I'm not on wikipedia 24 hours a day or even every day so be patient. If you ask me a question I will eventually reply. SEND AN EMAIL if you need to contact me quickly for some reason. Please leave messages related to specific articles on those articles 'discuss' pages, rather than here, and place a link to the article on this page.

A synopsis of Wikipedia policies can be useful. If you have a problem, it helps to know what the relevant policy is. A gentle introduction to 'why we have rules when even the rules can be edited by anybody' can be found at Pillars of the Community.

Don't let 'problems' with other editors become disputes. Other editors are working on the same article you are for a reason... you have something in common! Instead of an edit war, try collaboration and maybe you will find some valuable help in improving the article. Those other editors are your colleagues, they deserve the same respect and assistance as you do.

Archive 01 2004-11-19/ Archive 02 2004-11-24/ Archive 03 2005-01-14/ Archive 04 2005-02-27/ Archive 05 2006-03-22/ Archive 06 2006-08-19/ Archive 07 2006-08-19/ Archive 08 2007-06-07/ Archive 09 2008-03-30

Using: <categorytree>TheNameOfACategory</categorytree> you can place a Category Tree, rooted in any category, on a page:

I do so enjoy empty threats. Go for it. The proof is in the posts. You continue to ignore quality refrences, act in an agitated and irrational manner, and contribute nothing to the discussion. I openly accept whatever you care to throw at me. --Tarage (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have ignored no references. Your characterisation of my behavior as agitated and irrational is your personal opinion which you have a right to. Your continued characterisation of me as a troll is clearly and blatantly a personal attack, which is against policy and I insist that you discontinue this disruptive tack. It does not further the goals of this project. I insist that you stop. I am asking you nicely to stop. Please, stop. User:Pedant (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When one chooses to ignore what is right in front of him, and continues to throw every random argument into play, that person is a troll. I have nothing more to say on the issue. --Tarage (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is not cogent to the issue, as I've pointed out before, the facts are facts and all else is opinion. It is not a fact that I have ignored anything you have said. If you make a comment that needs no response I might not make one. Not everything needs to be an argument. And I do not "throw every random argument into play" -- that description more accurately describes someone who maintains a single-purpose account used to WP:OWN the discussion page on their single focus... but who rarely provides any substance or research or added text to any articles.

Because it's plain to me that your intent is to disrupt collaboration, you're now banned from editing my talk page.

I will only discuss with you on article talk pages or your own talk page (which I will put on my watch list). Also, don't expect any reply from me at all, I won't reply if I feel it would not serve the project goal of writing a good, factually based, well-referenced and unbiased encyclopedia.

I think that as long as the article states unsupported assertions and assumptions as fact, then it will continue to suck, and it is a wikipedia policy that we make articles that don't suck. If the article sucks, there's going to be an edit war. Unprotect it anyway. User:Pedant (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Your above comment made me smile! I like your directness. I would however like it even better when you would express yourself more politely, considering the feelings of other editors, since things being as they are, this is only pouring petrol onto the fire. Alas. Thx,  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 12:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. My definition of an article that sucks is that it sucks up all the available energy of those involved, is unstable, and doesn't progress in a forward direction. The article was at one time a featured article. The next step should be that the article is a shining example of the power of collaboration, rather than no longer a featured article, locked due to an edit war, contains unverifiable assertions, no end in sight.

It was certainly not meant to disparage the laudable efforts of the well-meaning editors who have been working hard on making the article better. Perhaps an apology would be appropriate, however I think I will wait until it after April first to make an effort at writing one that will be taken as sincere. I would not want to have it mistaken as some sort of April fool's prank.

While I appreciate your advice regarding my wording, I would even more appreciate some advice as to how we could move forward with the article, which is really all I'm here for. I really don't have time to belabor every detail with 6 or more editors whose editing technique seems to be to browbeat anyone with a different opinion than themselves.

The information which I object to is information which is impossible for anyone to actually know, so that really anyone who claims to know it is merely repeating someone's opinion. For instance, it is a fact that aircraft hit the WTC -- however, nobody at all anywhere can claim that they know who was piloting the craft. There are no witnesses who can attest to that as a fact. It is a fact that the buildings burned -- however, nobody at all anywhere can claim that they know what caused the 3 WTC buildings to collapse. Investigations are still ongoing, and even the experts word their analyses as conjecture, hypothesis and theory.

I prefer that we state the facts which are actually factual, not just something we can quote from someone who claims to know things that cannot yet be known. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball etc., and it is not appropriate to use crystal balls as sources. We can state actual facts and allow the reader the advantage of deciding for themselves what conclusions can be drawn from those facts. I prefer the Wikipedia to have a reputation for scrupulously avoiding speculation... to be a compendium of reliable information.

Further, I think we need to avoid (and policy precludes) cherry picking data from sources... as using the UN Resolution as a source to definitively state that it was the USA which was attacked. Without knowing the intent of the person or persons responsible for the plan, how can we know what was being attacked? Maybe it was the World Trade Commission that was attacked, or high-rise architects, or (fill in your own maybe) -- unless someone is able to know then that someone cannot say what the intent was, and targeting is closely tied to intent.

Anyway, if you have something you feel is important to tell me, I welcome any comments, but particularly any comments which would serve to improve the article to and beyond featured article status. It's a high profile article and it looks bad for it to be forever protected. I'm sure people "on both sides" of the edit war can come to a consensus about what is definitively factual and not hypothetical or theoretical.

There exists a set of statements about 9/11 which are unquestionably true. I think that if the article contains only those facts which belong to that set, that it would be easy to reach a consensus. If an assertion is made by someone, or a hypothesis is put forward by someone else, it should be stated as "X says Y, based on foo." rather than to baldly state it as fact. Again, 'both sides' should be able to reach a consensus on such statements.

FACT: Members of the UN Security council called the attacks, attacks upon not only the people of New York and the United States, but upon all civilised persons everywhere. (excuse the paraphrase, I'm not quoting, and this should be based on an exact quote)

Assertion: The events of 9/11 were attacks on the USA.

The former is good journalism, the latter is lazy, sloppy, imprecise and in my opinion not in line with our stated policies and mission.

Excuse the long-winded reply please.

Thanks for your comment, it's a pleasure to make your acquaintance. Thanks for your generous contributions to Wikipedia. User:Pedant (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see I've made an error in judgment, and will reformulate at Talk:9/11.  — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 11:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am on a wikibreak until 12:01 am PST April 2 2008. My computer is celebrating April Fool's day by pulling pranks on me, which results in bizaare and uncontrolled weirdness, which I don't wish to inflict on Wikipedia. Leave me a message if you like, and I'll be back tomorrow. User:Pedant (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a 2008 arbitration case administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user working on articles concerning the September 11, 2001 attacks. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind providing a link to this alleged inappropriate behaviour, or explain what policy you believe I have violated? User:Pedant (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't agree with your continued assertions that the 9/11 attacks were not suicide attacks, placing this template on your talk page probably wasn't the best way to handle it. My apologies. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't assert and have not asserted that the attacks weren't suicide attacks. User:Pedant (talk) 08:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. In the past, challenges on the talk page have been made primarily by conspiracy theorists seeking to advance their POV. I apologize for lumping you in with them. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 04:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well they may be right and they may be wrong. It's really all theory. There was obviously conspiracy going on, the question is who conspired? to do what? for what purpose? and I don't think Wikipedia is the place for theories from either 'side' of the issue.

There will always be people who think the government did everything evil that ever happened and others who think the government never did anything evil... or think that all our problems come from people who hate our freedom, and others who think freedom is something that can be handed out like lollipops, and so on.

None of that has a place here. We can only do the best we can when we try to do the best we can, and Wikipedia would be so much better if it were easier to assume good faith, but too many people have an obvious vested interest in their own POV.

"Many hands make light work" but some hands try to make light not work. User:Pedant (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not come from a much older word that means "someone that teaches", but rather one "who speaks [final] judgement" in a case of law, so that makes you a lawyer ;o), which is of course the ultimate in pedantry since it sometimes involves turning a case on DNA evidence, matching groves on the ammunition, or identification of chemical compounds--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the second pedant I have encountered in Wiki, in your case, via the MBTI type deletion spree.

The word is, according to my original research, derived from Hebrew - peh din, literally "pronounce judgement". The term is still used in the rabbinic courts of law called Beth Din, literally "house [of] judgement", with an et added (peh din et). The et is interesting because usually it is used as a definite article like the English the, but in this case, it actually stands for an abbreviation Alef-Tav (E"T), meaning the judgement is complete from first letter of the law to the last (in Hebrew alphabet), i.e. what in English is termed "to the letter of the law". However, unlike the literal English meaning, it doesn't actually mean mean a sentencing judgement because rabbinic courts have not had the power to administer criminal cases for like a 1,000 years! What it means is that IN the final judgement of the court (from 3 to 21 rabbis sitting), the interpretation of the law as applied to the case is final. In some cases the deliberations have been known to take years, and on one occasion 200 years. Of course in may cases such deliberations actually establish precedent, so are known to teach something about the principles applied, and are in a way teaching also.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. I had a read of your "disruptive activity" in the 9/11 article btw, and would tend to agree with your statements. I can certainly remember from that day and the weeks that followed (living in Brooklyn) that no one had a clue for a while what happened and why. I am myself being told that I am expressing "bad faith" and have been "disruptive". Unsurprisingly I'm not new to this as a former TQA supervisor in IT production facility.

I'll e-mail the -et reply, cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that ... pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers. ?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quote from Jimbo Wales User:Pedant (talk) 11:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, as if anyone takes notice of this! I would be deleting content 24/7 if this was a policy. I add {{fact}} because several times as soon as I deleted the content was re-added immediately, still without citation. However, I think that in stubs citations are not crucial because they rarely have sufficient content to warrant the research.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think sources and citations are as important as anything else on wikipedia. See User:Pedant/Pillars for an early and informal essay on why we need to stick to the core policies in order that wikipedia can survive and function. User:Pedant (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure why you re-requested AWB approval. You have been on the approved list since July 1, 2007 ([1]). You had previously requested on June 30, 2007 ([2]), and that request was approved by User:Reedy the next day ([3]). Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My mistake, I guess I had requested permission, and not followed through. Sorry to cause extra work for anyone. User:Pedant (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pedant

I have submitted a proposal for the structure of the 9/11 article that I would appreciate your input on.

Sincerely,

GuamIsGood (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that interests me in that article is not the form of the article but the unsourced content and statements based on circular media, media outlets using other outlets as source rather than there being any primary original source, and no possibility of supporting statements of people's intent or who was piloting planes we cannot even verify ARE the hijacked planes. I want a authoritative citation on every single allegation of fact, per wikipedia policy and as explicitly stated in Jimbo Wales' "we make the internet not suck" treatise. User:Pedant (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised a question which has been nagging me, but not sure its the right place to do so. Can you comment?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedant - I appreciate your comments concerning some minor edits I made to the Big Bertha Howitzer page, so I have substantially re-written both those comments and much else in that article. Cheers, McTodd (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I probably hit the rollback by accident (or habit?) when scanning articles. Mea Culpa on that one. --Hourick (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, that's understandable, no problem here. Thanks for the explanation. User:Pedant (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a big fan of Terry Teene and I want to know where he currently lives and what his address is. Can you get it for me? Plyjacks (talk) 00:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think of myself as the f7 key of Wikipedia. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 05:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, 'the beauty of this project is' that everyone can pick their own assignments, and do what they feel best suits them. (I guess I am an f11 key?) User:Pedant (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My name is Keith and I live in Massachusetts and I'm 19 years old. My email is kcody5@gmail.com Plyjacks (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help 67.126.242.120 (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I believe you that Terry Teene and George Voorhis created Ronald McDonald. I contacted http://www.thejoyboys.com and they said that Willard Scott did create Ronald McDonald and the webmaster knows Willard Scott very well. But I'm still on your side. But I don't want http://www.thejoyboys.com webmasters angry at us eighter. It would cause even more dispute. But If you want to contact Willard Scott on his site The Joy Boys Website" let me know. Thanks. Plyjacks (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right Pedant. So i'll take your word that George Voorhis and Terry Teene are the creators and I'll take Willard Scott's name off then. Thanks Plyjacks (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my infomation I sent you. I'm really want Terry Teene's address because I've tried to find it but no luck at all. My email is kcody5@gmail.com. Plyjacks (talk) 18:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey also I saw the article on a newspaper archive website and now I believe you. Thank you. Plyjacks (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the Rusty Harding article, an article you created, since it does not give any cites to reliable sources, and the article was previously deleted for the same reasons subsequent to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rusty Harding. Please don't re-create it again unless you can provide cites to reliable sources, as required by WP:BIO. -- The Anome (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, I've made a copy of the deleted content at User:Pedant/Rusty Harding -- The Anome (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given your comments on my talk page and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boomerang engineer‎, I've put Rusty Harding up for the Wikipedia:Deletion review process: see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 7. I still believe that Boomerang engineer should be deleted, since it looks like most of the material in the Boomerang engineer article either belongs in the main Boomerang article or in (were it to be restored) the Rusty Harding article, since the only use of the term "boomerang engineer" seems to be to refer to him. -- The Anome (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Results now in:

The consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 7 appears to be to invite you to create a new article for Rusty Harding, based on the cites you provided at Boomerang engineer's AfD. I'm not quite sure when the deletion review process ends, but it shouldn't be long now. Thanks for being so patient. -- The Anome (talk) 20:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so, maybe now? User:Pedant (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone said that Willard Scott may see the Ronald McDonald discussion page and get mad at us. I'm scared and don't know what to do. Ufoundme2 (talk) 00:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Run and hide. Willard Scott may sue you for being in a discussion where the truth was told about a factual misstatement he is on record as having said. Nevertheless, Willard Scott did not create the character, the look, the costume, or the name of Ronald McDonald. There is a contemporaneous record to prove it. He appeared in 3 television advertisements, portraying a previously-created character, and using a costume which was substantially similar to the creator's costume, and which was quite dissimilar to the Ronald McDonald costume of today. User:Pedant (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Willard Scott should sue Voorhees and Teene for stealing his idea to create Ronald McDonald.Max33well44 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:George Gray Points Out Glenn's Bald Spot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are an active editor at Boomerang. I am trying to learn how to throw one. How can I get some guidance. Is it possible that the boomerang I have is made for display and not to return upon throwing?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put replies on your page, as it seems to me that few people will feel the need to follow this thread, in which I try to assist you in throwing a crooked stick at yourself. User:Pedant (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in New Orleans right now. I will be in Memphis through the week. My boomerang is home in Chicago. I will not get to Chicago until the weekend. I will send you pics when I have my boomerang. Right now it is flying like a stick. I throw it and it goes straight and drops. I will get pics of the edges and all when I can.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you send me your email address to send the pictures to.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just came back from a vaction in NH and I asked someone at a McDonald said that he knew Willard and he said that played the original custome but did not create it (two other guys did (who were probably Voorhees and Teene)) however Willard did get to create the new popular one with the jumpsuit and current mascot. That I can believe. SO WILLARD DIDN'T CREATE THE ORIGINAL ONE JUST THE NEW ONE WITH THE JUMPSUIT.

So thank you pedant. I would like to keep in touch with you and Terry as well. Plyjacks (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Willard Scott did not create the "new costume" or the original one. Neither is it true that Willard Scott 'played' the original costume. He never even touched it, but it's obvious from the similarity of the two that he -- or whomever it was that designed the costume in which Willard Scott performed during the 3 advertisements in which he appeared -- saw pictures of the original. The similarities preclude any reasonable person from making any other assumption

Frankly, I don't care what you believe, and I am beginning to question my assumption of good faith on your part. Please don't try to support the truth with unsupported hearsay. Several times, you have made dubious unsupported statements attempting to support my statement that George Voorhees and Terry Teene created the costume, character, name, and persona of the original Ronald McDonald, a claim supported by the contemporaneous record: the photograph in the Valley News, now called the Daily News.

It would be smashing if you could get access to the newspaper archives and retrieve the captioned photo, or provide some other evidence, but it really seems to me that you are making up lies, which are not what is needed to support the truth. I don't want to offend you, I am just being honest when I say that that is how it seems to me.

You have repeatedly expressed a desire to contact Terry Teene, but you have not set your Wikipedia preferences to receive email through the Wikipedia email function, so in order to contact you I have to reveal my own email address without knowing who you are.

I am extremely reluctant to email you and expose my personal details, as you haven't yet gained my trust. You are also unlikely to ever gain my trust either, the way you are going about it. I get a kinda 'stalker vibe' from you. User:Pedant (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I just heard it. I didn't say that it was true. Someone told me that. Second I don't beleieve in stalking and I think it's wrong. If willard Scott didn't create the character at all then that's fine. I'm not interested in Scott just Voorees and Teene. Teene looks more interesting than Scott. So once again again I'm sorry. I shouldn't have acted so stupid. Plyjacks (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Set up your wikipedia account preferences, so that you can receive email through the wikipedia interface, and let me know when you have done so, and I will send you the latest address I know for Terry Teene. I think I made that clear. I'm not trying to be secretive, I just want to behave responsibly with regard to another person's mailing address, and to protect myself from any misrepresentation of my actions. User:Pedant (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I changed it thank you. Now you can sent me an email. Thanks. Plyjacks (talk) 23:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say that it is a pleasure talking to you. I'm a very trustfull person and I even have my own website with people who I have written to. Here's the link http://www.freewebs.com/kgcautographs. Plyjacks (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Now I know that Willard Scott was the frist person to portray him on tv but Voorhees and Teene created the costume. He just played it. But that's still cool that Scott had a part in Ronald but he didn't creat him (Voorhees and Teene did that part). Willard Scott used the custome they created. Thank you Pedant. If you don't want to spread your personal infomation with me than that's fine. I have no problem with that. Thanks again. Keith G. Cody (aka Plyjacks (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

No. Wrong plyjacks. Willard Scott was the first person to create Ronald McDonald. NOT Voorhees or Teene. That newspaper article came after Scott created the custome that Voorhees and Teene stole from him and called it there's. Well there wrong and so are you plyjacks. Max33well44 (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not welcome on my talk page. Regardless of your belief, you are wrong and I don't tolerate untrue statements on my talk page. I know Terry Teene and George Voorhees and I have seen the original costume, and I have seen the newspaper clipping as well. Terry Teene is one of the most moral people I have ever met, and would never under any circumstances use any other clown's ideas, act, costume or the like without permission. Max33well44, you will not be welcome here on Wikipedia if you continue to make false allegations. You are already on thin ice on my talk page. One more uncivil act or false statement here and you are banned from my talk page. User:Pedant (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember max33well44 that life goes on. I use to like scott but now I like Teene as well. I don't care who created the costume as long as it was Teene. Plyjacks (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use my page for a chat forum. User:Pedant (talk) 23:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opps... Sorry Pedant. I apolizige for that. My mistake. Plyjacks (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking through existing Barnstars and although you have an image of one, I belive there isn't a template. If you'd like, I could easily make one for you. Meisfunny Gab 16:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't yet posted it on WP: Barnstars yet, but here it is:

		The Modest Barnstar
		I give you this Modest Barnstar for uploading the image. Congrats. The code is: {{Template: The Modest Barnstar|Comments}} Meisfunny Gab 23:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar!!!! :) I am really excited, as it is my first. It is now on WP:Barnstars, along with the other one I made yesterday. Meisfunny Gab 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've just done the last of making all the links to phalanx point to whichever phalanx they should - apart from the semi-protected Sparta page, and a couple that refer to the general concept of a phalanx. Oh, and all the talk pages and stuff. Like this one now too :-) Now you'll have to come up with something else for people to do... Jason A. Recliner (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going aroung taking a survey to see if users I know would support me in a campaign for adminship. If you could post your answer here that would be great. Looking around my userpage could also help make a decision if your having trouble. Thanks! Meisfunny Gab 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a website for Terry Teene. Check it out.

http://terryteeneworld.webs.com/

I'm still working it though. But it will be done soon. Plyjacks (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pedant, It's been a pleasure talking and keeping in touch with you. I may not be smart but I'm learning. Now all around the internet people are saying there are disputes in Ronald McDonald's orgins. But they should know that it was George Voorhees and Terry Teene. Willard Scott just played him that's all he did. But I also want Terry Teene's address if possible. Thank you and sorry for all the mistakes I made. Plyjacks (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://peaceaware.com/McD/pages/History_of_Ronal_McDonald_Speedee_Wal_Mart.htm

That site is sad because it's all false. They leave out Voorhees and Teene (the real people who created RM) for some weird reason. But they should have put them in there though. Take care. Plyjacks (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has banned from Wikipedia as sock puppeteer on the Ronald McDonald article. He was using a dozen or so accounts to bolster his arguments. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the worst of that (for me) is that he seems to be supporting my position regarding the Voorhees/Teene origin of Ronald MacDonald. Thanks for letting me know. User:Pedant (talk) 21:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four years later and now I don't care who created Ronald McDonald anymore. Teene, Voorhees or Willard Scott. I just don't want Ronald McDonald to retire. No more sockpuppets for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plyjacks (talk • contribs) 03:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flying-Gull.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Flying gull.png. Commons is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image(s) will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Flying gull.png]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Jonathan Briley, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Jonathan Briley seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Jonathan Briley, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{motd}} templates, run by Wikipedia:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also note that after the roll call for active members, we've cleared the specialized delivery lists. Feel free to sign-up in the relevant sections again!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:SingleBulletTheoryExploded.png. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have suggestions or comments related to the newsletter, please leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you and happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Faris Ahmed Jamaan al-Showeel al-Zahrani from Saudi police poster.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC) --Ricky81682 (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. My apologies for the late delivery, and thanks go to both Wildroot and Erik for writing the newsletter. Remember that anyone can edit the newsletter, so feel free to help out! Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can prove to me the original photo was in the public domain, I will undelete the image, otherwise no. (Unless you want to use it under the wikipedia:non-free content criteria) The creator of the original image is the copyright holder. That you made a video of that, cleaned it up etc is a derivative work and does not entitle you to release it in the public domain. Garion96 (talk) 07:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is automatically copyrighted. Unless Saudi law is different, you don't need to assert copyright or add a (c) tag, you either have the copyright or you don't. If you can show me that this image is not copyrighted, either by Saudi law or any other reason, I will undelete the image. For the rest, if you don't agree with the deletion, please go to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Garion96 (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is pointless, I am not going to rehash the same argument I already stated above. I will not undelete the image, so please take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Garion96 (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review. Garion96 (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, I will not undelete this image. Take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard‎ or Wikipedia:Media copyright questions but I will not undelete the image. Garion96 (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2009 issue of the WikiProject Films newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the animation of that rocking elephant named Devi, and I would like to know how to make it. Could you please tell me? -BlueCaper (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are two questions I need to know. Please respond on my talk page. -BlueCaper (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The February 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Brian Giovannini, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Notability not verified. All Google hits for ""Brian Giovannini" "postage due"" appear to be mirrors of the Wikipedia article, or self-published sources such as wikis. The impressive number of mirrors is due to the article's creation date: 2003...

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Edcolins (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Brian Giovannini, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Giovannini. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Edcolins (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering what was up with this edit, which doesn't seem to make much sense on an article with 37 sources. Perhaps you could be more specific with your concerns about sources? Thanks, --Terrillja _talk 06:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is up is you reverted it without discussion. THEN you left this message. Don't bring bullshit here to my talk page. Discuss articles on the article's talk page, and add a link to it here, if you want me to join the discussion. This is your one single warning. Use my talk page with respect or don't come back. User:Pedant (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at and saw completely unreferenced. If it was a refimprove, or unreliablesources, then I would have left it, but with the article having (almost 40) references, I was a bit mystified as to exactly what was wrong, and figured that there was some sort of mistake, as the section had references, and the article has many as well. My reversion was based on the fact that the template used did not make sense given the number of references, and I left you what I consider to be a reasonable request for clarification. I will take a look at it later, but I certainly didn't expect it to be such a controversial action for you.--Terrillja _talk 13:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a blind revert, with no explanation. If you thought a more suitable tag was appropriate, change it. Reverting without discussion on the talk page, no way you will convince me that it is appropriate to do that. Ask first revert later. Citations for everything is core principle. Discussion for controversial reverts is also. It will always be controversial to remove a tag requesting citations, so it is always wise to discuss it on the talk page. In public, where the issue is. Not here on my talk page. I have a note at the top of this page that specifically asks that these discussions occur on the appropriate page rather than here. You ignored this and initiated a discussion here. I may not own my talk page, but I still will not allow it to be used in any other way than I think is appropriate. Think of me as Wikiproject:Pedant's talk page if you like. I won't have discussions in private that belong in public. User:Pedant (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you've never read it, please have a look at Wikipedia's civility policy, from which you are straying. You won't get what you want if you carry on behaving towards good-faith editors as if they are clueless meanies. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read it and wrote parts of it. It is uncivil to abuse someone's talk page.

A good-faith editor discusses changes on the article's talk page, and would respect my wish that this global policy not be strayed from on my talk page.

Good faith editors do not revert edits with no discussion on the appropriate talk page.

I reserve the privilege of using idiomatic language on my talk page, including the use of terms such as "bullshit" as my talk page is an informal region of the wikipedia and not one that a casual and offendable reader will peruse.

When one places oneself on editorial review, one is inviting assessment of their editorial behavior, would you not agree?

I never said the editor in question was a clueless meanie, but I did assess the editor as being unsuitable at this point for my support in his quest to acquire an adminship, and responded to his misbehaviour in an entirely appropriate manner, as I see it.

Personally, I think the editor will never be ready if after "5000 nearly 7000" edits his edit summary shows very little writing being done and the editor still doesn't know that discussions of major reversions should always happen on the talk page. Or that reverting a tag placement (from an established editor with a history of good edits, who is listed on just about every whitelist I've checked) without discussion and without reason (the article is FULL of unsourced assertions of fact, gush language, temporal awkwardnesses ; in-universe perspectives and looks frankly like a promo for Heidi, removing unsourced assertions of fact is the first obvious step to save the article.) and said it pretty tactfully on the editorial review page, less tactfully here on my talk page, where I will continue to act in the same manner as I always have unless it is brought to my attention that my behavior is somehow causing net damage rather than net improvement.

That's a very different thing than my lack of awareness that the unreferenced tag template had been changed to "completely unreferenced" on an article that reads like an autobio and has half of it's assertions unreferenced.

"Getting what I want" is not the mission here, Writing a well-referenced, unbiased, factual and complete encyclopedia is the mission. It's not a social club or forum or fansite or etc... But thank you for your input, and for your appropriate use of my talk page. It's nice to meet you and I look forward to working with you further. User:Pedant (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. If that's what you want, you'll get much further towards that goal by bein' canny civil. If you want to talk about the whys and wherefores of this, please let me know. If you're uncivil, I'll block you, you've been warned. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhuh, yeah. If I had been uncivil, I would be banned. I'm not banned because to do so would be an abuse of your admin privileges and responsibilities. You have also been warned. User:Pedant (talk) 07:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated List of art cars, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of art cars. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message.  Logical Premise ^Ergo? 15:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 08:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image has been restored, but does not have a source or license (and, apparently a correct fair use). There's a grace period of 2 days before the image goes up for deletion again if it's not corrected. Skier Dude (talk) 04:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to discuss George/Terry with you. JimmKnows (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on compiling a book containing information about almost all Non-indigenous ethnic groups living or working in Pakistan. The population of a particular ethnic group would be obtain respectively from their diplomatic missions in Pakistan including regions with significant populations, languages spoken and religious affiliations. I'm not very good with writing so it would be great, if you would like to collaborate with me.--116.71.53.25 (talk) 06:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm-Reconsider the static (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok, thanks! -Reconsider the static (talk) 07:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I saw you created this page, and nominated it for speedy deletion under criteria G8 - pages dependent on a nonexistent page, such as talk pages with no corresponding article. It looks like this content may be intended to be an article; in that case, you should move it into article space, or into your userspace. If it remains as an orphaned talk page it will be deleted. If you have any questions, please let me know. Robofish (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The November 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I'm sorry, but I can't get back the content of this page myself - I'm not an admin. I suggest you contact the one who deleted it, User:Anthony.bradbury, and ask him to do so; if he won't, try one of the others listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. I hope that helps. Robofish (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The December 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pedant! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 9 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Louis Berger - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The January 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Olympic creed, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070219031113AAC3zWv. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call off your bot please Yahoo answers does not own the Olympic creed. Olympic creed was formerly a redir to Olympic oath which has nothing to do with the creed. I copied the text from Wikipedia's Olympic games article to replace the redirect with the text, which is what one expects to find. The goal of the project is to make the internet not suck, and now it sucks a little less. Please prohibit your bot from posting to my page, I have been doing this a lot longer and a lot better than your bot.User:Pedant (talk) 08:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Olympic Creed, distinct from the Olympic Oath reads:

"The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well."

The February 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:GNN Mosh bb2 00000002.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. The Evil IP address (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The March 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The April 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The June 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The July 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The August 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2010 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting five coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next year; members are invited to nominate themselves if interested. Please do not vote yet, voting will begin on September 15. This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2010 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib)