Hello! Thank you for your message on my talk page. My bot did not "add the category", and its action was not nonsensical. The category Category:Pilots redirects to Category:Transportation occupations; there was consensus that this should be so, because "pilot" could equally mean "aviator" or "harbour pilot". My bot simply carried out this redirect. I notice that the article's categories now include Category:French aviators, which is probably what you intended, so the bot has performed its function well. Please check categories when you use them, rather than assuming that they contain what you expect. Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 11:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you contesting vis a vis Pantycelyn's amputated arm? He was the one with the rolex in the first of the series, whose arm was cut off in an attempt to save the village from being bombed by mistake. Pydos 09:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How gloriously pedantic! Yes point taken, it should be clearer. Thank you for the compliment, its one of my better articles. Will you/have you already made the changes? Pydos 10:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, and naturally i'll keep i eye open for your son. Strange co-incidences i admit get worse. Have you seen Christopher Knight (author) ...a page i wrote on the noted author? Pydos 10:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well better leave it there in case it gets wierd. No doubt i'll see you around the page. Has your son tried to find where Bianca was murdered yet? Pydos 10:56, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well. Theres no moulin (closest is a seedy club called Yoko's, but i met Sospan's descendants on the Pier. I still need to go up the Cliff Railway and play the crazy golf. Hwyl (bye in welsh). Pydos 11:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's either a completely broken bot or a moderately clever vandal. In any case, nothing to worry about; the message has no meaning, and you are not, to the best of my knowledge, under any restrictions. Sorry for the trouble! Kirill Lokshin 17:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this one is unique or otherwise notable, keep it. If it isn't, delete it.

That's really a null contribution to the discussion. We have notability criteria to apply to products and services, which biscuits produced by a biscuit manufacturer certainly are, at WP:CORP. If you wish to actually help the discussion, perform the requisite research. Look for multiple non-trivial published works, from people other than the manufacturer, on each biscuit. If you find them, add them to the article and mention in the discussion that they exist. Uncle G 17:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would take the initiative in getting the List of Muslims articles deleted, but I was criticized quite strongly when I did just that back in February (although there were additional factors that led to that criticism). Perhaps, however, it might have been better if I had co-nominated fewer articles to appear less drastic. -- tariqabjotu 20:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nominees pages that were done before I came along didn't have the years at the top either, but all is fixed now. It really does make more sense to have that up there... Thanks for pointing it out! _Classicaltorture 01:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider revisiting this discussion? Current opinions run 10-4 in favor of keeping the article and I think all the serious concerns have been addressed. Respectfully, Durova 20:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The birthdate of her has been fixed, so your comments on the AFD while worthwhile, were slightly off-the-point. --Pajnax 12:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the US an adjunct professor is usually one who is hired on a class by class basis, often a grad student, or someone with a master's or PhD who hasn't managed to get hired permanently anywhere. You are correct that an adjunct is not very high on the academic ladder. It is out of the ordinary to get 2 bachelor's degrees at the same school in different subjects, but not an extraordinary achievement; it just means that you have enough extra classes to fulfill the requirements for both. Some colleges offer special programs that deliberately lead to double degrees, usually involving taking heavier classloads and summer courses. --Brianyoumans 00:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is still online (Image:Naggtr.JPG), and as far as I can see was never deleted. Also, the bot can't delete images. It tags unused images to be deleted, which then are deleted by an admin after seven days if they are still unused. And I don't really understand what you mean by "So, that's at least five erroneous deletions." If you're refering to the comments on the bot's talk page, you sould note that all those were about image that really were unused at the time the bot tagged them (so no error by the bot there) and that none of the images were deleted. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 09:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image is right here: Image:Naggtr.JPG. Here is a direct link to the image on Wiki's server. It also shows up in both articles. Maybe you need to refresh your cache. Also, Shweeny666 isn't the one who deleted the image, he's the one who uploaded it. See the image's log, which would also list the image's deletion had it been deleted. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 10:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the filename shows up in red because you forgot the "Image:" prefix. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that at the time the bot tagged the image, neither article was using it (Revision as of 01:22, October 11, 2006 of British National Party and Revision as of 23:26, September 30, 2006 of Mark Collett), so tagging it as unused was correct. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an ad blocker installed, that might be the problem since the image's url includes "/ad/". Try switching your ad blocker off. Either way, the image is definitely still there. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 11:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With reference to your words as any civil servant doing his job is unless something really out of the ordinary is alleged, I would like to tell you one of my nominations for AFD was based on no significant achievement. I am actually relieved to know that it is probably not a gross mistake to have nominated that article and there are other editors who share my views.  Doctor Bruno  14:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Anti-Semitic people seems to me to be superfluous for people in subcategories of Category:Neo-Nazism, Category:Nazism and certain (but not all) subcategories of Category:Fascism. In John Tyndall's case it is doubly unnecessary in that he is better known as a racist xenophobe than a Jew-hater, which is not to say that he wasn't a dyed-in-the-wool anti-Semite, only that it is unnecessary to categorise this. My intention is to reduce the anti-Semitic people category to a fraction of the current size per the complaints at WP:CFD that it is being misused (which it is). Unless someone is notable for being a Jew-hater, and not a Holocaust denier, a neo-Nazi, Nazi, Iron Guard member (cat missing), Arrow Cross member (cat missing), etc, I don't see any benefit in including them in this cat. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding the article on Mr Griffin, I would like to ask you to reread our policies on biographies of living persons. Also, consider which details are, or are not, strictly relevant.

Bear in mind I strongly disagree with Mr Griffin's opinions, and am in no way a supporter of his. DS 20:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In addition, please note that use of the "LGBT" category tags is restricted to those individuals who have openly stated it about themselves. DS 20:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! While reviewing the assessment change log for Wikipedia:WikiProject Airports, I noticed that you created the article Béziers-Agde-Vias Airport. You contribution to improving Wikipedia's collection of airport articles is greatly appreciated. If at all interested, I'd like to extend an invitation to join the project. You can join by simply adding your name to the list of participants. If not interested, please disregard this message. Thanks! thadius856_{talk|airports|neutrality} 19:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for e-mailing me the copy - it was a very interesting read. Sorry about not getting back sooner but I've been pretty snowed under with the work recently. Keresaspa 15:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I expect you'll agree with my additions. I'd like to be more helpful, english is not my native language; technical words are missing to me. I'll try to create some articles. There is such a work to do... Regards, M-le-mot-dit 22:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some more work for you! I'd like you to check the articles about Château de Castelnau-Bretenoux and Château de Falaise, as you have done for Blandy. Thanks for your modifications. M-le-mot-dit 14:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have more than one person eg two you have two people not two persons please give me a sentecne were the exclusive word the can be used is persons--Lucy-marie 00:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It looks like you copied and pasted Queribus to Château de Quéribus. Moving an article by copy and paste separates the article text from the edit history, which is important for the GNU Free Documentation License. You can move some pages yourself using the "move" tab above an article, and can also request moves at Wikipedia:Requested moves. If there are any other articles you may have copy/pasted, please consider listing them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Gimmetrow 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your involvement in the discussion of this article's deletion.

However, a new source has become available, as mentioned on the disscusion site, should you wish to reconsider. --Reverieuk 19:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for your support. I want to do things properly so I'll keep asking if there are any tangible objections for a little while longer. In the end, though, I too fear it may be a case of 'the truth hurts'. --Robdurbar 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nominating both for deletion. I saw the articles created today and it was on my 'to do' list, but you beat me to it. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 11:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The person who supports me is not a friend of mine just a random individual who has agreeded with me on some issues and yet again you are jumping to conclusions.--Lucy-marie 12:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we agreed to post no comments on this RfC I haven't and would like you to follow through on that part of the agrement. I will let this one slide if you post no more as i will post none at all if you post no further comments.--Lucy-marie 12:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, YOU said that, not me, but actually I had no intention of contributing further to the dicussion anyway. The point is, with the comments from Arthur Rubin in Talk:Person/RfC archive and the detailed posting of TStein in Talk:Person#When person (pl) is persons and when is it people there is no need - the issue is closed and TStein says as much. Both have clearly stated that the correct usage in the article is persons not people so it only remains to incorporate this. Emeraude 19:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notice on the talk page, id like to hear your input:) i basically propose before any major reversions can only be done after clear prior notification on the talk page (which i am still very very angry about right now...) anyway..hope to see your input sometime late:) many thanks Fethroesforia 15:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		Steve, I award you the Photographer's Barnstar for all the spectacular images you have uploaded. Keep uploading spectacular images! Awarded by Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 13:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Were your holidays fine? As we are both maintaining "parallel" lists of castles (User:Emeraude/Castles and User:M-le-mot-dit/draft), I think we shouldn't waste time and choose between these lists and the alphabetical list, or perhaps to create a new article such as "Castles in France by Region/Departement" and keep the old one (more work to keep them in coherence). — M-le-mot-dit 11:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well article on Château de Couffour. I am writer on fr: Macassar 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup. Je traduis des articles français pour faire en anglais une collection des châteaux français (c'est à dire, des châteaux forts - castles en anglais). L'article français au sujet de Couffour etant très court, j'ai écrit de nouveau. Vous pouvez l'utiliser pour l'article français si vous voulez. en:User:emeraude Emeraude 15:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

C'est un des tout premiers articles que j'avais créé et j'attendais un copyright du syndicat d'iniative, vous avez trouvé d'autres sources, bravo. Macassar 15:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I like the new article about the castle of Bellocq, I'll translate it in French when I have time. I was there just a month ago, but I couldn't make good pictures of it because of too many scaffoldings. You are right to place question marks after the château de Clisson, it must have no fan, nobody wrote about it. I'll go there when sunny days are back to make some pictures. As for the Château in Nantes, it is due to reopen this weekend after three or four years of work. It does look great now, I think the article on the French Wikipedia will improve a great deal on that occasion. I'll keep an eye on your list and will complete it when I have new information. I think the map of France with the relevant links is a great idea, I wish I were skilled enough to do the same on the French version of the article. Cheers. --Jibi44 19:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think a new article could be a good idea? Philip Cross seems to be adding lots of coverage of the trial into the main article, and I can only imagine it getting longer and longer at the current rate of knots. You may find this funny as well, I can't imagine how that possibly confirms to the MOS at it makes no sense and doesn't even make it clear who is who. One Night In Hackney 15:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]