User talk:Spamsara

Welcome to Wikipedia!!!

Hello Spamsara! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, 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 using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button

located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 16:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects
Getting your info out there
Citing sources Neutral Point of View Describing points of view Attribution Uploading images Image use policy
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions
Getting along
Etiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Resolving disputes
Getting technical
Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Tools Village pump

Merge

Hookah, shisha, maassel
Featuritis, feature creep, scope creep, mission creep; insert link into software bloat#Code bloat and omg code bloat - bloated indeed! is this some sort of practical joke?

Your comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Geological history of Earth

your comments- No, the page does not follow the MOS. First line, please repeat the title of the article in bold. Thank you. Spamsara 06:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply- now i have done it. thanks, Sushant gupta 06:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ailanthus altissima at FAC

Hello Spamsara - you recently opposed the FA status of the above article based on perceived problems with the citation format. We have looked very hard for precedents to support your view, but could find none. Despite that fact, we've added several more sources recently, and if you had another look and reviewed our responses to your complaints, you might be compelled to change your mind. If not, your continued suggestions would be valued. Thanks Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 23:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]