User talk:Fleetflame

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fleetflame.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Wikipedia Ads	file info – show another – #79

Contents 1 WPMHA07 2 Thanks and Happy New Year 3 Barnstar 4 God vs god 5 Regarding Wikipedia:Editor Review 6 your note 7 Respond to Fleetflame 8 Re: Twinkle oops 9 Wikihate 10 Thank you 11 A favour 12 Writing for the Signpost 12.1 Part 1: Choosing a topic 12.2 Part 2: Writing the article 12.3 Part 3: Submitting the article 13 New! BCAD drive from Milhist 14 Lake Buena Vista and Wide World of Sports 15 HumanRightsDefender 16 Why 17 Environmental issues in the People's Republic of China 18 Foo Go 19 Re: Regarding The Great Debate (as I've decided to call it) 20 RE: About flag of Göktürks 21 History of vehicle registration plates of the Yukon 22 News! Tag & Assess 2008 is coming ... 23 Adoption 24 Adoption 25 Question

[edit] WPMHA07

Someone who cares more about putting things in order than being a douche did it for me. You know it doesn't say to "put it in alphabetical order" either :-p Apartcents (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

• It does now :)))))) Thanks for your help with the drive! Keep up the good work. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• You might find this Firefox add-on useful: Linky. It opens links in tabs on your browser. This means you can have the sub-worklist itself, plus all ten articles in it, plus their talk pages, open at once. This also saves on mouse clicks!
• Also, don't strike through and save articles as you go. Delete the tagged ones from the list as you work through, then strike the remainder at the end before saving. You can strike the sub-worklist and preserve its autonumbering by putting the <s> after the first # in the list.

Good luck, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You're doing it fine.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 18:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and Happy New Year

Firstly, let me wish you a very happy New Year and thank you for all your help in the Milhist Tag & Assess 2007 drive.

Secondly, although the Tag & Assess 2007 drive is now officially closed, you are very welcome to continue tagging and assessing until 31 January 2008. Any extra articles you tag and assess during this time will be credited fully to your tagging tally for further award purposes.

Thirdly, if you can find the time, it would be great to have your feedback/comments and participation in the recently-set-up Tag & Assess workshop The idea is to see what lessons we can learn from the 2007 drive to make the 2008 one more efficient and enjoyable.

Thanks again for your help, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much indeed for the barnstar. It was both entirely unexpected and enormously appreciated :) Thank you too, once again, for your help with the drive and your comments at the workshop! All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Environmental Barnstar
		Thank you, Fleetflame, for rewriting Environmental impacts of dams, and for encouraging the input of other editors along the way. Well done! Johnfos (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] God vs god

Copied from J.delanoy's talk page--Why did you make this change? If you will do a case-sensitive search throughout this article, you will find that every time the word "God" is used, it refers to a certain deity specific to the religion in subject. If the word refers to "a god," as in this case, it should be lowercase. I'm leaving it alone for the time being, but if you have no objections, it should be changed back to "god." Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're right, there is an inconsistancy in the prayer article, with God being approx, 60% vs god with approx 40%. In my opinion, this is not very strong in either direction, so I will add a thing on the talk page to see which people think is better, as we should probably use on or the other. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and I apologize for any problems that may have happened because of my edits. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 12:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My question was not about the different capitalizations (see here) but rather why you changed the capitalization in a noun phrase, (e.g. you changed "a god" to "a God." If the statement refers to a specific god, it should say "God," and if not, as in this same sentence, it should be lowercase. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 03:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I saw the note you made in Prayer's talk page, and I think you're right, it makes no difference to me what you do. When I made the original change, I had just started patrolling recent changes, and I was a little careless. Sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying that you did something wrong, it's just that there's no inconsistency there. Those words are supposed to be capitalized the way they are. Thanks for understanding :-) Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Wikipedia:Editor Review

Sorry, but I have removed your editor review on the basis that you are a wholly inexperienced editor, based upon your minute edit counter and inexperience with editing a wide range of Wikipedia articles. A reviewer of other editors must take careful consideration of their prior edits, not including ones in an Edit Counter, and careful analysis must be made of their prior contributions -- especially if the editor has specifically requested it.

With that said, I have over 11,000 edits, and have contributed to hundreds of articles, not just to University of Kentucky and Pullman Square as you indicated. I am also a participant at the Mediation Committee, Wikiquette Alerts, and at Third Opinion, among other noticeboards, and all of those were severely overlooked as well. Please take this in good faith: I am requesting another reviewer. Cheers, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw you deleted my review. You already told me that you helped with all those things. If you really just want to hear someone praise all of your good work, then don't waste time at Editor Review. You said you wanted someone to comment on your "dealing with other editors." Maybe since that's not what you really wanted, you should change it. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] your note

Copied from Mperel's talk page--You reverted vandalism on Wart around 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC) a couple of times, but you did not warn the vandal (65.95.100.17). Please--whenever you revert vandalism, use the templates at Warn to warn the vandals. Thank you! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Leaving warnings on talk pages for ip vandals is often a waste of energy since they typically jump from ip to ip. But sure, for repeat vandals, particularly one's with accounts, it sometimes helps. --MPerel 01:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes it does seem rather like chasing the wind, but it's a Wikipedia policy and it's a good one. Not all IPs jump, and if they have not been warned, no one will know to submit them to ARV and they will never be blocked. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Respond to Fleetflame

Copied from Gary King's talk page--I think it would be safe to tag this for speedy(Marys Dog) under notability or even advertising. Google turns up nothing but a MySpace and another questionable source. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 22:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I figure that, but the person is also trying to add new content, and I'm just giving them a chance. Although, if an admin passes by it, it'll probably get speedily deleted, anyways. Gary King (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point. It really doesn't matter which way the article is deleted, as long as it happens :P Keep up the good work! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 22:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, article was speedy deleted by User:Anthony Appleyard , I just closed the AfD. Cheers, EJF (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Twinkle oops

haha nice.
I'm not even using anything other than multiple tabs in my browser to combat vandalism (I do have access to rollback, so that helps...)
I guess that means either I'm faster, purely by myself, than twinkle is, or else I got extremely lucky. I'm guessing the latter ;-)
J.delanoy^gabs_adds 23:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikihate

Thanks for letting me know. Apparently when a high school kid's article about his and his pals' private joke gets deleted from Wikipedia (The Book (2007) he gets pissy. Make that junior high... Luckily, new page patrol has given me a sense of humour about such things, rather than emotional involvement. The warning is appreciated and I'm thinking the young man has probably decided to take his in-jokes elsewhere. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

		Military history service award
		For tagging and assessing 250 articles in Tag & Assess 2007, by order of the coordinators I hereby present you with this Military history WikiProject Service Award. --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A favour

Hey FF, nice to see you getting another barnstar...

Could I ask a favour please? Environmental issues with the Three Gorges Dam has recently been spun off from Three Gorges Dam and it seems editors have got caught up with the negative aspects again, ignoring some positive environmental benefits of dams. Would you care to take a look at it please, with NPOV in mind... thanks, Johnfos (talk) 06:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Writing for the Signpost

Hello. You expressed interest in writing for the Wikipedia Signpost (sorry for the delay in responding). I'm sending this message to everyone who commented, so if you have any questions I haven't answered, please feel free to ask me, and I'll try to respond to specific questions.

Essentially, what I'm looking for is writers who can step in and write on subjects that are newsworthy from week-to-week. The content of the stories obviously varies each week depending on what's happening; this is discussed below.

There are three major parts to writing an article:

1. Choosing a topic
2. Writing the article
3. Submitting the article

[edit] Part 1: Choosing a topic

As said above, topics will vary from week-to-week. For this week, these particular issues may be newsworthy:

• Bureaucratship candidacies — There are a lot of bureaucratship candidacies this week, for the first time in about six or seven months. I'm personally covering this one for next week, but this is a good example of what might be newsworthy.
• Encyclopedia of Life — This encyclopedia of species has been getting some press, and relates somewhat to Wikimedia project Wikispecies.
• Hidden categories — For those technically inclined, this is a new feature that has some interesting implications.

For more ideas, and for ideas in the future, check the tip-line -- there are usually some good ideas there.

Once you've decided on a topic, make sure to sign up for it in the newsroom, under "Special stories", so that users aren't duplicating each others' work (though multiple writers are certainly free to work together on a story).

[edit] Part 2: Writing the article

Now, you've decided on a topic and signed up for it. To write it, create a subpage in your userspace. For my story this week on the bureaucratship candidacies, for example, I'll create it at User:Ral315/Bureaucratship candidacies. The name isn't a big deal, of course -- I'll change it if necessary.

Formatting the story isn't important; for your first article, you should mainly focus on writing a good story, and I'll take care of the formatting when we publish. Try to write it in a newspaper-like tone, avoiding personal comments and opinions in favor of straight-forward facts. The size of an article varies based on what the story is, but a good minimum goal for most stories is two-to-three good paragraphs. Longer articles are even better, so long as they're well-written.

[edit] Part 3: Submitting the article

Now, all you have to do is post a link to the article in the newsroom, where you signed up for it earlier. That's it! You're done!

Again, if you have any questions at all, please contact me, and I'll try to respond as soon as possible.

Thanks for your interest in writing for the Signpost. Ral315 (talk) 03:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New! BCAD drive from Milhist

Can I invite you to particpate in our new assessment drive? It's strictly for experienced editors and has a degree of friendly competition built-in. It involves re-evaluating around 3500 Milhist B-Class articles to ensure they match our new criteria. As ever, we're offering a range of awards as our way of expressing our thanks. The drive doesn't start until 18:00 (UTC) on March 10 but you can sign up in advance here. It would be great if you can spare the time, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 05:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

One Stripe (200 articles) Two Stripes (400 articles) Three Stripes (600 articles) Chevrons (1000 articles) Golden Wiki First place

[edit] Lake Buena Vista and Wide World of Sports

This PDF map of the Reedy Creek Improvement District is one of the best maps of Disney's property that I have found (actually, another contributor found it). It clearly shows that WWoS is in Osceola County and not Orange County. IF WWoS was in Orange County, then it would have to be in Bay Lake since it is west of Bonnet Creek. I don't mean to make a big deal about it; I'm just trying to make the article consistant.

Wide World of Sports (and the rest of Disney's property) does use Lake Buena Vista as a mailing address, but most of the property is not physically within Lake Buena Vista. There has actually been quite a lot of discussion on the various WDW pages regarding its location.

Apr1fool (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] HumanRightsDefender

Hi,

Started a thread. Wanna comment? WLU (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why

Do You want to delete the Hustla article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Signshare (talk • contribs)

I provided a link to Wikipedia's policy on notability in the "delete" template. See this paragraph for more detailed information on the subject. Singles are generally not considered notable enough to have their own articles on Wikipedia; thus they are usually redirected to the album's article, or if that does not exist, they may redirect to the band. The exceptions are songs that have won major awards or have enjoyed significant chart rankings. This song appears to be neither. I hope this clears up the confusion. Feel free to ask me any other questions. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Environmental issues in the People's Republic of China

Hi FF, Thanks for your persistence with the Three Gorges Dam issue. Have you seen the Talk page of this one? Classic case of a POV fork if I ever saw one. Alan seems to have created many "Environmental issues in xxx" categories and has split articles to fill them up... Johnfos (talk) 03:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's people like this who make the rest of us involuntarily grab for the bridges of our noses. Apparently Alan is another of the editors who read WP:BOLD and assume a "veni, vidi, vici" mentality. We need a new essay: WP:NOT_ROME. I hope we can convince him to stop soon; he's headed to no good end. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 20:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I take issue with your comments and that I am "conquering" WP. My splitting of articles to improve WP and a difference of opinion between us should not be interpreted by you as my conquering of WP. If you go through my edits you will realise that I have been very cooperative with WP editors. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you realise that there were many "Environmental issues in XXXX" articles before I started creating categories for them? I split out two or three env issue articles and it seems to be an issue (he-he!!!) with you. What about all the existing env issues article I did not have a hand in? This is not some sort of personal vendetta is it?-- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right: there is only so much we can say, and then it is ultimately up to Alan to choose to be more co-operative if he wants. It's interesting that some old-school environmentalists don't place a lot of emphasis on people issues, and are all caught up with feathers, fur, and fins. And that such environmentalists are often full of doom and gloom, and say little about more contemporary messages associated with sustainability etc. I read a book recently that gave much food for thought about future directions: The Clean Tech Revolution. Johnfos (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this article may be a special case--the issues aren't really covered in the main article and I don't see that it was truly split. I do realize that doesn't mean it's not a fork, but this may be notable enough for its own article. I've asked for a pov check from someone else because I can't decide.  :-) Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 16:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

What makes you say that I am not being cooperative. I have discussed the issues on the talk pages I have not reverted any of your edits. If you both feel strongly about my article splits why not revert them? Also, you seem to be speculating about me and I suspect it is based on very little research on my actions. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't make me laugh, Alan. You provide next to no info about yourself on your user page, then express surprise that people are speculating about you. You have split many articles without discussion and then express surprise that people are saying you are not co-operative. Don't make me laugh! Johnfos (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no obligation to supply information about me on my user page and if I did so I may well be judged by it. Please judge me on my edits rather than your speculations. Anyway, WP is not about personal stuff. With splitting articles, there is no policy or guideline to say that it must be discussed first. And why do you say I have split "many" articles? Since I abide by policy and guidelines, since I do not revert other editors work back to mine (unless it is vandalism), since I do regularly discuss things on talk pages, since I am part of WikiProjects and since I do help out with such mundane tasks as redlink recovery, categorisation, disambiguation pages, vandal patrol etc I feel that I am cooperating quite well in the WP community. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 02:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, Alan, three edits in one minute! ;-) Please believe me: this is not a personal issue and your personal level of worth to Wikipedia is much less in question than your splitting of articles. I realize there are several "environmental issues" articles and that is exactly what the problem is--I don't think we need more. I believe you misinterpreted WP:BOLD because you cited it as the reason you split an article (a process that traditionally requires consensus) and violated WP:CFORK while doing it. Also, I am not simply reverting your edits for the same reason you are not reverting mine. I am not trying to assume I know better than anyone else or act highhandedly, I just do not understand why you keep splitting these sections out into articles. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I may be WP:BOLD (occasionally) but I am not reckless and I respect consensus. With splitting articles there is nothing in policy or guidelines that I can find that says I must seek consensus before the split. A recommendation can of course be made using the {{split}} tag if there may be doubts about the suitability of a split. Splitting articles is an inevitable process as the size of articles increases. Also, as pointed out elsewhere, you have not interpreted WP:CFORK correctly. The split is neither similar content nor POV. You may perceive it as a POV split but I doubt that any others see it as such which is why we need to get a consensus from at least a few more editors. I cannot see why you think WP does not need more environmental issues articled. Given the importance, the level of interest in environmental matters and the 2.3 million articled WP currently has I would arge that there are insufficient articles of this type. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 05:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So now the reason you're splitting articles is "we don't have enough of them"? Alan, as I pointed out already, splitting may not require consensus but it is a process that traditionally only happens after discussion. I'm willing to get more editor's thoughts on this issue; I believe we need to bring it to a head quickly. Perhaps this could be submitted to 3O or the Mediation Cabal. Let me know what you think. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to this WP tradition? The last thing I expect WP to have is any sort of tradition. We have policy and guidelines but I know of know of no traditions apart from those in the Church of Wikipedia!! If an article is in obvious need of splitting I would do it without discussion. If I cannot do it to the WP standard or if it MAY be contentious I would place the {{split}} tag on it. Things that are not contentious and fit it with WP need not be discussed. I am not only splitting articles because "we don't have enough of them". My first reason for splitting articles is because it is needed due to a section of an article being given too much space and thus upsetting the balance of the topic. Other reasons are: to fit it in with categorisation, or because it is notable enough to justify its own article or because a red link exists for it (which means someone else thinks it is important). Yes, it would be good to involve other editors in order to move on from this stalemate but I don't see what the hurry is. Out of interest are you aware of Category:Articles to be split? -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 03:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Alan, so far the reasons you have given for splitting articles have been:

1. The original articles are too long
2. The issues of these environmental impacts are notable, somehow more than others of the same kind
3. I created the category!
4. Someone put a redlink in some article pointing to it
5. We need more "environmental issues" articles
6. WP:BOLD
7. I have a "splittist" opinion

Your reasoning for the rather heated debate are:

1. You guys just hate me anyway
2. We have a different "philosophical outlook" (my personal favorite)
3. You just don't like the negative aspects of dams
4. I'm siding with the Siberian Crane and the Baiji

If you cannot come up with better arguments than these for creating an obvious content fork (yes, that annoying little guideline again), than please consider not splitting any more articles until we can reach a general consensus on the issue. The reason I would like to see this resolved quickly is that I believe having articles like this cheapens Wikipedia's integrity for readers and I believe it should be removed as soon as possible. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see sign of a heated debate, all I see is a difference in opinion. If you are getting heated about it I see no evidence of it. Also, please do not twist my comments to make your view seem a better option. In order of priority (very roughly) my reasons for spitting the article is:

1. a section of an article being given too much space
2. it is as a notable issue as the main article so an article should exist
3. the original articles are starting to get too long
4. a category exists and could do with populating
5. a red link exists for it suggesting others see the need for an article
6. given the size of WP there does seem to be a need for more more env issue article given the importance and level of interest in such matters. (there is a List of Pokemon characters and all sorts of unusual articles so why can't I have my articles. :-) )

(see a few differences?!?)

I see no point in answering to your assumed reasoning for the "heated debate" - that is bordering on incivility. We are trying to create an encyclopaedia here not trying to delve into other peoples motivation. We do really need a wider range of opinion here since this discussion is getting nowhere. Your concern about my article splits as cheaping WP are totally out of proportion with the other problems with WP. Overt, and more importantly, covert vandalism is by for the biggest problem WP faces in terms of "cheapening" the project. And you seem to be concerned about two or three article I created by splitting them for the existing article! You need to get things into perspective. I made no change to content. If they were NPOV in the orig article then they should be NPOV in the new article. You are misinterpreting WP:CFORK. I will carry on splitting articles regardless of your wishes and I will monitor any feedback on these splits (as I do with most of my major edits). If I find that my editing proves to be unacceptable by others I will review my editing style. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 01:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Alan, don't be ridiculous. I do believe, as I said, that having articles that do not adhere to npov does cheapen Wikipedia's integrity. I did not say that I thought it did so more than vandalism did. Don't tell me to get my priorities straight when the only reason they were out of order was your radically misinterpreting my comment. I also have helped on vandal patrol (although admittedly I do less of that lately) and Newpage Patrol, so I know just as well as you how vandalism effects Wikipedia. Also, you keep saying that I misinterpreted WP:CFORK. Will you please show me how? To the best of my knowledge I have not. You, on the other hand, have shown you do not understand npov when you said here, "It is POV if the content not the article name is POV." Now compare that with this paragraph. If you do not understand npov, you have no grounds to say this article does not violate it. Finally, you recently said, "If I find that my editing proves to be unacceptable by others I will review my editing style," yet in the sentence before that you said, "I will carry on splitting articles regardless of your wishes..." How, while taking that mentality and contradicting yourself meanwhile, can you defend yourself as someone who does not run into edit conflicts or arguments about your actions? Please explain! Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We will have to get other editors to determine whether my split should remain. It seem we cannot agree on WP policy.-- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 03:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've requested a third opinion. I hope we can resolve this dispute quickly and with no hard feelings.  :-) Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 19:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Foo Go

I have introduced guardian.co.uk and BBC.co.uk articles as references and removed the prod accordingly. Dorftrottel (canvass) 07:15, March 26, 2008

[edit] Re: Regarding The Great Debate (as I've decided to call it)

It is a difficult issue. I tend to think of admins as forum moderators, in that they are supposed to remove unwelcomed content, warn and block trolls and flamers. Yet while I see much danger in Wiki following the path of unmoderated groups, and becoming a flaming anarchy, I have also seen foras were abusive, full of themselves moderators scared normal contributors away. How can we improve the current systems, and prevent either of those dangerous path from occurring? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: About flag of Göktürks

The FOTW website got the flags from the first Turkish website (the Ataturk one) that places a disclaimer that those flags are not proved historically. The last two sources talk about the creation of images, not about the verifiability of the flag. And the one source that does mention the flag does not document it well. Furthermore, other flags with better documentation have been removed, so why should one sentence keep this one here? Rcduggan (talk) 12:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see your point; I was thinking it was generally accepted that that was the flag, but if the sites all link to each other, that doesn't help much, does it?

Just please be aware this conflict is not new as far as the image is concerned; it has already survived a deletion attempt because of the information on its talk page. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I was unaware of that. Thanks for informing me.Rcduggan (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know there was that whole process for deletion. Should I change it to follow that procedure? Or just remove the deletion notice altogether?Rcduggan (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of vehicle registration plates of the Yukon

Did you not notce that there are articles for every other jurisdiction in the US and Canada and they are all in the process of being fleshed out? People pay money for this sort of information you know. Several other basic articles have been created recently and they got fleshed out rather quickly. --Plate King (talk) 12:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] News! Tag & Assess 2008 is coming ...

Milhist's new drive – Tag & Assess 2008 – goes live on April 25 and you are cordially invited to participate. This time, the task is housekeeping. As ever, there are awards galore, plus there's a bit of friendly competition built-in, with a race for bronze, silver and gold wikis! You can sign up, in advance, here. I look forward to seeing you on the drive page! All the best, --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

One Stripe (200 articles) Two Stripes (400 articles) Three Stripes (600 articles) Tireless Contributor Barnstar (1000 articles) Chevrons (2000 articles) Working Man's Barnstar (3000 articles) Barnstar of Diligence (4000 articles) Third place overall Second place overall First place overall

[edit] Adoption

I see you are a hard working editor and am glad to be able to accept your offer, which i do. Thank you very much.PandaSaver (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for having me. I've changed the template on your userpage to reflect that you accepted my offer. If you have any questions, please contact me. I'll usually reply on this page to comments made here. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 01:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: How can i request a page to be (semi)protected such as the Independent(religion) article i need to —Preceding unsigned comment added by PandaSaver (talk • contribs) 20:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Any time you need a page protected, just ask here. I assume you're requesting protection because of the edits of 71.253.7.227. I've reverted all edits by this IP for vandalism, due to a lack of attempts to establish consensus. You may not need to request protection if the editing has stopped. Fleetflame 02:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption

Thanks for saying you would be willing to adopt me. That would be great. Formerly 82.46.93.158 (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Should I change the template on my userpage? Formerly 82.46.93.158 (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

How can I add userboxes to my page JoeC 4321 (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Another user helped me on IRC, soo I understand now JoeC 4321 (talk) 16:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)