User talk:Warofdreams/2008/07-09

Rename
Hello! Can you rename me from Mariánko to Marián_2? Thanks. --Mariánko (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you look to my talk, please? Thanks. --Mariánko (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A small bureaucratic request
Hi Warofdreams, I noticed in your recent adminship promotions that you changed the rights of the users you promoted from "rollbacker" to "rollbacker, sysop". If it's all right with you, when you promote someone to adminship, would you mind making sure that rights made redundant by sysop (i.e. rollback, account-creator, and ip-block-exempt) are de-checked when you're in Special:Userrights please? Having the promoting bureaucrat remove the rights while promoting an editor to adminship saves other admins from removing the said rights themselves, and also prevents the userrights log from being clogged up with unnecessary rights changes. While I respect that it's your decision whether to remove the redundant rights when promoting, it would be appreciated if you adopted this practice. Thank you. Acalamari 22:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, overall, it is up to the discretion of the promoting bureaucrat whether to remove redundant rights or not, as there is nothing official to address this. I myself don't have any problem in keeping a user with "rollbacker, sysop" groups combined, as there isn't any direct harm in keeping them together. However, there do seem to be a lot of users who believe it's more organized and less cluttery to keep sysops and rollbackers/accountcreators/ip-block-exempts separate, and that users with the former right grouped with the latter make it harder to keep track of everyone who has rollbackaccountcreator/ip-block-exempt. In addition, some admins also remove the redundant rights from sysops who are in those groups, therefore filling the userrights log with useless entries. I hope this explanation is to your satisfaction. Acalamari 23:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Question about Burma decision
There's been some confusion about your stance on the Burma/Myanmar question at Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-08_Burma/Consensus. Some users are concerned that since the page's current location was part of a dubious move and was simply kept at The Wrong Version during a wheel war and this page has played name-pong many times.

Can you clarify the decision a little bit? We do essentially need a stance for one or the other since there is no "status quo" location. If you aren't interested, we'll go back to the drawing board. (A formal mediation has been proposed, but it's been scuttled.) SDY (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have posted the discussion that Warofdreams and I had about this on the request for mediation discussion (here) so Warofdreams might not need to reply to SDY if SDY is happy with that discussion. Deamon138 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey no problem. And I hope it proves useful too, though it does look like this request for mediation will fail, which is unfortunate. But you never know, your previous comments to me may sway people or something, who knows? Anyway, thanks again for this, and happy editing! Deamon138 (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks both of you for following up on this. SDY (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Belated thanks
I know you're just doing your [volunteer] job as a 'crat, but I neglected to thank you for...doing your [volunteer] job as a 'crat in promoting me after my recent RfA. I [think] I've settled in nicely so far, and I'm looking forward to continuing to contribute. My thank spam (which I subst'd with an optional personal message) is at User:Frank/RFA thanks, in case you're interested...

Anyway, thanks again! Frank |  talk  23:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please advice who care about WP:NPOV – WP:UNDUE

 * Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

In terms of WP:REDFLAG policy regarding history How monority/majority gets? Based on sole person records in CV or based on number of historians which involved and the level of institution in which they currently has a post (not affilation). Thanks.Jo0doe (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This is based on a long-running dispute concerning the Ukrainian Insurgent Army article. Specifically, there are differences between the conclusions of Western scholars and those from Ukraine. Jo0doe (talk) considers the leading Western scholars in the field of Ukrainian history to be a minority view, perhaps because they are not as well known in Ukraine itself.  These include Orest Subtelny (who, among other things, wrote the Encarta Encyclopedia entry about Ukraine), and Paul Robert Magocsi.  Their introductory level texts are among the first books to pop up when one searches for "Ukraine" and "history" on amazon.com.  The books are here: and here:.  The other scholar Jo0doe (talk) objects to is Jeffrey Burds, whose homepage is here  and CV is here: .  His expertise is in a narrow field of Ukrainian and Soviet history directly related to the topic of the article, insurgency and counterinsurgency.


 * Opposed to these scholars, Jo0doe places work by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. Because this is the main historical research institute within Ukraine itself, he feels that its conclusions supercede that of any Western scholar, no matter if it's one from a Harvard or a Yale.  Unfortunately, the Institute's work is relatively unknown in the West, and not available in English.  Furthermore, there are questions on verifiability - although the Institute employs many researchers I haven't seen much evidence of its work being scrutinized or reviewed by outsiders unaffiliated with it.


 * In my opinion, the wikipedia policies suggest that the work of the mainstream western scholars be given precedence over the work of the mainstream Ukrainian ones. According WP:RS, the follwoing section:  states:


 * The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes.


 * Googlescholar shows 353 books/citations with PR Magocsi: . Jeffrey Burds has 162: .  The Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences shows 57:, only 18 of which are after 1990.


 * As for Burds is a specialist in banditry, insurgency, etc. - exactly what this article is about. And his work in this narrow field is cited at least 10 times more in the English-speaking world than that if the Institute of History is cited on any subject after 1990.  There is simply no comparison.  As for Magocsi - his general introductory text about Ukrainian history, cited in the article, has 82 hits on googlescholar .  More than four times more than does the Institute of History after 1990.


 * Another policy that works in favor of the Western scholars is that of verifiability. Specifically, according to WP:RSUE, "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."


 * In my opinion, although the work by the Institute of History is valuable, the above evidence adds up to the work of Magocsi, Subtelny, and Burds taking precedence over that of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Acaemy of Sciences in case of a conflict between the two sources of information. If one is to be considered a minority viewpoint, in the context of the English wikipedia it would be the latter.


 * I realize that this has been a lot of writing, which may involve an investment in time - hope I'm not imposing - but if you have the time, what is your opinion on this matter?Faustian (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

UPA – military formation of Nationalists organization which adopt similar to Nazi ideology and methods – see IMT   proved by affidavit of Major General ERWIN VON LAHAUSEN, personal representative of Admiral Canaris. So such organization (along with military formation of it) was assumed as Nazi collaborators and war criminals Wartime_Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia at Soviet Union, Poland, Chechoslovakia and amongst World Jewish community – almost nothing were changed for 65+ years passed. But since they used together with rest Nazi criminals as usefull tool - “anti-communists front of nations” they extensively posed after 1946 as “liberation” and “anti-Nazi” resistance movement in North-American publication of Ukrainian Diaspora which hided such criminals (while authors mostly were an OUN/UPA members or their kin  – appeared in above wording as “Western scholars”).
 * So, Great – I assume sole editor trace my edits. So we clarify the issue:


 * A lot of unsubstantiated remarks about the Western scholars. Sure, a lot of people in the West who study Ukrainian history are of Ukrainian descent - it makes sense.  Any proof that MAgocsi or Subtelny belong to the OUN?  On the other hand, not all are of Ukrainian descent (see, for example, Jeffrey Burds).

So here the dispute between majority vision – Russia, most of Ukraine, Poland, Chechoslovakia and World Jewish community vs Ukrainian Diaspora which hided for a long time such criminals and one proponent of Nazi collaborators and war criminals from Kremlinology institution.


 * More unsubtantiated claims. UPA fought against the USSR and Poland, so it makes sense that they would present it one-sidedly.  Polish right-wing nationalists continue to publish one-sided Soviet-style critiques of UPA.  In Poland the mainstream scholarship concerning UPA is changing, however - see the work of Ryszard Torzecki, for example - an no longer follows the Soviet model.  By "one proponent of Nazi collaborators" Jo0doe  means Jeffrey Burds .  His articles are available on-line as free pdf files.  I challenge a nuetral observor to read one of them and conclude that he is some sort of UPA apologist.  Here is a fascinating one about gender and the insurgency in Western Ukraine: .  Jo0doe   dismisses Burds as coming from a "Kremlinology institution" because he obtained his Ph.D. in history from Yale and because he is currently Co-Director of the Center for the Study of Russia & the Soviet Union at Harvard's Davis Center for Russian Studies.  Apparently, specializing in Soviet or Russian studies makes one unqualified in researching Russia or Soviet history.Faustian (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

UPA fought against the USSR and Poland - A correct wording - against Poles, Jews and Russians - becouse they was Poles, Jews and Russians - General Intruction of the OUN(B). dismisses Burds ... because he obtained his Ph.D. in history from Yale Would be good if editor prove this statement213.159.244.219 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC) 213.159.244.219 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC) So here is an issue – the attempt to put hoaxes from collaborators and war criminals (Krochmalyuk, Shankovskyy and their proponents) and omiting scientifically proved facts from National Historical Institutions and dozens (if not hundreds) of historians. – As an example – hoaxes as but other information which clearly depict this info as myths and provide majority accepted vision on this organiztion and formation– removed. Here is a problem – rewriting article strictly from view of minority Jo0doe (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ukrainian insurgents numbering about 600 men (including numbers of Ukrainian self-defense force), invoked the panic and retreat of 2 German divisions)
 * insurgent battalions repulsed the incursions of 2 German SS divisions, totaling 30,000 soldiers (7-9 July), and on the 12th of July the Germans reinforced them with a 3rd division included

copy editing work on the Kirkcaldy article
hello, warofdreams

i recently did a revamp of the Kirkcaldy article and i would like to put the article under a peer review in the near future, but it needs a good general tidy-up with spelling etc, have you got a bit of time to look over the article and do some copy editing work. Kilnburn (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Cllrs
Do you have any source of information on NI Cllrs besides ARK? I ask as a friend of mine from Ballymoney told me the other day that the DUP in Ballymoney couldn't find a candidate for co-option to the Council and so James McClure for a time was simultaneously a councillor in both Coleraine and Ballymoney. I wanted to verify that.Traditional unionist (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish you'd asked me last week as I was in NI and had access to all data on co-options then. The relevant legislation isn't clear "a person shall be disqualified for being elected or being a councillor if (a)he holds any paid office or other place of profit (not being that of chairman or sheriff) in the gift or disposal of that or any other council;" Maybe getting expenses from one council wouldn't count as strictly speaking that's not making a profit? Full election results are now on the NI electoral office site  you could maybe try a FOI request on them? Valenciano (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Where do you have full access to co-options? Cllrs only started getting remunerated in te last 1990's.  They now get a flat nine grand rate, but thats only within the past couple of years.  Mark Neale lost his seat on Craigavon in 2001 (I think) and he told me that then it was totally voluntary, so that wouldn't prohibit you sitting on two councils.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I got paper hard copies from the electoral office in Ann Street. Obviously though they're not top of the list of things to pack when you're moving to another country :) Looking at the legislation there doesn't seem to be anything prohibiting people from sitting on two councils simultaneously but I'm sure an email to the EONI would clear that up. Valenciano (talk) 11:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * McClure is an interesting guy, maybe try to get an article together soon.Traditional unionist (talk) 11:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely. He was a member of the 1975 convention so easily meets WP:BIO. Valenciano (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation
{| class="plainlinks"
 * colspan="3" valign="left" style="width: 100%; background:Navy; padding: 10px;" |

Introducing WikiProject United States Government...

 * valign="top" style="border: 2px Red solid; background: white; padding: 1em; width: 20%; " |[[Image:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg|200px]]
 * valign="top" style="border: 2px Red solid; background: white; padding: 1em; width: 20%; " |[[Image:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg|200px]]


 * valign="top" style="border: 2px Red solid; background: white; padding: 1em; width: 60%; " | Hello Warofdreams,

Are you interested in Politics, Law or the United States? Do you enjoy expanding, creating or maintaining articles relating to those subjects? Or do you enjoy the small stuff? Or maybe you like learning about the United States Congress or the Commander in Chief.

Well, wait no longer, because we have a project for you! WikiProject United States Government is where all the cool Wikipedians who watch C-SPAN hang out! Join the project today and help us get it off the ground and flying.

Thanks in advance, « Diligent Terrier   Bot    (talk)   22:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This message has been delivered by Diligent Terrier Bot on behalf of WikiProject United States Government.

You have received it because you are a member of a related WikiProject or you have said you are interested in your userspace.

Message written by Leonard^Bloom and Diligent Terrier. Help us get the project off the ground and flying.
 * valign="top" style="border: 2px Red solid; background: white; padding: 1em; width: 60%; " |[[Image:Air Force One over Mt. Rushmore.jpg|200px]]


 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }

Parliament of Dunces
Wouldn't it be more useful to merge it the other way round? All the books and accounts from that era i've found have refered to it as the Unlearned Parliament rather than the Parliament of Dunces. Ironholds 10:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll do it that way round then; to be honest other than "this is an alternative name" and a redirect there isn't that much to be changed. Thanks for your time :). Ironho<b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 10:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Text mysteriously vanishing from visible version
Hello, could you have a look at the following for me? The problem is that after editing it, there is some text in the edit which doesn't appear in the visible version of the page. Between the sections entitled 'eligibility' and 'Results by municipality' a whole chunk of text doesn't appear. It is there still if I edit the page. It occurs after the visible line "public bodies such as the Spanish state broadcaster RTVE" in the elegibility section. The missing bit starts with "Lastly, following changes to the electoral law which took effect for the 2007 municipal elections," and ends with "ignoring the two minimum seats that they were awarded. refhttp://electionresources.org/es/index_en.html General features of Spanish electoral system/ref" I suspect it may be something to do with ref formatting but they look okay to me and this is the first time I've encountered something like that, so I'm baffled and would appreciate your help. Valenciano (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotcha! The problem came from copying another users use of repeated tags on another article. Unfortunately they made the same mistake! Thanks, Valenciano (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV and WP:Redflag issue
Thank you for clear and detailed explanation. But specifically Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences published historical conference materials "Ukraine in WWII dimention" mentioned what specifically noted person is "Kremlinologist" and his work is not histrical work but a new-kremlinology one (unfortunatelly text available only in Ukrainian). So here is few citation from that person work http://www.history.neu.edu/fac/burds/agentura1.pdf in question for NPOV and exceptional claims (I've add my note after statements from pages listed)


 * Soviet war to pacify West Ukraine p.92.
 * No such war known


 * During the first seventeen month of the Soviet reoccupation of West Ukraine . p.97
 * No such historical event known – “Soviet reoccupation of West Ukraine”. Moreover in early July Nazi was in Lviv


 * Table 1 Soviet pacification of the Western borderlands, February through October 1995
 * In many other works such tables got 8 categories instead 3 – while joining data in such way gives a highly inflated figures just an instance – surrendered – out of 92 K – more then 70K are

Those who refuse to be mobilized in the Red Army (but not “deserters” as mentioned here)

Arresting 250.676 persons p.97
 * No same data appeared in mentioned documents.


 * From war to civil war
 * no civil war recognized by historians

Cited through M.Koval Ukraine in WWII and Great Patriotic War, 1939-1945 Attempt of modern conceptual analysis  (Kiev 1994), 46-47. p.110
 * Killing more then 30000 Communists, soldiers and local collaborators by end of 1945. p.110
 * no such info appeared at p. 46-47. at cited book – while “Communists, soldiers and local collaborators” it’s preferred by author category


 * Soviet also practices their own brand of ritualistic violence and corps vilification. While Ukrainian descriptions do not refer explicitly to the practice, the account of a Lithuanian anti-Soviet rebels reflects the general practice of the NKVD-NKGB establishments. p.110
 * Horror stories repaated meany times over tiny 42 pages text.

Through the postwar years of Stalin reign, the intensification of enmity between ethnic group long-feuding for hegemony over various regions of the Eastern Europe was a central tactic of soviet power. In West Ukraine that meant, above all, playing ethnic Ukrainians against ethnic Poles.
 * No such historical facts are known – see Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia what actually happened.

Wholesale slaughter of the immediate post war years was repudiated. p.130
 * No such historical facts are known

Thank you for your opinion about neitrality of text and author notability Jo0doe (talk) 16:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Using original research to try to discredit a Reliable Source whom he disagrees with, as usual. Nothing exceptional about what Burds presents, either.  The editor above just claims they are.Faustian (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone from histrians claim for Wholesale slaughter of the immediate post war years? Jo0doe (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Depends on the context those words were placed in.Faustian (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Same story with Killing more then 30000 Communists, soldiers and local collaborators by end of 1945 and restJo0doe (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This figure is used by other sources, certainly. In Simpson, Christopher (1988). "Guerrillas for World War III", - America's recruitment of Nazis, and its disastrous effect on our domestic and foreign policy. Collier Books / Macmillan, 148. ISBN 978-0020449959 we have an estimate by CIA chief that UPA killed 35,000 Soviet police troops and Communist party cadres.Faustian (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Great - CIA estimate - same relibility like WMD at Iraq?Jo0doe (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you, Faustian, point what such info does not exist at mentioned book and documents?Jo0doe (talk) 06:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Or you claim what .Koval Ukraine in WWII and Great Patriotic War, 1939-1945 Attempt of modern conceptual analysis  (Kiev 1994), 46-47. does not exist and reading of books is OR?Jo0doe (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I claim that judging one book as "better" than another due to personal preference is Original Research. Although objectively speaking Koval is on a lower level than Burds with respect to expertise on UPA.

secondary sources he ref as source does not include same dataJo0doe (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is no claim which one better - here is issue with majority view vs sole person inflated figures and horror stories - proved by the fact what
 * Often you base your opinions on poor comprehension. FOr example you accuse Britannica of self-contradiction:


 * "I don't mind how even in few lines of text placed self contradiction:

Still, in late 1920, Ukrainians constituted less than 20 percent of the CP(B)U’s membership


 * the CP(B)U itself, the proportion of Ukrainians in the rank-and-file membership exceeded 50 percent by the late 1920s.”


 * Britannica versus Britannica ?Jo0doe (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * When you just didn't understand the difference between late 1920 and late 1920's.Faustian (talk) 12:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So your try to put others in misconception is noted - "Austrian officer” in 1939 “German officials” (namely Ribbenrop, Keitel, Jodl and Canaris) and “recalled six years after the conversation” (affidavit at IMT  - similar story here  Still, in late 1920” placed after “1924”. Jo0doe (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So you attack Britannica's credibility based on your opinion of their editting (placing something about late 1920 after something abut 1924)? It's unfortunate that this was enough to confuse you about what "late 1920" means.  But that's your problem, not Britannica's.  It is quite clear to everyone else.  But thanks for demonstrating that others need to be very careful when considering your claims about what is said.Faustian (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability (political parties)
Hi, I see that you are actively formulating this guideline. The proto-party discussed in Articles for deletion/Communist Party of Estonia (1990) would fail the notability criteria of that guideline. Martintg (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Workers Party of Ireland
Hi, I notice that you have done some edits to Workers Party of Ireland and have created a link to its former President Tom French - for whom no page currently exists. Are you intending to create such a page or would you like to see it created? I have contributed often to pages of the Workers Party (of which I am a member) and would be interested in hearing your views. Coolavokig (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Plebs' League
Thanks for the redirect on Plebs' League. Politics isn't really my bag, but it links heavily to the Communist ties of the early Rhondda coal mining history, which I'm really getting into. But so far the only category I have for the Plebs' League is Marxism. There must be cleaner categories we could use. Any ideas? Thanks, FruitMonkey (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Many ThanksFruitMonkey (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Abbeydale picture palace
Agree to much for 'Front' page, but summary deletion by IP editor was wrong (with no reason given), so stuck it back, but left comment as was not 100 % with tone of text, needs a brief link entry to full entry IMO (was too late to spend time on then). - --BulldozerD11 (talk) 11:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Roller ship images
Thanks! There's a very similar illustration in one of the New York Times articles, which I'd been going to look into the copyright of today - I didn't feel up to doing it last night! There's also some contemporary French etchings, but I'm not at all sure how to work out if they're PD or not. Another research project... Shimgray | talk | 13:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Help!
I'm asking you this purely because you say you're involved in Socialist politics. Do you know when the right to join a trade union became statutory?Traditional unionist (talk) 21:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Has nothing to do with wikipedia, so thanks for the help! It's really only important to me that the right was statutory before the Thatcher Government and even more importantly before the late 1990's.  So if it was done in the 1800's, that's pretty much all I need to know, but I'll see if Westlaw has a copy of the statute you mentioned.  Cheers,Traditional unionist (talk) 23:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * You totally sure that Act was 1871?Traditional unionist (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All the legal resources are pretty useless because they only tell me which later acts repealed the last one. So the 1871 act was repealed in 1971, which was repealed in 1974, which was repealed by Major in 1992, which is in force today but offers no initial legal right to join a Union, just rights within unions not to be kicked out unjustifiably!Traditional unionist (talk) 23:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

MakeBot vs. UserRights
Hi, I was wondering why you made this change. Although bot flags can now be added and removed through Special:Userrights, using Special:MakeBot means that bot flagging actions are separately logged in the bot status log - which makes it a lot easier to keep track of them given the number of user rights changes that happen these days. I myself much prefer the makebot interface and was wondering whether it really need abandoning... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That change seems to have been made without discussion, which is why I reversed it pending discussion. I will abide by whatever the conclusion of the discussion at WP:BN is, but wish people would ask us before making these sorts of changes to those instructions... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 01:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Dates
Hi. Just wondering where you are getting the birth/date dates from (e.g. in Richard Pilkington (1841 - 1908), James Andrew Seddon? Lozleader (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent: I had lost track of that site... it used to be at | this URL. Keep up the good work. 14:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Query on Neutrality(?) policy
As I can recall wikipedias policy is to refer to countries under their legal name as it is accepted by the UN. however if one looks at the todays 7/9/08 first page/on this day section on will propably see "independence day of Republic of Macedonia"... however there is no such state as this. THE OFFICIAL NAME IS: Former Yugoslavic Republic Of Macedonia F.Y.R.O.M. May I remind you also that the are currently negotiations taking place for the removal of continuation of the "Macedonia" bit in the name. Wikipedias neutrality policy dictates that the temporary official name should be used.... If so possible I propose the creation of a bot to undertake the job of fixing this isue. As unimportand as it might seam to you: 1)it is a breach of the wikipedias neutrality policy 2) it is malinforming and incorrect 3) it means a great deal for the current countries in the dispute 4) it is disrespectfull towards the citizens of those countries and the UN thank you very much for your attention 79.166.26.188 (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK 2.0 Voting is open :-)
A warm hello to all those signed up as guarantor members of the soon-to-be-rebooted UK chapter! Voting is now open over at meta - there's tons of information online over there, and the mailing list has been very active too. Discussion, comment (and even the inevitable technical gremlins!) are most welcome at the meta pages, otherwise please do send in your vote/s, and tell a friend about the chapter too :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC) I'm not actually involved in the election workings, and am just dropping these notes in to help try and spread the word :-) I welcome any or all comment too, but 'election related' stuff really is better suited to the meta pages :-)

Election infobox
Hello there,

Would you mind making sure that your infobox for UK general elections is always 2 across, like 1918 election, and not 3 across, like 1923 election? Otherwise it gets in the way of the results table. I am not sure how to do this myself.

Wikimedia UK
Hi WarofDreams,

Congratulations on your election to Wikimedia UK. We are currently trying to get the first Board meeting together and have pencilled in Thursday October 2nd, 8pm on irc://irc.freenode.net/wikimedia-uk. We have an email list that we're using - could you email me (raturvey_yahoo.co.uk)if you want to join in the discussions on email or alternatively message me on my talk page. Speak soon! AndrewRT(Talk) 19:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)