closeout steps correctly?  The word count I've put down (3,556) is what the article had before I started (it's currently at 3,650 words, but as far as I can tell from the instructions, you don't care about the post-edit word count, right?)  Richwales (talk) 04:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's right; use the word count from before you start. And the record-keeping you did on the drive home page is also correct. Thanks.  -- Diannaa  (Talk) 19:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Newsletter
—Preceding unsigned comment added by The Utahraptor (talk • contribs) 18:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 July 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Illegal immigration to the United States
Thanks for correcting the date on my post. I had only slept a few hours and thought I was still in April lol. I really have started editing some stuff, but have not much experience doing it. Anyway, thanks.CyberEditor (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor review
Hallo. I've reviewed you; apologies for the wait. If you've any comments, feel free to ask me at my talk page or the review page. Cheers, C628 (talk) 00:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 08:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Birthright citizenship
Regarding this edit, I would have preferred more delicateness on your part. When removing material that contains references, one should satisfy a higher standard than disparaging them as "speculation." I'm not saying the article is perfect&mdash;it's quite bad actually&mdash;but when people endeavor to cite sources, even in the process of creating low quality content, they are entitled to more respect as the content is reworked. Savidan 02:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, I would agree with you. In this particular situation, however, it seemed (and still seems) clear to me that the material in question simply doesn't belong in the subsection about the Wong Kim Ark case.  And if the text doesn't belong there, neither do the references.  It may be possible (and appropriate) to rework some of the deleted material (including some, or maybe all, of the references) into the "Current controversy" section, as long as the material fits and is properly represented so as to promote NPOV and the related tenets.  And I suppose it might have been better to do that bit of reworking at the same time as I took the text out of the Wong Kim Ark subsection.  I'll try to spend some time doing this very thing in the next day or two, provided someone else doesn't beat me to it.  Richwales (talk · contribs · review) 05:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * And for the record, I did add a reworked version of much of the material in question back into the article; see this edit. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Invitation
—Preceding unsigned comment added by EdwardsBot (talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for advice
Some weeks ago you made an attempt to help at Catholic-Eastern Orthodox theological differences. Would you please advise on how to handle the problem here. Should I just let LoveMonkey have his way? Perhaps it is best. In a very similar case I tried the Third Opinion method with regard to a precise question, but the administrator editor who responded expressed no opinion on the question and instead tried unsuccessfully to arbitrate; and Requests for Comment seem to draw very few and insufficiently persistent commentators for reaching any conclusion in a dispute with this editor. Esoglou (talk) 15:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. There does appear to be something dysfunctional going on there.  Let me take a really good look at that material and think about it for a while.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. No hurry.  Esoglou (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Katrina Swett
Well, it was late at night. ;-) Obviously I was cut and pasting from the other candidate, and then changing the data (which I clearly remember doing). Sometimes I hit some key (my SmartMouse!) and the page reverts to a previous 'Preview' version. I generally re-check the data, but obviously this time I missed it. Thanks for letting me know though, because hacking is always a possibility. It's also reassuring to know someone caught it quickly! Flatterworld (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 07:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 October 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

GREAT schism map
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Schism_1054_with_former_borders.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Great_Schism_1054_with_former_borders.png

Can you help to create a schism map. The political borders are correct (we used a lot of history map to construct the borders) However, the map represents the state religions. White areas are not catholic and not orthodox areas, or there aren't church infrastructure with church hierarchy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.153.53 (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

November copy edit drive
— Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

November copy edit drive
— Preceding undated comment added 12:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 16:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

The Signpost: 15 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Katyn massacre
-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:37, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

FYROM
Hello,

Concerning your message:

I reverted the changes you made to the Poppy article, relating to the name of the (former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia. It is Wikipedia policy that the names "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" or "FYROM" are not to be used as official names for this country; see WP:ARBMAC2 (a ruling by the Arbitration Committee) and WP:MOSMAC2. Additionally, references to the Republic of Macedonia in any Wikipedia article are subject to probation and sanctions; see WP:GS. Repeated or flagrant violations of this policy may (and, indeed, is likely to) lead to bans or blocks. Please be more careful in the future. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive me, as I made these changes with the assumption that Wikipedia was interested in maintaining a modicum of integrity as it pertains to respecting historical accuracy, international law and UN directives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.170.135 (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

RFA nom

 * PS: I'm still drafting the nominating statement. I hope you'll accept. If so, you might fill in your parts and once it's complete I can transclude it.   Will Beback    talk    23:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I've filled in my parts. If possible, I would prefer to do the transclusion step myself.  But if you really feel you should do that, then please let me have one more chance to proofread after you're done and before you transclude.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 00:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations
For the context of this message, please see the question in your RfA from Mkativerata.

Hey there - congratulations on your RfA. I'm really glad I supported it; you'll make for an excellent admin. Given that you're probably looking for a chance to try out your shiny new tools, would you consider full-protecting this page? I'd do it myself but I'm probably "involved"; a new editor is trying to insert all kinds of prejudicial material to the article sourced to dodgy blogs and I need a bit of breathing space to explain to him why the content isn't acceptable. Cheers - --Mkativerata (talk) 22:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing me. Yes, I agree that there is a problem here — but both of you are contributing to the problem — and although  can perhaps be excused as a new editor who doesn't know the ropes yet, you are an admin and should know better.


 * I'm going to give KMalaysia a uw-editwar warning advising him/her that unless s/he stops edit-warring  immediately , s/he will be blocked for 24 hours to force him/her to stop. S/he has already violated WP:EW and WP:3RR, but since s/he is a new editor and is not obviously trying to commit vandalism, s/he deserves at least one warning before getting blocked.  I will direct him/her to WP:RS and explain that blogs are not acceptable sources (with narrow exceptions that simply don't apply here).  I'll suggest that s/he should look for reports about the subject in mainstream foreign media (which may conceivably stand a better chance of being free of Malaysian government control than the country's domestic media outlets).  Assuming s/he finds such sources, s/he needs to report that the sources say such-and-so, because baldly asserting (as the voice of Wikipedia) that the PCM party claims to be independent but is really a government front violates WP:NPOV.  And I'll also caution him/her that accusing another editor of having ulterior motives and a conflict of interest as an agent of the Malaysian government violates WP:NPA, and that such comments in edit summaries absolutely must stop  now .  Rest assured that I'll be watching this page, and if KMalaysia continues his/her current misbehaviour after having been warned, s/he will be blocked from editing (first for 24 hours, with longer blocks if necessary to make the point and stop him/her from disruptive editing).


 * As for you, the first use of my shiny new tools will involve giving you a 24-hour block right now. As an administrator, you already know better than to engage in this sort of blatant edit-warring and 3RR violation, and you (and I) are supposed to be held to a higher standard.  As a heavily involved administrator, you had no business reverting KMalaysia's WP:RPP request on this article, so I'm going to reinstate that request (and immediately decline it in the proper manner, because full-protection is not the appropriate remedy for dealing with an edit war between two autoconfirmed users).  If KMalaysia doesn't get the point and persists in his/her current pattern of editing, I would strongly recommend that you let me (or other uninvolved admins) take care of the problem, rather than continue to fight this battle singlehandedly and risk further sanctions on yourself.  I would also suggest that you try to get more editors involved with the article in question — possibly by asking the participants at WP:WikiProject Malaysia — in hopes of forming a larger, neutral group of people who can reach meaningful consensus on what directions the page should take.


 * I assume this is probably not the sort of response you were hoping or expecting to get, and I want to encourage you not to take it as a punitive measure or a personal attack, but instead spend the next 24 hours thinking about how you can best improve this and other Wikipedia articles. You might want to consider spending some of your mini-wikibreak searching the web for the kind of reliable, citable sources regarding the PCM which KMalaysia may not currently understand how to find.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Decapitation
It has been suggested to me that my caption of Off with his head in your RFA is improper. In case this isn't clear, please understand that this is a joking reference to the article Decapitation, which you have edited, and to the Red Queen, who was a great enthusiast for this. No personal insult is meant by this - I was just trying to lighten the discussion and make it more entertaining. We have not interacted before, IIRC. How do you take this and the substantive criticisms which followed? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Your RfA has been closed as unsuccessful
I regret to inform you that your Request for adminship has been closed as unsuccessful. However, there were many comments made there which may help you should you choose to seek adminship in the future. I strongly recommend reviewing carefully all of the comments made there and using them in a constructive manner to improve yourself and increase your chances of passing any future request. If you have any questions, please let me know. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 22:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

A personal question
Hey Rich, how's it going? May I ask you a question of a mild personal nature - only to satiate my curiosity? You have a userbox that says you no longer speak (your native) American English fluently. The logical presumption is that this is due to "becoming fluent" in Canadian English, correct? Considering that Canadian and American English are so incredibly similar, what do you mean by this? Has your accent changed? Have you intentionally abandoned your American dialect in favor of a Canadian one? Do you just speak favoring the Canadian versions of words (in the instances where differences exist)? I saw your userpage and my curiosity was peaked. I suppose I could understand if the case was British English, for example, but I'd always thought of (spoken) Canadian English to be virtually the same as American English (regional dialects notwithstanding). Like I said: just curious!  Swarm   X 06:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Good question. Basically, I lived in Canada (Kitchener, Ontario) for several years — my wife and I immigrated there and eventually became citizens (i.e., we have dual citizenship).  Since we had planned to stay, I put forth an intensive effort to adopt the local speech as thoroughly as possible — pronunciation, vocabulary, the whole nine yards.  The average adult would have an extremely hard time doing this, but my aptitude for languages apparently made it easier.  By the time extended family issues led us to move back to California, I found that some of my co-workers (ones who didn't know me intimately) had tacitly assumed I was a born-and-bred local and had had no idea at all that I was from the US ("You're going back to the States??").


 * After we came back to California, it quickly became clear to me that I had "lost" my native accent so thoroughly that I couldn't readily get it back. Although I could presumably have managed (or still could manage) to reacquire general American speech through an intensive effort (comparable to what I had gone through earlier going the other direction), it just wasn't important enough to me to do it, so I never have.  Hence the comments on my user page.


 * There actually are significant differences between "general American" speech and that of most Canadians. Many of the pronunciation issues are subtle enough that an untrained listener wouldn't notice them, but they are definitely there — given enough time, I can usually identify a Canadian by their speech (many Canadian actors on US TV shows, for example, do a very good job of sounding like an American character, but there are usually some tiny leftover features which slip through, and I tend to notice these instantly).  And there are also some vocabulary differences, and even a handful of grammatical differences.


 * The main reason I put the userboxes on my page was to alert other editors to my mixed background, and also to make it clear why this American is using British spellings (actually, Canadian spellings — a compromise of sorts between US and British). I can write "American" if I need to, but I have to concentrate on what I'm doing; it doesn't "come naturally" any more, the way it did when I was younger.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Amazing. I would never have thought that in conditioning yourself to fully adapt to a new dialect, you could lose proficiency in your native one. In the same manner that ESL speakers still naturally know their native language (I presume they do, but that's a different topic), one would think that a native dialect would always come naturally. Very interesting. Thanks a lot for the explanation.  Swarm   X 03:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably the fact that the two dialects are similar has something to do with it. Richwales (talk · contribs) 03:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Look Rickardwales I am the American and owner of www.moldovawinetours so I didn't quot outside sources
Look I am the American that wrote about my tourism business in Moldova under the site www.moldovawinetours.com So I did not quote outside sources at all. The current tourism business's are all run by Russia Mafia in Moldova and scam almost every foreigner one way or another. I live in Chisinau Moldova since 2003 so know the country well and have a license from the government of Moldova to operate 7 business's. One other Moldovan business I operate is wine importing under the name www.moldovatraders.com which is also run from Portland Oregon and Chisinau Moldova just like the tourism business. So my information is correct and current about Moldova unlike you posting crime in wide spread, what a joke ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moldovatraders (talk • contribs) 03:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if you were advertising your own business, the links you added still violated Wikipedia's spam policy (see WP:LINKSPAM). If existing links in these articles are also "link spam", then they should be removed too, but that doesn't excuse your adding links to your own businesses in their place.  Additionally, an account name (such as yours) which is the same as the name of a company (your own company!) is a violation of Wikipedia's user name policy (see WP:CORPNAME) and is subject to immediate, indefinite blocking.  If I had not removed these links and reported your account name for the above reasons, someone else would have done so.  And I assure you that I am not in cahoots with any Moldovan organized crime rings — it sounded to me like you were accusing me of being allied with the "Russian mafia in Moldova", which is most definitely not true — but I'll overlook this apparent violation of Wikipedia's "no personal attacks" policy (see WP:NPA) as long as you're careful not to do it any more in the future.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 03:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Tavisupleba Video Montage.jpg
Just a heads-up, I've tagged the above image as possibly being non-free. There's a link to the discussion from the image page. With respect - Kelly  hi! 03:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I've posted a comment.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 06:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vance v. Terrazas
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Vance v. Terrazas you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 5 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Cheers!, Lord Roem (talk) 07:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This batch of three law articles (Vance v. Terrazas, Afroyim v. Rusk, and United States v. Wong Kim Ark) are my first GA submissions ever; hopefully I'm not too terribly far off course.   Rich wales (talk · contribs) 07:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Upon first glance, it doesn't meet any of the quick-fail criteria, so you are good so far. :-) - As I review this, if there are issues that arise, I can simply put it on hold and it can be improved without losing a chance to be 'GAed'. Cheers! Lord Roem (talk) 07:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The article Vance v. Terrazas you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, 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:Vance v. Terrazas for things which need to be addressed. Lord Roem (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The article Vance v. Terrazas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vance v. Terrazas for eventual comments about the article. Well done! -- Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping me clean up this article.  Rich wales (talk · contribs) 22:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

FA
Maybe discuss the implications of the decision. What does it mean? How has it impacted people? Can you find essays about its importance? That probably would improve the quality of the article a great deal. Cheers, Lord Roem (talk) 19:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)