FYI. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your comment on my talk: yes, that's fairly good advice. Do these students have access to a writing centre or other service to help them with plagiarism avoidance? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, just saw your comment at the nom page. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly agree, though I haven't had a chance to check other contributions yet. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Piotrus. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— MalikaZ (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Piotrus,

Thanks for getting back to me so swiftly, I will be sure to pass the information on to the professor and encourage him to join the wiki sociology group. Perhaps this will allow you both to form a relationship and work together in future. There will only be 5 or 6 students working on this project and I have contacted other online ambassadors, but I appreciate your willingness to review some of the works and will contact be in contact later as the project progresses.

Thanks again!

1. MalikaZ (talk · contribs) - Malika (campus ambassador):

Looking better. Any chance you can expand or combine "Opposing forces"? It looks kinda silly to have a subheader for one sentence. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:33, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a response to your post on my talk page. I'm unsure of whether or not you receive notifications that I've written in response. I'd appreciate if you took the time to read it and let me know what you think. Thanks.

Rojast07 (talk) 23:17, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

so with that link you showed me their is stuff from fault section that needs to be changed as well? --Nas132 (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lines 92 and 93 are in the WP:DIFF link. Those are not my section and I want to tell the other group member that those sentences need restructured if thats the case. Since lines 92 and 93 are shown do they needed restructured? Also with lines 103 down since they are shown does that mean they need changed as well? those are links and I was not sure what they would need changed for.--Nas132 (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made more changes. Can you please check my sections? Then I will post a comment on Nikimaries talk page because she informed me that she does not want me to post on her page until I made all corrections. --Nas132 (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All my page are good/ Except in the paragraph starting with However, the page number is actually 7. I will have to change that when I can get in touch with Natalie. Is that reference number[9]? because that not my paragraph. Oh! the divorce for dummies book is for paragraph state acceptance I don't know what happened but I can't find the page that I used so skip that and I will get back to it when I can get the book again and find whats going on with that.--Nas132 (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The divorce for dummies is actually page 16--Nas132 (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help! I checked the references and all my information is on the page referenced. Natalie helped me fix the page number for divorce for dummies. Page 7. The information starts under the blue box on page 7.--Nas132 (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I will use the reference links from now on. I made more changes. I will talk to you after class. Thanks for your help. --Nas132 (talk) 01:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up! I've been unwell the past few days, but will get back to checking the articles as soon as I can. Bejinhan talks 03:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Piotrus! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is a sentence that I changed from the pros and cons section: 3) Dividing up the couples property such as the house, pertinent valuables, debts, and alimony have become unfair through a no-fault divorce--Nas132 (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Witam. Zauważyłem, że jest problem z artykułem "Ekstraklasa venues" Nie znam się zbyt dobrze na tych socjalistyczny-biurokratycznych zasadach wikipedii, ale "Ekstraklasa Venues" miała być tylko tabelką rozwijaną pod artykułami (template) a nie artykułem. Przez pomyłkę wyszło inaczej. "Ekstraklasa venues" jako artykuł jest oczywiście do natychmiastowego usunięcia I teraz najważniejsze: Czy mam rozumieć, że ktoś pobił jeden z licznych rekordów głupoty i uznał każdy artykuł (np: o Dialog Arenie, Stadionie Legii itd)do którego został podłączony ten template jako kopię artykułu "Ekstraklasa venues"?? Artykuły te mają czerwoną ramkę z informacją że są zakwalifikowane z tegoż powodu do szybkiego usunięcia. Zauważyłem, ze edytowałeś coś przy "Ekstraklasa venues" wiec zapewne wiesz o co chodzi. Czy mógłbyś w związku z tym usunąć ARTYKUŁ (nie template) "Ekstraklasa venues" i doprowadzić do tego by artykuły zakwalifikowane do rzekomego usunięcia nie zostały bezmyślnie usunięte? Z góry dzięki za wyjaśnienie tej sytuacji i wiadomość zwrotną

Damian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.218.156.247 (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

I added all page numbers etc for all references except for the website reference for Roman family law. Honestly, it took a long time just to find the author's name, I have no clue when he might have written the article. I don't want to make up a date and lie. If other Wikipedians don't like it that it doesn't have a date, I can delete the reference along with the sentence it refers to. Thanks...Esery (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked here whether your participation in that AE discussion was acceptable, so let me answer this: no, in my view it is not, and you were in fact on the list of people I was considering for further follow-up sanctions. Your interaction ban comes with an exception regarding "necessary dispute resolution". But that exception has an understood "mind-your-own-business" written into it: participation in dispute resolution, including admin noticeboard discussions and the like, is never "necessary" for a user who is not himself an originating party of the dispute that is being discussed. What we had here was a conflict originating between Russavia and Vecrumba. If that conflict involved a breach of a restriction on the part of Russavia, it was up to Vecrumba, and nobody else, to bring the issue to the attention of the admins. No other editor who is under an interaction ban with either of the originating parties had any business being there. This is the one area where interaction bans actually do make sense, and ought to be enforced. We don't want you people turning up at the noticeboards in support of each other time and time again. Especially in this case, where collusion between this same set of people including you on noticeboard discussions was a central part of the original problem that led to the sanction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]