Hello, A little mollusk! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! MBisanzBot (talk) 06:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am patrolling the new pages. There is supposedly an icon, button, or tab that can be selected when I finish the task. I cannot find such a button on any of the pages I have patrolled. --A little mollusk (talk) 18:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The exact position of seems to vary depending on the article in question, but it is generally located at the bottom right-hand corner of the page to be patrolled. Example of new page patrolVivio TestarossaTalkWho03:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just thought I'd point out, not that it makes a great deal of difference, there is no need to 'sign' edit summaries (which already show your details) with ~~~~. It only needs to be used on talk pages to identify you - apparently it's really really bad if you don't do this on talk pages. Pahari Sahib 19:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not finished editing the blue buffalo page...he is a character from the tv series Kikaida that aired for 3 years in the 1970s. It was very popular in hawaii, therefore Punahou schools named a mascot after the blue buffalo, who was kikaida's strongest opponent.
Hello, A little mollusk. You have new messages at Chetblong's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, A little mollusk. You have new messages at Chetblong's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You are more than welcome! It's great to see someone actually interested and proactive in adding citations *before* removing the tag. I do like that article and hope you will be able to expand it some as time allows. The Roosevelts were an interesting business-political dynasty. A little mollusk (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am relatively new to new page patrolling, so the cheek and persistent pluck of some contributors does amaze me! Thanks for your note. A little mollusk (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC) (p.s. i do fancy tangerines. :P )[reply]
Happy to have your concern but I am not attempting to promote anything that I just want to share some view and collection of studies with others. To be honest, I am not familiar with the function and editing tactic of wikipedia, I am trying to improve and add more reference. Please let chance for starter to start and have a more willing to share as well as peaceful world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrspak1602 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I am a business student who may only have narrow knowledge of business concept and my talk may focus on business point of view. Before I think that reporting others' view is more general and convincing so I try to report others' view to explain this concept. May be this is a recent topic that my professor has just taught, so many of our students want to share this view. However, could you please tell me how to report other view in a more neutral way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrspak1602 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be more honest, part of our final year project is to share one's view through online platform. So, I must have to improve this page and make sure it is not to be deleted. Please teach me how to fulfill wikipedia regulation. This master degree is essential to me
asserting someone is the president of a major company is an assertion of notability and thus enough to prevent speedy, It is also advisable not to speedy articles within 1 minute of their creation when it seems that more information might well be added.
and, it is necessary when placing a speedy tag on an article, to say so in the edit summary so admins & editors can identify it quickly.DGG (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cant agree with DGG anymore that It is not a good way to speedy our so quick that do not leave room fot editor and other members to keep add edvience and work on their pages. This is really a huge barrier for starter to start and it seems that wikipedia is dominated by a group of players. I think it damage the orignal idea of "Sharing and build knowledge together" of wikipedia.
Again, please have a more willing to share and peaceful world.
To respond to your comment Mrspak1602, please read what many other people -- not just me -- wrote regarding your contribution. This is indeed a community. No one person makes a decision about adding a tag AND deleting an article. That isn't possible. It is a process that takes consensus.
I tried to work *with* the previous creator of the 1Stop page and I tried to help you by adding comments and direction for improvements. In that regard, I showed good faith to you and the previous poster of that topic. Good luck to you. A little mollusk (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basketball110will you sign? ♣ has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!
Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for the pie! Read through the latest messages and that should answer your question! :P Although it doesn't capture the vandalism to a talk comment I'd left in which my signature was changed by a mature Wikipedian to A_little_mollusk is a [slur deleted]. And how's by you? A little mollusk (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will have to look. I think the edit count is at least 200, but I'm not really tracking that. I'm wanting what I do to be quality, not quantity. There are a couple of projects I have that I'd like to complete. That will take time. Until then ... someone has to patrol new pages, right? And I am indeed warning the template removers! Last night was teh crazee in that regard. A little mollusk (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed. Someone especially needs to patroll when Blofeld is creating new pages. He creates stubs of communes, and no one patrolls them, because there is no point (Blofeld never created nonsense or non notable pages). So, the bad pages created by others when Blofeld is creating sometimes slip through, or so I have observed. Basketball110you gonna sign?16:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'll make that one of our prioraties. Just think... "non-admins cutting vandalism from the source!" It would be great... with you. Basketball11003:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It brings to mind a group of people seated at a table, waiting to pass ... well, now that I think about it ... speedy judgement. Ok. There y'be. Purpose for the group: speedy deletion of nonsense pages from creation! Voila! Viola! Cello! Bass! A little mollusk (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That could be part of the purpose, but I would really like to keep it open to almost anything the majority agree on. But I'm all for the fighting vandalism bit. Basketball11003:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, another editor told me I could remove them, so I did. As you can see in our discussion of this page and the related page I just created, I'll be adding a lot of information with reliable sources to back them up in the morning (or the afternoon, considering how late it is on the East Coast of the U.S.). Cheers. --WWB (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I see a lot of people removing tags constantly. Perhaps it's just me, but it's just good form to leave any tags or notes on the page until someone else removes them. It's really nothing personal. You can also use the tag underconstruction (with the appropriate brackets) if you wish. It should be useful since you are planning to substantially add to the page in the coming days. Again, nothing personal. Just trying to make sure tags stay where they are needed. A little mollusk (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I told the other editor, this is the first time I've had a page I created proposed for deletion. While I have read the policies for contesting deletion proposals in the recent past, I fully concede I'm not well-versed in this subject. I'll use underconstruction in the future; I'd forgotten about it. Cheers, --WWB (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, not quite sure how to use Wikipedia, so sorry to be editing your page, but wanted to contact you about R.P Weston as I believe it was you that wrote on that page about the fact that he is your Great Uncle? I believe he was my Grandmother's Great Uncle too and wanted to find out if Maud was Maud Mason? She was my Grandfather's sister if so. Any information you have would be greatly appreciated. Thanks (Divaishbehaviour (talk) 13:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC))
Divaishbehaviour[reply]
Hi. What do you mean here? Are you refering to the prod which the original creator didn't make? Also you tagged this article with the {{citations}} template. The template translates as "no footnotes" which that article has. And in your edit summary you mention "reliable sources" which has nothing to so with the template. Best, --brewcrewer(yada, yada)07:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the Busboys and Poets page, the prod was placed (not by me) with a request for citations, which I had placed. I saw that both were removed. (See more discusiosn on this page in the previous note.) The citations tag is used when -- "This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations. You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations." --, and there are a list of references in both Busboys and Poets and Unstable Fables without any in-text citations in that article. Wikipedia does require verifiable, third party sources for all its articles. I trust this will clear the issue up. A little mollusk (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unstable Fables does not have a list of references. All the references are in-line. I agree that the references might not be reliable sources but that has nothing to do with the tag that you placed on the article. The tag that you placed makes no mention of reliable sources. Best, --brewcrewer(yada, yada)08:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have contacted many members about the inactivity, none responded other than User:Slakr, so that's Done. I guess tagging, and if you look on the project page, you'll see there is a collaboration thing on the header. It is dated for 2006. We have to make a collaboration page (I've been doing a lot of that lately) and create a newsletter (even more). Also, invite people in. I'll get started on the newsletter. Basketball11021:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added myself to the list. I've done some work on White Rock Lake, but I'm certain there are other tasks. The list of defunct newspapers, for example, is woefully lacking. A little mollusk (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The colors of the city flag are red, white, and blue. I'd go with that, perhaps touches of gold as in the insignia. There are those Dr Pepper fans who would say Dallas is the color of a Dr Pepper can! :P Oh, and what happened to the Dallas stubs page??? A little mollusk (talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix that. After I do, would you deliver it? All you have to do is make a new section to each of the members' talk page, put a title and add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth/Newsletter/March2008}} to it. Basketball11021:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And I got a couple of banners added. Do you have a better tag that can be added to the start page? One that has info for both D-FW and Texas ?? I have been resorting to hunting around for useable banners/tags. Thanks! A little mollusk (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Dallas Country Club, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours04:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Thomas Marsalis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. скоморохъ04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty to remove your comment on in-text citations, because I thought it would really be a bit silly to put in footnotes that would all be referring to the same, reliable (no flagrant lies to be expected in an obit article), online document. All the main text is based on the obit, and the list of publications from the New School website. This was actually produced as a by-product of some editing I did on the article on Industrial economics, that totally missed the history and founding fathers of their subdicipline, including our Joe Bain. I am still looking out for additional biographical material, and I will then probably add notes to link specific bits of info to their sources. No offence intended! Thank you for taking care of the newly born! Robertsch55 (talk) 09:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. The in-text citations are really helpful, especially when there is more than one source. For most articles, it's best to try to come up with more than one source -- at least, that's the rule I impose on myself for my contributions. It's not always easy when there is only a little bit of information, but it is possible. Good luck. A little mollusk (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated Henry S. Miller Company, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry S. Miller Company and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a response on the talk page, but there has been no direct objection provided on the talk page to indicate what the reason for the speedy delete nomination would be. It is a notable firm with a long history in the Dallas community that is nationally-ranked in its field. So, how is that not notable? Sources and full attribution of information is provided from verifiable third-party sources including area newspapers and The Texas Handbook I think it is not a speedy delete candidate. A little mollusk (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is for the articles that are needed and to prevent all the AfD nominations. It seems to me, sort of as an aisde, thata someone from outside the Dallas area can't really judge the noteworthiness of a Dallas icon, unless there is some sort of national angle -- like Jerry Haynes being Gibby's dad or something along those lines. I mean, where is Highland Park Cafeteria, or even Ron Chapman? There is supposedly a list "articles needed" somewhere. I attempted to add Texie Waterman to an existing list, but there's nothing ON the list and the list doesn't show up.
There has to be a better way to make a list of needed articles. I keep running into red names, places, important landmarks and businesses that need to have something written about them. I know it's easier to make a list than to write articles, but I am trying to do both. And I have been trying to augment existing articles that could probably use a re-evaluation and fighting for articles that I am in the midst of writing. Perhaps I should just put the list on my own page. But how? Le sigh.
Re. that new Ernest Beaux article: That was pretty much just a fast rescue of the subject. Another user posted a nanostub under Ernst Beaux which was correctly tagged as a speedy, I did a quick Google, found the right spelling...and a red link at the Chanel No. 5 article. Anyway, all of the citations are from the external link I cited. Thanks for the help! Interesting subject apparently long overdue for an article. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you did quite well...and you added the article on No. 22 as well! There's a lot of info on the guy, so expanding it shouldn't be a problem. I would never have even written this had it not been for the misspelled nanostub and the red link at the article on No. 5. It's kind of fun to break away from one's usual subjects. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, more could be added to the sections regarding his time with The Rolling Stones, his personal life, political views (maybe a new section?), etc. It might be nice to mention his comment about how he would snort his dad's ashes. --Sharkface21722:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be pretty prolific when it comes to WP:AWC challenges. In the future, please inform me when you have completed a challenge, as I would hate to not award you the barnstars you are due. --Sharkface21702:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have simply been looking for meaningful ways to help and the suggestions on your page provide me with a checklist when I don't have mine handy. Besides, I have more than my share of info at my immediate disposal when it comes to anything Stones related. Hope that I've been of some help. A little mollusk (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi just thought you should know that in the infobox for the above, where it has "alternative name", the source given leads to a site which states, "Minor Planet Designations. Due to circumstances beyond our control (disabling of scripts on the CF webserver), this script is off-line until further notice." and nothing more. Also the link that appears in the refs section needs expanding as at present nothing appears other than a number. A ref template could be used, which I would add but I have no idea where the source is located within the infobox. Have fun!♦Tangerines♦·Talk00:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a recent occurrence and one that would mean scores of sources would have to be changed. It appears the entire Harvard site is down. There is nothing linked on "Alternative Names," yet something is embedded and is showing up and why, I have no idea. I don't want to un-do all that work, yet it seems the only means of getting rid of that annoying thing, where ever it originated. What is a ref template? Isn't that what I used? A little mollusk (talk) 20:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but when I read point of no return it means a point from which you cannot go back, only forward. In the case of Antarctic explorers, almost all of those who went on to the Ice Shelf, returned safely; Amundsen returned, Shackleton returned twice, Scott returned the first time as did Wilson. So it was not a point of no return butr a starting point for a whole series of expeditions. Dabbler (talk) 15:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the point of no return is a point from which you must continue on your current course of action, often because it is impossible to go back or else expensive. Both of these were the case with each journey. Once these explorers were committed to the ice, they were on the ice. Being at the point of no return does not mean they will not return, but that it is a significant way point on a route, which Ross Ice Shelf was indeed. The phrase was chosen very carefully. A little mollusk (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but in the point of no return the phrase is defined quite clearly. "The point of no return is the point beyond which someone, or some group of people, must continue on their current course of action, either because turning back is physically impossible, or because to do so would be prohibitively expensive or dangerous. It is also used when the distance or effort required to get back would be greater than the remainder of the journey or task as yet undertaken."
At no time did any of the explorers "have" to continue as is demonstrated by Amundsen turning back after his first abortive attempt in September 1915, Scott, Wilson and Shackleton's turning back from their first attempt and Shackleton's turning back in his second attempt on the pole. In fact it can be argued that Shackleton reached his point of no return 85 miles from the Pole and returned because to continue forward would have been a disaster. A point of no return is the furthest distance along a journey, not the starting point. Nothing "irreversible" or "impossible" about their setting out on the Shelf.
Now if you are flying across the ocean with a sufficient but limited fuel supply, there will be a point where you cannot turn back because your fuel will run out before you can reach your home base, that is a true "point of no return". Dabbler (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of that definition (to which you added something while I was attempting to respond). The point of no return can also be a significant way point, which this definitely was. It can also mean a particular, significant decision. Don't you think making the decision for a ship to be frozen in McMurdo Bay until the thaw is a point of no return? It most certainly is. I never stated at any time that they would not or could not return. Please read my previous message carefully. The term means it is a significant way point on a route. That is what the Ross Ice Shelf was for many explorers, not a starting point. They started in London or wherever. A little mollusk (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with your definition of a point of no return as a significant way point, but that is a position ON a journey, not the starting point of the journey. By definition, the starting point cannot be a point of no return unless its something like jumping out of an aircraft or passing through a door that locks behind you. Please read the definition and explain exactly how you can define a starting point for a surface journey as a point of no return within any normal understanding of the term. Sorry about the edit conflict, but it happens sometimes, learn to live with it. Dabbler (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but your comment "learn to live with it" is unwarranted. These explorers did not start their journeys to the South Pole from this point. They started in London, Norway, and other points. As such, the Ross Ice Shelf is a way point on the journey and not a starting point. I stand by that. I choose my words very carefully. A little mollusk (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My "learn to live with it" referred specifically to your comment about Edit conflicts. When two people are editing a page, sometimes they both end up doing it at the same time. It can be frustrating but it is unavoidable. No matter how you choose your definition of starting point, the Ross Ice Shelf was not a point of no return in any meaning of the phrase. Their bases on the edges of the shelf were way points if you like, and the point of no return is a way point, but they are different types of way point. Dabbler (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the article and the discussion on this page along with point of no return, it sounds like not using point of no return would be more appropriate. Once the point of no return is reached, it is impossible to turn back. As the ice shelf prevented early explorers from sailing further south and it was the first point along their journey, it does not fit the definition. They could have easily said "nope don't want to go here" and easily turned back. Even if they had already left their boats, they could have still turned back, jumped right back in their boat and sailed away. Instead, a point of no return could be (for example) if there was an extremely large mountain to climb up, and they successfully climbed it and climbed down it the other way, but could now not make it back up for some reason, then the top could be considered the point of no return since once you go past it, you can't turn around. In this case, once you get to the ice shelf, you can still easily turn back around. So from what I read and the discussion on this page, it sounds like not using "point of know return" would be most appropriate. Mike6271 (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the text in the conflict of interest banner says "may have" -- not has. My assessment is based on the fact that the links are to either the website of the product itself or to exclusively positive reviews with no neutral assessment. This certainly warrants another editor looking at the article, which is the purpose of such a tag. Thanks for your question. A little mollusk (talk) 03:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I actually added the two sources which went beyond the official site. I originally tagged it for speedy advertising until I stumbled upon those links so I just don't know if it's a fair tag in this case.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. Thanks for all the hard work so far and for making the Awards Center a more lively place. --Sharkface21702:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You asked, Do characters -- in whatever media -- get their own pages? We have a guideline about this at WP:FICT. In this particular case, I tend to think the character's page is going to be deleted due to minimal content and context in her article. --Metropolitan90(talk)04:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pointer. I've dealt more with biography than anything else thus far. As mentioned, I did think this was a second time that someone attempted to create a page on this topic. Until I get more conversant with the fiction guidelines, I'll stick to what I do know. Many thanks again! A little mollusk (talk) 05:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! PeterSymonds | talk19:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to create one. I merely distributed your newsletter last month. I don't know anything about creating it and I don't have the time I would like at this moment to learn by trial-and-error. If you would like, I could learn more, but not right now. A little mollusk (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tidied the article up somewhat. The musical analysis is still very programme notes-esque and will need some references. I will try and dig up more historical facts for the piece as well as standard information such as instrumentation and maybe a limited discography.
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Penaz Masani, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Could you reevaluate the "wikify" and "expand" tags on the article? As for wikifying, I believe it is reasonably complete; as for expansion, it could still be expanded, but that's about it unless new sources come in... Thanks! GregorB (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia Campus Ambassadors wanted in Troy, Alabama
Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're a member of WikiProject Alabama. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors to help with Wikipedia assignments at Troy University, which will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester. The role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.
Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).
Hello, A little mollusk! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucy D’Escoffier Crespo da Silva until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. j⚛e deckertalk20:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.01:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Fixed. The colspan was 2... I had to change that to 1. Basketball110 what famous people say ♣ 00:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. I guess tagging, and if you look on the project page, you'll see there is a collaboration thing on the header. It is dated for 2006. We have to make a collaboration page (I've been doing a lot of that lately) and create a newsletter (even more). Also, invite people in. I'll get started on the newsletter. Basketball110 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! PeterSymonds | talk 19:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
