Hi, sorry to bug you, and feel free to ignore if you're not interested, but I found your comments on the recent Cape Horn FAC so helpful that I wondered if you would be interested in looking over the Sunday Times Golden Globe Race FAC. I feel that this is an interesting article; it currently has a couple of "support" votes, but seems to be suffering from a lack of interest. I'd much rather have it fail because of 100 specific objections than for simple lack of readers; so, if you have too much time on your hands ;-), I'd welcome any comments you might have, positive or negative. Cheers, — Johan the Ghost _seance 14:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for looking into this, I really appreciate it! — Johan the Ghost _seance 09:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all, I've got a lot more feedback now, so it's not urgent at all. Thanks anyhow, and I appreciate how busy you are! Cheers, — Johan the Ghost _seance 10:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help and support; we're now featured! Yay! — Johan the Ghost _seance 07:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flcelloguy,

Great job on the Tool. I use it every week,

(^'-')^ Covington 02:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you'd just been on ITN, could you possibly do this? The whole tense problem looks worse every time I see it. Many thanks. Ian3055 14:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good work on the better order too! Ian3055 15:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flcelloguy. I picked you out of the crowd because I saw that you worked on the template MediaWiki:Nocreatetext, and I think there is still a major flaw with it, and/or with red-link functionality in general. At the moment, I think a lot of unregistered users would be saying "WTF?" upon following a red link. May I direct you to the comment I made here? : MediaWiki_talk:Nocreatetext#Red_links_now_more_confusing_than_they_used_to_be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coelacan (talk • contribs)

Hello friend.

I was the original creator of this article, under the title Canadair CL215. It was redesignated by User:Rlandmann as a redirect to the existing title, but he used a cut-and-paste instead of a move to recreate the article at its current title. Therefore, my creation and subsequent edit were lost. I note that they still do not appear with the article - it looks like User:Simetrical was attempting to restore them but either gave up or did not do so correctly. Can you fix this? Thanks! Denni ☯ 00:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for completing the history merge. My creation edit is not at the beginning as it should be, but I guess this far after the fact, I can't hope for better. Denni ☯ 19:12, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the speedy revert of the recent vandalism of my user page. It was greatly appreciated. All the best, Gwernol 01:24, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you pop into the above discussion and give more detail on the div you removed? I just want to know what it was doing or why it is no longer needed... Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:45, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(I prefer to keep things threaded where they are started... ++Lar)

Mistake on my part; someone pointed out on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors that the formatting on DYK was broken, and I apparently overcorrected. I'll go and fix/comment now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I look forward to it. See you there. ++Lar: t/c 16:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit on Lebron James having vertigo. On the vertigo page it says he has the disease as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W123 (talk • contribs)

hi, i see that the "good article" spam has been put back in Template:featured despite objections from several users. this seems to be the way the GA project works: boldly putting something into a page that doesnt want it, then claiming consensus is required to *remove* it again (consensus is never required to put it there in the first place).

this is exactly the same behaviour as witnessed on the attempt to create an article space "good article" star, which i & raul654 finally managed to have deleted (a huge effort since they had already spammed a 1000 articles with it), and on the Community Portal where this non-policy wikiproject has pride of place - its apparently far more important than any of the other dozens of collaborations!

they even had the cheek to remove the "non-policy process" template from the top of their project pages claiming they now had "enough support to be policy" - this is despite clear consensus on the talk page that its NOT policy. an attempt to put it back was quickly removed.

as an admin, would you be so kind as to unlock the featured template and remove the GA spam? i'm really fed up with fighting these GA spam battles everywhere, its quite tiring. why do they have to constantly spread their GA spam everywhere? hope you can help! Zzzzz 09:45, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I was just wandering by your user page and I noticed that you're pretty stressed. I was wondering, if you wanted to tell me, whats the cause of said stress? Mopper ^Speak! 02:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have unprotected this early, not sure. I just moved it off the main and went to unprotect it and saw that you had unprotected 10 min after I put it on in the last update. Or maybe I was looking at things wrong... PS you can answer here, I watch... ++Lar: t/c 12:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation refactored to MY talk page, where I have replied. (I am stubborn too. :-) ... now you will have to watch there for replies instead of me having to watch here! ) 20:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lar (talk • contribs)

Hi Flcelloguy. I notice you haven't edited on SEWikt in quite a while. I guess it has to do with your extremely busy state. Don't forget to take that warning off here when it no longer applies.  :) Hope things are going well for you.

You'll be glad to know that community consensus is getting most of the necessary changes made on SEWikipedia. There are even links to all the SE projects on the new Main Page there.

Back in February you mentioned getting Patrolled Edits turned on for SEWikt. I read up on it a little bit, and found that it is standard with MediaWiki 1.4, but it doesn't seem to be working yet on SEWikt. Could you check on that for me? Thanks.

It is kind of lonely being the only editor that is really active on a project, as I am currently on SEWikt, SEB, and SEQ. Oh well. I shouldn't complain, since I was kind of asking it working on these tiny projects. I'll just have to try some recruiting on the English projects.

Happy editing! --Cromwellt|Talk 22:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When it downloads the data during an edit summary check, is it downloaded temporarily or is it stored somewhere on the the hard drive?—G.He 02:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. . .

Thanks for the note and for preventing a dust-up on the Gerald Ford Talk page. FYI, the most recent article from WPMichigan on the Toledo War and Detroit, Michigan are in Peer Review. Jtmichcock 23:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flcelloguy, I really welcome your questions and the fact that you have clearly reviewed my Wikipedia contributions. Let me take your question in turn, if I may. Firstly, the issues to do with Jimbo. As you quite rightly point out he had never used his power to ulitmately control the encyolpedia, and I can certainly understand the situations where he needs to via say User:Danny (although of course, that is not the WP:OFFICE account, which I can't remember off-hand). I was merely pointing out that on an ideological basis I feel that the final control of Wikipedia should rest with Wikipedians and not lie with some 'leader'. It is more an unachivebale goal than a realistic overnight dream. I would suggest that you look at my contribution to the debate on the Lolicon image deletion which can be seenhere. Secondly, you ask about my views on Arbitration and Mediation and the relation between the two. Obviously the two are separate and distinct but there are some similar themes in both: namely that you are dealing with conflicts and edit wars etc.. The differences lie in how to deal with them; MedCom using mediation and more 'peaceful' methods; ArbCom looking at more persitent or serious problems usually have to resort ot more drastic measures. I would suggest that the MedCom serves as a very good grounding for ArbCom as it enables Arbitrators to understand a lot of the common edit-war problems and causes, but also allows them to see how a wide-range of solutions can work to a problem. I think that it also increases an editors experience of the Wikipedia Community, and of the huge range of opinions and views of Wikipedians.

Looking now at the issue of lack of edits/experience on Wikipedia. This was in relation as well to my Admin Coaching, and the fact that if I stood, at that time, for RfA I think that would have been one of the first comments to arise. I feel that since making that statement I have increased my range of use on Wikipedia, I am now a mediator on VandalProof, I stood for election to both CJ and Esperenza. I am trying as much as possible to get more invovled in the community. I would like to say that I think that my mediations should speak for themselves with relation to the MedCom. I don't see how edit counts etc. have too great bearing. I'm sure there are many editors out there with many times the number of edits I have, but who equally would not amke as good a mediator. I'm currently starting what looks to be a fairly complex mediation, the Medical Analysis of Circumcision one, so feel free to vote after looking at how I handle that one. There is also the Russian Language one which I successfully mediated last month. The real-life mediation experience I mention is quite broad and wide-raning. I have basic mediator training and have done some work-expereience with realtion to ADR. I have also been invovled with the Centre for Non-Violent Communication.

Now I hope that goes someway to answering your questions. Now I'm happy to discuss things further with you, be it via Wikipedia or on MSN, Skype, GoogeTalk, AIM, IRC whatever. If you do have any further comments or questions do please get in contact. --Wisden17 22:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd just be interested what reasons you had for having a neutral as opposed to a support opinion on the MedCom page. What areas do you feel that I need to improve in, as I'd be very happy to take on board any comments you have. --Wisden17 17:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your quick reply. Just to say something regarding my views on Jimbo. I completely understand that we need people such as him, BradPatrcik and Dannyisme, however, in an ideal world I would like to think that the open nature of Wikipedia was such that we did not. I also completely understand and respect the WP:OFFICE policy. My point is more of a utopian ideal, than a practical thing. It is also worth noting that I put that thought not in a prominent place, as such on Wikipedia, but on a page designed for some admin coaching by Drini.

I completely understand your point regarding experience on Wikipedia, although I mean I should point out that whilst I may not have the highest number of edits etc. I do have a rather thorough knowledge of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. I've read through all the Administrators Reading List and quite a bit more (especially unofiicial and suggested policies). This is one of the key things I feel a mediator should have, as it can often be vital to point a user in a mediation towards a certain policy, or towards a current policy debate. This is, partially, the case with the mediation I did regarding hte Romanization of the Russian Language.

I'm very thankful for your comments and questions, and I would most happily asnwer any more questions you have, and would welcome any more comments you have. --Wisden17 22:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please delete:

• User:GHe/GHe
• User:GHe/END OF THE PAGE

I have no use for them. Thanks.—G.He 00:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Already Deleted)—G.He 00:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your question on WP:AN. Cheers! -- DGX 00:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I didn't step on your toes in trying to explain why this didn't get speedied on sight yesterday; I keep trying to avoid the Userbox Wars, but ignorance of circumstances/malformed opinions get me even more riled up.... just not sure if your "Thanks!" was sarcasm or not. Cheers. -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I hoped/figured as much but wanted to be sure. -- nae'blis _(talk) 01:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added your vote in the support section w/o leaving a reason, just your sig. You may want to fix this. ~Chris {t|c|e|@} 00:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Flcelloguy. Could you do do me a favour? I notice that you have been doing some good work on FAC, and I was wondering if you would take a quick look at "We Belong Together". It has failed a couple of FACs, and I think that it may be ready soon. However, I want to make sure that it will succeed this time, and currently, Peer Review isn't that much help. It would be appreciated. Thanx. Oran e (t) (c) (e) 03:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mediator:

My user name is Michael D. Wolok. I need a mediator for the Wikipedia entry "Many World's Interpretation." I am sending this e-mail to every mediator in the hope that one will agree to help.

Cheers, Michael D. Wolok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael D. Wolok (talk • contribs)

I saw your work on commons with this image and apologize that there was a mess there to clean up. Trancluding the category was an earlier experiment that I thought I had reverted. I corrected the version on commons so that it uses a somewhat more modern approach to transcluding background text, interwiki links, and see also information onto image pages.

If the information in the new form is unsatisfactory in some way, please drop me a message on Commons and I will try and fix it. -Mak Thorpe 03:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly for catching that - I was rushing. Sorry I couldn't help out with your request; this is the first time of been back on Wikipedia for a day and a bit. Happy editing, --cj | talk 06:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flcelloguy. I see that you've recently warned a vandal with a direct test4. However, I think it would be more useful to use the {{test4im}} warning since there weren't any predecessors. What do you think? Anyway, keep up the good work! :) G.He 00:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed none of the users who used the edit summary 'ON JUNE 6 2006 WIKIPEDIA WILL MEET ITS MAKER' have been banned. Given the threat of future vandalism and the obvious fact that these editors are:

• Vandles
• Sockpuppets or impersonators of each other

would it not be wise to have them all banned indefinately? Or is there something happening about this alreadY? --Robdurbar 11:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, forgot about the image protection bit. yes, long time no see. I'm still hanging around; nice to get a post from you. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flcelloguy!

I thought I'd come to your En Wikipedia talk page, hoping that you'll see it sooner, but I'll put this on your SEWiktionary talk page, too, just in case. Remember Netoholic and his hypocritical campaign against all simple English projects except SEWikipedia? Well, because of some developments in the situation at SEWikipedia, he's taken it to the next level. He has proposed that those projects be closed. I know you don't want that to happen, so please vote oppose. I made a sort of advisory banner for the Main Page of all those projects, which makes it convenient for you to vote:

Advisory: Some users from other projects are trying to close Simple English Wiktionary, SEWikibooks, and SEWikiquote, even though we've barely begun! If you think these projects should not be closed, vote oppose here and here.

Thanks for taking a moment to help stop this outrage! --Cromwellt|Talk|Contris 07:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales prohibited video game guides from Wikibooks this week

This is not true, he made the order on 22 April 2006! http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks&diff=prev&oldid=434945 Gerard Foley 15:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you're there, what about the near 400 pages of the Pokédex which I moved to http://www.gmcfoley.com/wiki/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon. It wasn't a small book and it was linked to from every Pokémon article on Wikipedia. It would be nice to get a little note as you are giving a link to strategywiki.net. Thanks, Gerard Foley 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dbenbenn! I noticed that you switched the image on Template:In the news from the .png version to the .svg version. I had switched the preferred .svg file to a .png file because I couldn't upload and protect the .svg version; thus, I switched it to a .png version, which I was able to upload and protect, and then left a request on WP:AN, which seems to have gone unanswered. Because the .svg image is still unprotected (the image has to be uploaded and then protected; protecting only the image page leaves the image vulnerable to vandalism on Commons, where all changes are reflected here) I've gone ahead and switched the flag back to the protected .png version until the .svg version can be uploaded and protected (feel free to do this if your computer has the technical capabilities to do so). Again, see WP:AN#Image protection for more information. Many thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. When I changed Template:In the news, I also protected Commons:Image:Flag of Indonesia.svg. It is not necessary to upload a local copy of an image that is protected on the Commons, since normal users here are not able to overwrite Commons images. So if an image on the Commons is protected there, it can be changed on the Commons only by Commons admins, and it can be changed here only by local admins. Cheers, User:dbenbenn 21:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Maybe the fact that I can save the .svg file is down to me having one of the new Intel Macs--they haven't written an svg plugin that works on the Intel Macs yet, so all I can do with svgs is download them. Ordinarily I would have thought that you could do a right click and select to download the file, but it's not something that I have tried. As an aside, according to the message that User:dbenbenn left on my talk page, what I did was unnecessary as the image was protected at the commons, which apparently block the upload of a different local file to wikipedia also. --JeremyA 02:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for copying down and protecting Image:Flag of Indonesia.svg after I put it on the In the news template. I changed the picture then realised I should protect the image, but couldn't work out how to copy it down from commons. Is there an instruction for how to do that somewhere? Thanks again. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message to me made sense. Mine didn't. I was actually intending to be thanking you for doing it to Image:JavaLocatie-1-.png. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you had edited and "stubified" this Wikipedia entry. I am a bit confused by this edit. The information included in the Holme Roberts & Owen entry tracks that in other law firm entries. For example:

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP Morrison & Foerster LLP and others

I am curious as to why Holme Roberts & Owen is being trested differently than these other entires.

Jmarlowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmarlowe (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your response and pointers as to protocol -- the later of which I definitely need. I understand the "neutrality" concept and appreciate that your work is work in progress. It is just a bit disconcerting to have the Holme Roberts & Owen entry slimmed down while so many longer standing) entries for other law firms remain seemingly just as non-neutral.

On another note, I found it curious that you noted in your response as to the Harvard-Radcliff Orchestra that "because the predominant use of the abbreviation is for the orchestra, the nation's oldest, the page HRO should redirect there, per our manual of style." While I agree that the term is in use by the Orchestra, I do not agree that it is at this point in time the "predominate" use of the term "HRO" in general. In particular, I wanted to make sure that you understand that Holme Roberts & Owen has itself been in existence for over 100 years and has been using the "HRO" abbreviation during much of that time period. In addition, HRO holds two US trademark registrations for the term "HRO" (reg. nos. 75/140480 and 75/140667), both of which have achieved "uncontestable" status. By way of background, I do not see that the Orchestra has filed any applications or holds any registrations on the "HRO" mark. Likewise, in addition to the Orchestra and to Holme Roberts & Owen, the term "HRO" has over the past 10 years become synonymous with the concept of "Human Resources Outsourcing" and is in widespread use on a global basis in this context as well. Based on this, while I agree that the Orchestra has a claim to the term "HRO", I cannot understand how you can call it the "predominant" use of the term.

Thanks and best regards

Jmarlowe 15:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Bengali wikipedia reached 2000 edits on June 11. I've left a note at the tip line. Please add it to the milestones section. Thanks. --Ragib 17:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply and the tip about adding it to the Wikimedia news page. Yes, I actually meant 2,000 articles. Thanks. --Ragib 21:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I protected because today's entry was on the main page for 4.5 hours unprotected, and I didn't want that to happen again. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-14 17:26

• If you let Raul654 know ahead of time, he'd probably take care of it. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-14 17:32

Template:Delete has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Wisden17 19:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Article link

I see the selected anniversary page is locked. The page says:

A series of four bomb explosions struck London's public transport system, killing 56.

It should really say:

A series of four terrorist explosions occur on London's transport system killing 52 people, plus four suicide bombers.

Because

1. Terrorist emphasises the gravity and organised nature of the attacks.

2. The four bombers are never counted amongst the casualties in other media articles. To put it bluntly they don't deserve to be counted as part of "56", there were 52 victims and four suicide bombers - seperate entities. For example BBC News state "In total, seven people died in the Aldgate bombing a year ago" meaning seven victims and one terrorist. Link

Please could you make the appropriate changes.

hi, i hope you can take part in the deletion review debate for the above metadata template that puts a star on the article's mainpage (you voted in the original deletion debate). the vote is here Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 8 (scroll down for Template:Good Article section). thanks. Zzzzz 00:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you finished, the News and Notes for the Signpost additon this week? You've been absent. Singpost will be published by 0:3:00 tonight at the latest. I'd just thought I'd tell you that the Signpost will be late tonight, as Ral just got called back into work. 72.134.40.173 22:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]