On 3 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Vincent Barry, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I would advise you not to be involved as this is a complete waste of time. There're already 9 users involved in this minor content dispute - it all started with some minor edits I made in Religion, which he disagreed with. He then proceeded to call 9 different users (including one bot, as you could see from the one of the links he provided) to question my action, and gave me 4 vandalism warnings. All in all, he wasted 3 hours of my time before he finally told me what he disagreed with about my edits - and now he's complaining about my cursing, which I regret but which I feel was pretty justified considering the extremely annoying behavior of this user. Thanks, anyway. Herunar (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Herunar, keep your cool and refrain from making personal attacks or you will be blocked. Angelo, canvass again and you will be blocked. —Darktalk12:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible for you to re-evaluate your protection of Religion? Discussion is ongoing on the talk page, and while it hasn't always been the most ideal discussion, I'm not sure this was such a raging edit war that protection was needed. Clearly there is a minor content dispute, but if we protected pages every time an two editors disagree nothing would ever get done. I mean no disrespect and I can see why you moved to protect, but I think if you have a look it was really only two editors involved in reverting each other and as I said I've attempted to get discussion moving on the talk page. Thanks for your consideration.PelleSmith (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These two editors were edit warring over the article. It may be a minor content dispute but they way they conduct themselves when reverted each other speaks of more... Unless you can persuade the editors not to edit the page until their dispute has been resolved, protection is needed. —Darktalk23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not long after the page was protected the editor whose version it was locked into turned silent. The other editor has also disappeared from the talk page. Can't we just let them 3RR and block them if they do? I really don't think that two editors behaving like those two should be able to shut down an entire entry for a week because they are unable to act respectfully towards one another. Its one thing if you have two cadres of editors all reverting for each other, but when its just two who are edit warring and being uncivil to each other then isn't the normal course of action to warn and possible block them, not shut down the entry? Again I don't blame you for what you did, but two uncivil revert warriors battling each other really shouldn't be able to close down an entire entry, that's just not a good precedent to set, particularly when they are barely being slapped on the wrist themselves. Please reconsider this page protection. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 01:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the message on my talk page, its good to be back. I missed the project. I hope sometime in the distant future, to return to Winston Churchill and get it to FA. If in the meanwhile I can help you with anything then drop me a message. Happy editing. LordHarris19:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elections are now taking place for coordinators of the project for the next six months. Any editors interested in seeking a coordinator position, or who want a say in who is selected, should indicate as much here.
Member news
The project has currently 381 members, 69 joined & 0 leavers since the start of March 2008.
Other news
The project's long-time lead coordinator, Kevinalewis, has announced he is not standing as a candidate for another term in that capacity. We would like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to him for the extraordinary work he has done for this project.
Welcome to the Twenty Third issue of the Novels WikiProject's newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.
We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask.
Last month's challenge (South Wind) was completed by member User:Blathnaid with a nice starting stub.
The first person to start the article is mentioned in the next newsletter. This month's article is Kate Christensen's 2008 PEN/Faulkner award winner The Great Man.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Even though it failed with 28 supports, 42 opposes, and 15 neutrals, I am grateful for the suggestions and advice I have received and I do hope to improve as a Wikipedian. If you ever need my help in any endeavor, feel free to drop me a line. --Sharkface21719:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problems with image
I am confused by your policy on an image :Image:Birkenhead School Crest Logo full colour.jpg There are many criteria and I do not know which one you have applied to disallow this image. The resolution can be reduced if you wish. Is this the problem? JMcC (talk) 08:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can hardly control the weather for your hailstorms, and I will be more scared for the person next to me with the Mariner's terrible aim so... I think I'm safe :) The only danger is if you turn out to have some of your ancestor's genes... *flees* —Darktalk11:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your previous comments, would you be good enough to review the article and let me know what you think, in particular whether it needs division into two. Thank you.Backnumber1662 (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be terribly busy until next month so I won't be able to do it till then. You can try asking Awadewit for help if it's particularly urgent, though she may be busy. —Darktalk11:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm a member of WP:FACT & CVU. I understand that u have recently blocked this user indefinitely, but the affected section is still being removed on a regular basis by IP vandals (namely from SingNet or Qala proxies), who are likely to be the blocked users, sockpuppets (despite being discovered & repeated warnings served), fans or church supporters of Ho. Fyi, this has been on-going for over a year now & I find this nonsense has to be stopped once & for all, for the commom good of Wikipedia in the long run. Kindly review this case & see what u can do (semi-protection from anonymous edits of the mentioned proxies or IP range?) as it's a meaningless & counter-productive exercise to warn & revert with no end in sight! Thank u. -- Aldwinteo (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
