User talk:Aplomado

This user may have left Wikipedia. Aplomado has not edited Wikipedia since 8 June 2010. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Archived discussions:

• Archive 1 (January-June 2006)

• If I remove the message it was by accident. I was responding to your question. Kyros 22:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, no problem. :) Aplomado ^talk 22:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) Your version violates the NPOV pillar.
• 2) As a professional journalist or writer, you already know that you should present both sides of a controversy in equal depth, and for Wikipedia, you should not insert subtle value judgments and bias into your articles.
• 3) As a Christian, you need to realize that your version is potentially damaging to those who still have a stake in the college's reputation. You have highlighted many negatives about the school, but you have not highlighted many positives. You should not use the PHC Wikipedia entry to upbraid your brothers and sisters in Christ. Please find another vehicle for your grievances.
• 4) I removed some sections that were not balanced but left many others. If you do not have an axe to grind, then please help me to get this back in balance.

--Holywoodhills 02:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article needs more balance, but your edits make it less balanced, not more. Please also note that I did not write the material that you deleted; the reason I reverted it is because you removed it without justifying the removal. Don't be so eager to judge people. I won't revert again so as to avoid an edit war, but quite frankly I'd be very surprised to see any of the other editors allow this new version to stay as is.

BTW, since I see you are new to Wikipedia, I would recommend using talk pages liberally whenever you make extensive edits. It's common courtesy to other editors and it keeps edit wars from developing. Aplomado ^talk 03:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to you for the judgmental statements above and also am sorry that this makes me seem condescending or puffed up. I do not want to convey any overblown sense of maturity or superiority and hope that you will forgive this knee-jerk reaction from a newbie. Due to ignorance, I misinterpreted your revert and know now that I should have justified changes in the talk page. My only goal here is to get the article to a NPOV basis. Holywoodhills 12:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)^talk[reply]

Well in that case, no harm done. Aplomado ^talk 14:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as

Thanks,

karas 05:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can find some information that is

WP:BIO, you could probably recreate the article and add that information. If you disagree with the current proposal for deletion, go ahead and remove the notice. It'll probably end up on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

where the editors will debate its merits. So go ahead and just add the information that you think makes Mr. Gubbins notable.

The same principle applies to Solaire, which I think should be fine for now since there's some interesting information at the top of the article. It's important to make the point why the article's subject is notable, that's what the editors look at. Don't include stuff like contact information or anything that would make it look like an advertisement.

Good luck, and keep asking any questions you've got. Aplomado ^talk 05:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Aplomado

I want to add an external link to the page about Fanny Brice, namely www.brice.nl (site is in English)

But since this website is owned by my father, and I am the so-called webmaster (I designed it, and by the by, a redesign is coming up in a couple of weeks) I am confused as to if this would be in conflict with personal benefits, so to speak. (I don't know how to express this in English, since my native language is Dutch).

Could you please tell me if it's OK for me to link to our website?

Thanks, Gnorn (aka Martijn)

Yeah, unfortunately it probably would be a violation of guidelines for you to post it. See: Wikipedia:External links#Links_to_normally_avoid, item #3. But, as that page says, "If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." So feel free to bring it up on the article's discussion page and maybe another editor will see fit to add it. Hope that helps. Aplomado ^talk 07:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing this up. I'll post it at the talk page. Thank you for your reply.

Gnorn 07:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infowizard 23:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)Infowizard[reply]

• Hi Apomaldi,

while doing this edit on Ebele Okoye, I got information from her website which stated that she trained under a particular well known name in Animation (also featured on Wikipeida). My question is, am I allowed in the edit to mention the people that she trained on. Actually i came across a beautifully written curriculum Vitae on one of her websites which mentioned her early ambitions before she eventualy got into animation and i was wondering if i could write her edit in the same style but of course not with EVERY info...just the necessary ones. You might want to have a look at the said CV at her site www.twenty-five-one.com under the artist Thanks and hoping to hear from you soon.

regards Infowizard 23:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)wiz.[reply]

Hey there,

It's perfectly fine to include any information you feel is notable in the article. Just make sure you give proper credit to the original source. See

WP:CITE

to find out how it should be done.

Hope that helps. Let me know if you have anymore questions. Aplomado ^talk 23:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be completely deleted. It is written by a member of a fringe group, ACT whose leaders include mercer, sarner, and rosa. They are not interested in a NPVO. Alternative pages exist that address these issues: Attachment therapy, which redirects you to Attachment disorder. DPeterson 00:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no protest here. I'd suggest sticking it on AfD rather than prodding it. Aplomado ^talk 00:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at editing the page...but really think the page should just be deleted with a redirection from

Attachment Therapy to either Attachment therapy or Attachment disorder. How do we make that happen? DPeterson 00:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and follow the instructions there for nominating an article for deletion. Aplomado ^talk 00:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for listing the Attachment Therapy article for deletion. I read the page of instructions and found it a bit confusing and daunting. Again, thank you. DPeterson 13:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to make a fuss, but I am a woman and would like to be referred to as "she" in future. There is a bit of a history behind this request-- otherwise I would just let it pass. Thanks for your attention. Jean Mercer

Also,I don't understand what is appropriate to put into the Attachment Therapy talk that's now going on. I don't see any references to physical restraint discussed under related topics, but people keep saying they are there. This section is surely not to be devoted to wrangling, is it? can you give some direction? Jean Mercer

Users DPeterson and JonesRD are treating the AfD page like a talk page -- adding comments to other people's comments, raising extraneous issues, etc. It seems almost like vandalism to me. Is this appropriate behavior on an AfD page? What can be done about it if it isn't? Larry Sarner 23:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users comments should not be edited, that's vandalism. If they've done such a thing, warn them on their talk page and provide a link to the edit in question. If they do it again, add another warning, regardless of what they say. Eventually, you may have to ask an administrator to ban this person. Aplomado ^talk 01:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not edited anyone elses comments. However, sarner and/or mercer have done so. DPeterson 01:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited my own comments, no one else's. I would like to bring up the issue of commercial interests and their disclosure. The authors of Attachment Therapy On Trial, the book apparently being referred to by various people, have realized about $100 apiece from sales over the three years the book has been out, a sum considerably less than preparation of the manuscript cost.We have lectured on this topic without fee and have made some financial sacrifices to bring Attachment Therapy to the attention of the public. To be complete in my disclosure, I once received a plane ticket to go to California to give a talk, but got sick and had to cancel. As has frequently been pointed out, my colleagues and I perform no clinical services and therefore cannot benefit from advertising. On the other hand, Dr. Becker-Weidman, whose work has been mentioned frequently in this discussion, owns a clinic and advertises on the internet; he is paid by families and presumably by insurance carrtiers for work done there. I believe that this form of commercial interest, as well as book royalties, needs to be disclosed for appropriate transparency. Jean Mercer 14:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter the amount of money involved, but the fact of a financial interest among mercer, sarner, and sarner's wife, rosa is the salient issue. In addition, mercer and sarner are leaders of the group ACT, which is another set of ties and financial interests as the ACT (Advocates for Children in Therapy) website shows (http://www.childrenintherapy.org/). DPeterson 14:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it matters that we've actually lost money, not gained it, in attempting to publicize an issue that is important but little understood by the public. ACT is, of course, incorporated not for profit, and no one associated with it has ever been paid for work. I note that the previous user does not respond to my statement about fees for clinical services. I'm not saying that people should not comment or "vote", but that interests and connections should be disclosed fully and transparently. I believe I have disclosed mine completely, but would be happy to answer any relevant questions. I hope to see others join me in transparency, and would suggest that Wiki may want to make disclosure a rule where it applies, as professional journals often do. But perhaps the best approach to the Attachment Therapy page would be to create two views, each with the signatures and identifications of author(s), and acknowledge that feelings run high and compromise is difficult or impossible? Identification of authors is certainly a feature of a number of print encyclopedias and would possibly add to Wiki credibility (which I've just seen discussed on a history of science listserv, and it could use polishing). Jean Mercer 17:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone would be better served if you took this discussion back to

Attachment Therapy or Attachment disorder. Aplomado ^talk 20:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

There is a long running dispute on the Bowlby page about an item in the Also See section. There is a mediator and advocate involved. I think the discussion has gotten well out of hand. Is there any way you can intervene to end this or suggest what I can to or where I can go to put an end to this? The ones putting up the fight are sarner and mercer, both advocates of ACT, a fringe group devloted to fighting anything related to "attachment therapy," what ever that is. I would really appreciate your help, as would others. The advocates proposal has six or seven in favor of his idea and only sarner and, as of tody, mercer opposed. Thanks for you time and consideration of this request. DPeterson 01:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll see if there's anything I can do, but I know little about attachment theory and I don't have any background in medicine, so it might all be over my head. Aplomado ^talk 02:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a cool head and some intevention would be a help here, so anything you can do, suggest, or recommend, would certainly be appreciated my me. Thanks for responding so quickly. regards DPeterson 02:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DPeterson, who apparently has a commercial interest in attachment therapy, neglected to tell you that there is already a mediator involved in the Bowlby page (at my request) and that DPeterson's side has employed an advocate (who DPeterson occasionally passes off as an administrator). For my part, I would welcome anyone's participation who has a commitment to Wiki policy, but I would caution anyone inclined to become involved to read the Talk page thoroughly before choosing to get in the middle. Larry Sarner 09:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that I have a commercial interest in attachment therapy (whatever that is) is false and untrue. This is one reason why we need some directive administrative intervention; the continued false allegations, off-point arguments, and rigid stance against compromise, collaboration, or consensus. Being a leader of the fringe group ACT, and representing their view and agenda may be part of the problem. DPeterson 13:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The appearances of cupidity are pretty strong, and detailed elsewhere. Indeed, this started as a dispute over Mr Becker-Weidman creating the Bowlby page as advertising for his practice. The above reveals another pathology of this group's form of argumentation -- hijacking venues (pages) for personal attacks. Look at what they did to Brisvegas's page, the mediation request page, and now the AfD page (!) and this one. Every innocent bystander is supposed to get their message: ACT is a fringe group of zealots who have no business being editors on Wiki. It'll be interesting to see how far and long real Wikipedians let them get away with it, especially with them now treading so close to admin home by attacking an AfD page. Larry Sarner 15:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be most helpful to this dialogue if Sarner refrained from being provocative and disrespectful. My readng of material is the Becker-Weidman is Dr. Becker-Weidman and not Mr. Since this has been previously pointed out to Larry Sarner, his continued use of the Mr and not Dr is disrespectful. He should be admonished to stop and to try to conduct the discussion in a civil manner. SamDavidson 17:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean? This nonsense will go on ad infinitum if you let it. Larry Sarner 18:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The request to act civilly was ignored...He avoided the primary issue, which is in itself disrespectful and provocative. As the other post says, "'He should be admonished to stop and to try to conduct the discussion in a civil manner.'" DPeterson 19:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See what I mean? Round and round this'll go. Just watch. Larry Sarner 19:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, when an issue is "on-target," or true, he raises "red-herrings" to avoid having to address the real and substantive issue; in this case his disresepct of a contributor. Let's see if he can address this directly or continues to evade it as he has for a long time now. Just watch. DPeterson 14:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's a "red herring" to question why you bother innocent people on their talk pages with your disputes on relevant talk pages? And that's not the "real and substantive issue" here? Larry Sarner 18:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not addressing the point and diverting is raising "red herrings." In this instance, the point being to act in a civil and respectful manner.DPeterson

I pordded that article and forgot to put a reason - thanks for completing it for me. Viridae^Talk 01:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem, I forget myself sometimes. Aplomado ^talk 01:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please, please, PLEASE look at what I've actually been trying to do rather than inundate me with vandalism warnings? Am I not allowed to archive my own talk page now? 198.20.41.74 01:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you archiving your talk page? There are only three (quite short) comments on it. Archiving is for talk pages that have grown too big and bulky. In any event, page blanking is going to be seen by editors as vandalism, so leave a comment with your edit if you plan on doing something else. That'll keep you from getting warned. Aplomado ^talk 01:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I'm asking you cause you added things to my talk page.

I created an article and modified one... Both are about schools... One is in the incorrect section, and one I want to put it in one of the sections.. how do I do that oh Wiki Guru?

--

Are you talking about changing the category? If so, click the edit page, go down to the bottom and remove [[Category:Private schools in Ottawa]] and replace it with the appropriate category.

Hope that helps... Aplomado ^talk 16:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I just found it. Thanks anyways :)

--

Sure, feel free to ask if you got anymore questions, I'm here to help. Aplomado ^talk 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aplomado!

How do you customize a signature?

--

Go to "my preferences" at the top of the page. Under User Profile, there's a "Signature" field where you can format how your signature looks. "Raw signature" should be checked. There are

some guidelines

on what you can do with it, but not many.

I don't know if I can help you with general formatting. Mine is [[User:Aplomado|<font color="maroon">'''''Aplomado'''''</font>]] ^{[[User talk:Aplomado|talk]]}, which I figured out mainly by looking how other users do their signatures. Aplomado ^talk 16:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may seem kind of late, but I'd just like to say thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia. How'd you find out, are you an admin or something? Anyways, it's cool to be welcomed by a fellow Christian. Just one question, how'd you make that personalized signature? That's so cool... --JDitto 02:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I leave welcome notes all the time on new user's talk pages to help them get started.

As for the signature, I kind of figured it out on my own by looking at other people's signatures. Go to "my preferences" at the top of the page, and there you can fiddle with the signature. I'm OK with HTML, but not great. Aplomado ^talk 07:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some anon user is making provocative and, perhaps, slanderous(?) accusations on the Talk page there. The comments are very similiar to those made by the "fringe" group Advocates for Chilren in Therapy, led by Sarner and Mercer. I wonder if those comments can be removed or edited to be less provocative and inflamatory? Please comment here or on my talk page. Thank you. DPeterson 02:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out what comments may be slanderous? If the user isn't personally harassing or attacking people and the comments aren't obvious vandalism, then they should remain. See:

WP:CIVIL, a more appropriate response would be to warn him on his talk page and then request a ban from an administrator if it continues. Aplomado ^talk 02:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

If the user isn't signing in, remind him on his talk page to do so as it is required. At the end of unsigned comments place the tag {{unsigned|IPaddress}}. Aplomado ^talk 02:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aplomado-- can you answer a question, please? Way back in your involvement in all these "attachment" issues, I believe you said there was some sort of Wiki committee that helped to deal with medical articles. I don't remember what you said and can't find it. Could you repeat the information? Thanks. Jean Mercer 12:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One comment is: "What was it Becker-Weidman was talking about versus what the U.S. Senate is talking about? If it were me, and I had written a past article saying I use "attachment therapy", and the Senate later makes these statements" Alleging that Dr. Becker-Weidman's material is the same as that addressed by the Senate (rebirthing) despite clarifications in previous posts is one example DPeterson 12:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As is clear from the links I provided, both Becker-Weidman's materials and the Senate resolution refer at some point to "attachment therapy." (The Senate resolution, in addition to "rebirthing," refers to "other forms of attachment therapy.") My question was simply what each meant when they used these terms. I certainly didn't mean to be provocative. I just want to understand what everyone is talking about when they say "attachment therapy" or "Attachment Therapy." 69.170.233.237 12:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This contributor's question appears to have been answered. However, as other editors have, I question this contributor's real identity. The reference to the other contributor as "Becker-Weidman" is disrespectful since the user name is Dr. Becker-Weidman. This is very similiar to another's pattern and style that created difficulties on the Bowlby page, the Bowlby Talk page and the Barrett article. The address itself appears to be a shell. SamDavidson 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question has not been answered, or even addressed, as far as I can see. If you can point me to the page you are referring to where you think this has occurred, feel free.

As for referring to people by their last name, that's a pretty standard thing to do. I was just trying to avoid writing the whole name each time. No offense intended. If Dr. Becker-Weidman was offended, I whole-heartedly apologize. 69.170.233.237 13:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The identity of User:69.170.233.237 is irrelevant. People are free to have their own opinions. As for his or her comments, I really don't see how you can argue that that is slander. Aplomado ^talk 15:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with the medical committee--Jean Mercer 15:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the the anon user is in the same location as mercer's son. While it cannot be proved that the user is her son, the tone and quality so make it appear so. RalphLender 18:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And if it is, so what? Again,
  assume good faith. Aplomado ^talk 22:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Good point. I agree. Assume good faith. We'll see how this develops. DPeterson 23:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the "so what" would then be that mercer's son is functioning as a surrogate for mercer; stating things that mercer is not willing to own. DPeterson 00:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golly, you people must not have any children if you think that's the way it works. However, Aplomado, I came on here to ask a general Wiki question. This is about NPOV. Are there articles where this concept is recognized as being inapplicable? For example, would someone writing about Theresienstadt have to refrain from any suggestion that perhaps it wasn't altogether a good thing? And if it is the case that there are exceptions to NPOV, who makes that decision? Thank you--Jean Mercer 14:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any exceptions that I'm aware of. Naturally NPOV is tough to achieve in some situations, but it is achievable. If there is something that is denounced by 99.9% of the people in the world, then it is acceptable to treat it as bunk without concerns about NPOV. For example, the idea that the earth is spherical and not flat is an example of something that doesn't need to represent "both sides" because it doesn't really have an opposing side. There isn't a "pro-Theresienstadt" camp that I'm aware of, so that article probably doesn't have to worry too much about NPOV.

However, any issue that has two sides must present both sides (using reliable sources, of course) in the article, or it's POV.

WP:NPOV may provide some more guidance for you. I hope that helps explain it somewhat. Aplomado ^talk 23:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for making this clear. I raemain hopeful that your advice will help avoid the problems created on the Bowlby page and Barrett page by individuals who ignored your advice. regards. DPeterson 23:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a huge fan of Colbert. He's wrong about how easy it is to insert wrong information into articles, but he's still damn funny. Aplomado ^talk 04:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite, it's only hard to do when you announce it on a nationally viewed cable show, if you're very sublte about it, you can use a wiki to create an article about just about anything. Heck I created at least two or three articles about things that don't exist, back in the days when anons could still create pages, last time I checked, they're still there. Of course that was in the days before Bots and VandalProof, but hey, it's still possible--152.163.100.69 04:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think it's only possible to do in obscure articles that few people see or edit. Aplomado ^talk 04:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a posting on the

Thanks DPeterson 15:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this as slander quite frankly. People are entitled to their opinions, however wrong they may be. If you feel strongly about it, however, you might try Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment. Aplomado ^talk 23:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what's the cutoff. :) Dlohcierekim 00:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea. :) I assume a book beat out by 200,000 others isn't worthy of an article. Aplomado ^talk 00:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering, instead of having a section called Mass Transit incident, why not have it redirect to Eric Kulas. The article is about him, so it should be under his name. All appropriate links would redirect there. Kyros 02:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Kulas is only notable because of this incident. I think more people are curious about the incident itself rather than Erich Kulas, so I think the incident itself is still the primary focus of the article. Aplomado ^talk 04:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of an article to which you said delete seems to have created a hassle to a fellow wikipedian. Can you please contact him through my talk page. Maltesedog 13:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What does it mean when my edit has (top) on it? --JDitto 20:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It means your edit is the most recent edit on that particular article. Sorry for the late response. Aplomado ^talk 23:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a detailed rebuttal to claims that I am a non-notable at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_20#Christopher_Lotito -- since you last weighed in on the topic. Please do look at it and consider the new information I've provided. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.72.184 (talk • contribs)

I have reviewed your argument and still find it unsatisfactory. Your involvement in a minor town election just isn't notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. Aplomado ^talk 19:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In your edit of the Sportcenter segment, "Who's Now?", you removed the controversy section and replaced it with criticism. I feel that it was unwarranted and didn't require full deletion. It should be noted for the readers that the three panelists have a large amount in determining the outcomes of this "competition" they're running. They've just caused another participant, Roger Federer, to lose even though he received nearly 60% of the fan vote, which translated to over 40% of the total vote.Kryptonic 03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Right, but at the time none of it was sourced. It's the job of the person adding the content, not someone like me who is checking it, to source this kind of information. It really was nothing more than a rant. Aplomado ^talk 00:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kimu 00:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good work, Aplomado. You're doing a much better job than I was with the cleanup of the Silkwood. I was being too hesitant, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomwhite56 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to create a template for the Mascot Hall of Fame, but I'm having a lot of trouble creating one. Is it possible for me to ask your assistance in helping me with creating a template? Mr. Brain (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hi, I've listed Left-Wing terrorism in Articles for Deletion. You were involved previously when it was discussed and you may be interested.