User talk:Cherry blossom tree

• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Utilities
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Featured pictures
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text
• Wikipedia:Current polls
• Wikipedia:Mailing lists
• Wikipedia:IRC channel

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. The Wikipedia:Village pump is also a good place to go for quick answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

[[User:Sam Spade|

Thanks for catching the typo on Spanking Therapy, I ran it through a spellchecker, but they aren't perfect... and I'm sure not either :)

Toktogul Satilganov, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently-created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

Nice expansion! Cheers, --Dvyost 21:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. It's nowhere near finished yet. I was going to compliment you on

Cherry blossom tree 21:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks! Feel free to add any material you like over there, Guinea or otherwise; Mali's my strong point, so the farther away the history gets from there, the weaker the article is (you'll notice the

Ashante get pretty badly shafted). Best, --Dvyost 02:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the tip! I'll keep it in mind next time. quadratic 06:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on the article. I'll move them to Wikipedia:Peer review/History of Portugal (1777-1834)/archive1 to avoid repetitions. I've corrected the Pedro/Peter, João/John and Miguel/Michael thing as well as the "adhesion of Lisbon". D. is now Dom. As for Caxias, it is a town near Lisbon. I did't replace the Cortes because they are quite different from Court, they are more like and Assembly, or Parliament. Thanks again. Gameiro 03:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi CBT, regarding ur edit[1] of Benny Hill, the edit summary reads "remove stupid literally". i just wanted to bring to your notice that such a judgmental tone in edit summaries is deprecated (pretty strongly) in wikipedia and is best avoided. cheers, Doldrums 15:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, yes. I remain of the opinion that "his Television show has literally been seen" is absolutely awful, appalling use of language, but I'll concede that there were probably less iritable ways to point this out.--

Cherry blossom tree 15:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

no arguments about "absolutely awful, appalling use of language", just don't say so in the edit summary. :) Doldrums 15:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deal. --

Cherry blossom tree 15:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

To avoid flip-flopping between 'degree Fahrenheit' and 'Fahrenheit' or 'degree Celsius' and 'Celsius', I propose that we have a discussion on which we want. I see you have contributed on units of measurement, please express your opinion at Talk:Units of measurement. Thanks. bobblewik 22:07, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - we made the front page!!

Hurray! We seem to have picked up some vandals, too. Swings & roundabouts, I suppose.--Cherry blossom tree 11:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the 'deliberate obfuscation' ? I also found

☎ 11:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, they were bizarre. I can't imagine who would have made those edits. In between all the stuff they corrected a spelling, too. A very labour-intensive way to mess up an article.--Cherry blossom tree 23:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent AWB assisted edit to this article changed childrens to children's in an external link, producing http://www.harperchildren's.com, which doesn't work. I'm just pointing it out so as you can check for it in the future. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 00:08, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, I try to look at all of the spelling corrections in detail, but I missed that one... Anyway, I corrected the regular expression so that it won't pick up "childrens" in web addresses anymore. -- Marcika 00:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I imagine it's difficult to catch every error when doing work like that. --Cherry blossom tree 00:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert you again, but I really think that putting the {{NPA}} template on that page can only inflame the situation. I think the sentiment is expressed in the comments by WAvegetarian and myself in a less confrontational manner. I'm not sure if there's any chance of persuading him to be civil, but I think if there is then it is by being as restrained as possible.--Cherry blossom tree 22:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll buy your logic and keep from adding NPA to his user page for now -- but if he lashes out again, I'll re-add for each incident. While a flame war isn't good for anyone, we shouldn't treat this guy different than any one else that makes personal attacks on Wikipedia, IMHO.

Btw, hi, nice to meet you.  :-)

-Quasipalm 00:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. From what I've been told on Talk:Jack Thompson there's not much hope in reasoning with him anyway but I think it's best to try. Nice to meet you too. See you around. --Cherry blossom tree 00:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete the page "Effection (film)" - User: Julian Thome

I don't believe it exists - I can't find it in IMDB and I've never heard of a film with 15 directors. If you can point me to a reliable source (not the IMDB profile for Tremors) then I'll reconsider.--Cherry blossom tree 12:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very much obliged to you. ^Talk - The Invisible Anon

You're welcome. Very kind of you to say so sir. --Cherry blossom tree 21:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot ! Woohoo, I can add a picture in several articles in the same time... after uploading, eer, yeah :) 82.125.185.57 21:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC) aka Pierre Vigué[reply]

Thanks for your improvements to my rosincake image tags. Caltrop 00:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've noticed you are extremely active answering questions at the

This type of question belongs on the reference desk. The help desk (this page) is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please follow the link to the reference desk, select the relevant topic, and post your question there. Thanks.

Just be sure to subst it! ({{subst:RD}})

If it is obvious which part of the Reference Desk the question belongs at, you can also specifying by typing {{RD|Science}} to get:

This type of question belongs on the Science section of the reference desk. The help desk (this page) is for questions about using Wikipedia. Please click here to post your question in its proper place. Thanks.

That works for all sections of the Reference Desk! Of course, if the question needs more explanation than a gentle point in the right direction, you can always add anything else you want.

I hope you find it useful! -- Natalya 19:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely active, eh? I had noticed the same wording cropping up again and again. I suppose this explains it. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 21:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You offered me some help with a prob I had but its still not fixed so I thought I'd post this here so you saw it :)

I've created a category called "Miss USA delegates" but I want to add in the main text (see also "Miss USA 2006 delegates" and "Miss USA winners") which are categories in their own right. Is it possible to do this and if so how?

If I'm understanding you correctly, then it seems you (or someone) has already done it. If not you'll have to be more specific.--Cherry blossom tree 00:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly -- the text currently reads "Delegates in the

CarlyPalmer 00:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I've added the see also links. To like to a category you should write [[:Category:Miss USA winners]] (note the initial colon.) Category:Miss USA delegates 2006 doesn't seem to exist at the moment - is that just because it hasn't been created yet or because I've put the wrong link in? Feel free to alter it if the latter.--Cherry blossom tree 01:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article on this, but there is an optical technology from 1999 called "Hyper CD-ROM" that, theoretically, can get to 1 PB (1,000,000 GB). I specifically searched for it and didn't find anything about it. You can find more info on the inventor's site, http://www.dntb.ro/users/frdbuc/hyper-cdrom/hyper.htm Thanks

A note of appreciation for your work on help desk, especially as regards a certain bold-faced, happy-go-lucky repeat customer who, to tell you the truth, is starting to drive me crazy. I admire your patience. Nicely done. · rodii · 14:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! I've been meaning to drop you a "thanks" for some time now, since I noticed how much work you do on the help desk and

WP:GC, too. Cheers, FreplySpang (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Can you cite a source for your recent change? The OED mentiones both Berkely and Berkshire (albeit Berkshire in brackets) - "Abbrev. of Berkeley (or Berkshire) Hunt, rhyming slang for cunt." I think Berkely sounds much more likely but I also tend to trust the OED. Any thoughts? --Cherry blossom tree 23:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the "Berkshire" in brackets in the OED has always seemed strage to me as it's DEF. "Berkeley". I, nor any family member have ever heard of "Berkshire Hunt". Please feel free to Rv. if you feel I'm incorrect. Cheers, Lion King 00:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. Chambers, only lists Berkeley Hunt. Be lucky, Lion King 00:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Berkshire seems far less likely. If Chambers only lists one then I'm happy to go with that. I'll change the reference to point there. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 22:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Your'e welcome. Be lucky, Lion King 22:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I bring your attention to this, please? If you can provide referencs then I'm sure it will be kept. --Cherry blossom tree 11:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank you for contacting me, I'm not sure where to go from here? you see about ten years ago or so I was working in the secured Unit of and old Long Term Care Hospital and came amazingly upon two sisters whom suffered from Alzheimer’s. They BOTH however told me on separate occasions the story as related to them by their supposed Gypsy Traveler Mother. Their mother had apparently learned of the myth by way of a man claiming to be of the O'Tool linage, and was still carrying the curse of his ancestors. I apologize for not having any verifiable online information to make the story more credible, but it comes to me from more of a verbal history and is such an amazing one that I just had to include it.Jest R Wicked 19:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back - I've been having trouble getting online. I agree it's a great story, but things in Wikipedia need to be verifiable so that people can check that we're not just making it all up. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more details. Unfortunately even true things are deleted if there is no reliable source to back them up. I asked on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology if anyone there can provide a source, but as yet with no luck. Sorry about this. --Cherry blossom tree 23:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i notice you've worked on this article. It's up for featured article status. Please join in helping if you can. Ta Logan1138 18:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(commented at fac)

Thanks for your reply to my compliant about improving Search. What did you mean by subtle? Also, is there any way I could help the developers? You can give me an email @ [email protected] [since they haven't instituted the option to delete your account, made their own licence, or the GNU licence hasn't changed yet, I haven't signed up]. Thanks

24.70.95.203 13:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(replied at wp:gc)

Thanks, for the reply

24.70.95.203 18:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, thank you for placing the note on the Countering Systemic Bias page. I am loathe to modify the pages of projects to which I don't belong -- it feels like trespassing, but that small note will be helpful I am sure. After all, if the problems were obvious to the regular editors, they would probably have addressed the issue already. Robert A.West (Talk) 23:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. --Cherry blossom tree 20:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you have met Merecat and therefore I would like to inform you that in light of recent events (not discussing disputed edits, disruptive behaviour, edit warring and making personal attacks) this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat has been started. I trust should you want to contribute, you will be an objective bystander. If you do not want to comment that's OK. Sincerely Nomen Nescio 18:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My only contact has been a brief discussion on referencing formats. It went peacefully enough, I don't think I have anything to contribute to your RFC. Thanks anyway. --Cherry blossom tree 20:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to inquire about why my post on the Talk Page of

I'm really sorry about that - I was trying to remove the additions by 68.32.19.93. Those edits were discussing the wisdom or otherwise of banning books in America (among other things) rather than the Wikipedia article on banned books so I thought they weren't relevant to that talk page. Unfortunately I wasn't careful enough and also removed your comment, which there was nothing wrong with. I've now restored it. Again, I'm really sorry about this - I'll try to be more careful in future. Hope I haven't annoyed you too much. --Cherry blossom tree 11:36, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay. :) I should actually be the one apologizing; I assumed that you were an anti-Harry Potter person who didn't want my comment to be seen. Thank you for restoring it. —OneofThem^(talk)_(contribs) 13:55, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you've every right to be a bit miffed when a chap goes round removing your talk page comments, however accidentally. Glad you've taken it well though, Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 23:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I created a new article and submitted it on 4/17/06 at 11:00 a.m. PST. (Today is 4/19/06 at 2:30 p.m. PST. A search on the title results in a message saying there are no articles about this topic on Wikipedia. Perhaps it is too soon for the article to appear?

I also tried searching the list of recent deletions, but could not find it there. If it has been deleted it would be helpful to know why so that I can educate myself and submit articles that better fit your requirements. If I erred in the submission process, that would be helpful to know, too. Where should I look next? Many thanks for your help.Jayme Curtis 21:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you posted your article to

Wikipedia:Editing help in order to ensure that your article is correctly formatted and also to ensure that the article is an encyclopaedia article, rather than simply promotional material for the company. --Cherry blossom tree 22:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I do not have my own computer so I am using a rental, but if you wish to contact me, please email me at [email protected] (my friend's email address). I would like to receive a valid reason for his abusive attempts at censorship regarding his "pet" issues.

Thank You, 70.19.67.28 22:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: This is a very black harbinger for Wikipedia, and its helplessness to block abusive wannabe censors/apologists disguised as editors, and even administrators (which Demiurge is not yet, fortunately, but he will certainly attempt to become one).

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/[email protected] as well as his recent arbitration case. Please also see User_talk:Demiurge, User_talk:Ali-oops/Robert_Sieger and [2] - Ali-oops^✍ 06:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't feel I'm at all qualified to deal with this. I see there's a RFC open on this - I presume you will get input from the community there. Sorry. --Cherry blossom tree 23:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry blossom tree you made a super suggestion to tighten the Bonnie and Clyde article, and to extend the introduction. I eliminated seven sections, combining them without losing facts, extended the intro to three paragraphs which give a good vision of what the article is - so thanks for your help! If you get a chance, I would be curious if you feel the consolidation made the difference you suggested - I think it did. THANKS AGAIN FOR THE POSITIVE INPUT. old windy bear 22:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't have called it super, but thanks.--Cherry blossom tree 22:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cbt! Yes, you did exactly right with

Cheers! --Cherry blossom tree 21:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit late I know, but I was try to think of the other reason Berkeley Hunt was the correct CRS, and not "Berkshire". It suddenly just came to me! It explains the connection to London perfectly - Berkeley Square. Lion King 22:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was being insulted for a minute from the edit summary... Thanks for that - it does make sense. I'll remember that if I ever have this discussion again. Ta. --Cherry blossom tree 22:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- thanks for fixing my

I see the heading as centred across the three columns. Do you see something different? --Cherry blossom tree 22:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately not. See this screenshot.

PageantUpdater 23:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hm, it seems to work in Internet Explorer when I remove the style="width:500px". Does this break the template in some other way or is it OK? --Cherry blossom tree 23:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm trying to start some sort of working group to improve the coverage of Central Asia and related topics in Wikipedia. Leave a message on my userpage if you're interested. Aelfthrytha 04:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on talk.

When you sign your post, your initials appear in bold, how do you do this, do you just type it in manually or something?Myrtone

In the nickname section of my preferences I have [[User_talk:Cherry_blossom_tree|'''C'''herry '''b'''lossom '''t'''ree]] (with Raw signature ticked) which produces --Cherry blossom tree 16:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I congratulate your help!Myrtone

Hi Cherry blossom tree!

A few days ago you helped me with Template:RPM Productions states, and I was wondering if you'd be able to lend a hand again. I've tried to re-make this and others to the style of the Miss USA state template and it worked fine for Template:Vanbros states but I'm having trouble with Template:Premier Pageants states and Template:RPM Productions states. What I would like is for the heading to be centered and for there to be better spacing in the bottom section.

Any chance you'd be able to help me? -- PageantUpdater 03:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've taken out the padding sections, which seems to have centred the heading. Does that look OK? Can you be more specific about what you want doing with the spacing in the bottom section? --Cherry blossom tree 23:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! What I was wanting was for the spacing between the text links in the bottom section (e.g. "Miss Alabama Teen USA", "Miss Arkansas Teen USA", "Miss Mississippi Teen USA") to be spread out more so there is a clear gap between the columns. Is this possible? -- PageantUpdater 23:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've had a mess with Template:Premier Pageants states and Template:RPM Productions states. I added an extra column between each column that was already there. It's a bit messy but it looks OK to me. You? Is Template:Vanbros states alright already? I probably won't be able to look at this until tomorrow, so if I've messed anything up just revert. --Cherry blossom tree 23:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks heaps, its perfect :) -- PageantUpdater 23:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Following up your comment from the Main Page talk page: "As I understand it, taking a photograph or scanning 2-dimensional works of art does not involve any creativity and thus does not generate any new copyright." - are you sure that copyright is limited to creative activities? I know from experience that a lot of time and effort can go into a professional, high quality scan. It is the 'stealing' of the results of that effort that picture libraries are probably trying to minimise by using a "copyright" label. They may even have a justification under some laws. Carcharoth 15:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I'm aware of Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp., but hopefully that won't kill the incentive for museums and such to digitise their collections and put them on display online. Some sort of secure watermarking will probably be used, or maybe is being used. I still think, that as a courtesy to such institutions, there should be a credit line acknowledging the role that a museum of institution has played in making an image available to the public, or in obtaining the image in the first place. Carcharoth 15:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly confident that the difficulty of a process does not affect the copyright, only the originality of it (our Bridgeman v. Corel article says as much.) A similar verdict was arrived at in

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service. You're right that this does not apply worldwide - I think France has stricter copyright laws, for example. Whether this is a good thing or not for getting good quality art displayed online depends on your perspective - the Louvre is becoming more restrictive on taking photographs of their exhibitions which means that if anyone wants a copy they have to go through official channels and (in France, at least) scuppers any chance of getting a freely licenced copy. I can understand where the museums are coming from, but I disagree. --Cherry blossom tree 18:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the comments. There is one other area I'm not sure about, and that is restoration of old photographs and touching up of scans of old, dirty and degraded pictures in old books etc. At some point, enough work might go into something for it to be considered resetting the copyright clock. The restoration has improved the end product, though this end product is still sort of a copy of the original. Carcharoth 19:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no lawyer (and that applies to everything else I've said, I suppose) but as I understand it that would probably still not be considered original work, since it is basically attempting to make the photo look the way it used to. You could also argue, however, that restoration was a creative act since it is aiming to make the image look more appealing rather than simply more like the original. I suspect that the former argument is the correct one but I'd get a more informed opinion before putting my house on it. --Cherry blossom tree 20:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with the references on the Marc Pugh article, I'm trying to make a really good, in depth article and it needed referencing like other good articles. I'll see what you did and play about with it in the sandbox, so again thanks for the help.--Childzy 15:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. You basically put the website/book/newspaper you're referencing in tags like this <ref>www.example.com</ref> and then <references/> at the end where you want the references to be printed. See m:cite.php for more detail.--Cherry_blossom_tree 22:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that (thanks to your help with refs) I managed to get the article upto good article status so thanks again.--Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. I think my level of input was negligible, but thanks anyway. --Cherry blossom tree 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the case in question. What page are you discussing and under what circumstances was the rejected template placed on it? Is there consensus for it being there? --Cherry blossom tree 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page is

Geo.plrd 21:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I think that since your page would have effects beyond improving articles it would require community consensus. Most of the comments it has received have been opposed to it (admittedly from a small number of people) but if you want more opinions then you could post at the

community bulletin board.--Cherry blossom tree 22:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The article's purpose is to improve admins, can I remove the tag as it has not been submitted for consensus and therefore has not been rejected.

Geo.plrd 23:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I realise what the page's purpose is. It has been rejected by those users who have expressed their opinion on its talk page. If you want to get other opinions on it then you are welcome to modify its status in light of that. --Cherry blossom tree 23:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thankyou very much. I have seen you about, but you're right I wasn't expecting a barnstar. Very kind of you. --Cherry blossom tree 17:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have they all been removed?

They were links to a forum, which are listed as links to normally avoid at Wikipedia:External links. --Cherry blossom tree 22:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to NORMALLY avoid. not always but normally.

forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself,

The article is about Rawtenstall, the website is about Rawtenstall life. If It was an harry potter forum, then I'd agree, but A town forum link is a under those guidelines allowed and I know of many town pages that have them, Including blackburn which has had a link for many months.

But only one person has ever posted on that forum, so it's not really doing much good and certainly doesn't qualify as particularly high standard. --Cherry blossom tree 05:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard.

thats two seperate exceptions, it does not say that it has to be closely related AND of high standard. If the article is closely related to the site, which in this case it is, then it's an exception to the rule. High quality would be if a site is only related slightly such as a forum for the ski slope, rather rather than Rawtenstall in general.

Not that members or quality comes in to it but Amount of members does not matter , anyone can see that forum, and therefore if someone want to post a question on it, everyone visiting it via wikipedia can join to answer it. It's a good quality well laid out forum structured in to categories and boards that tell the user what the topics are for.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Madhatter1uk (talk • contribs) 17:17, 20 August 2006

According to your interpretation of that policy we would be obligated to link to any website on the topic, regardless of the quality of it. This is obviously a ridiculous situation to get into. We provide a small number of external links when they provide information beyond what is available in the article. We do not under any circumstances link to barely used forums. I should point out that

WP:EL actually says that forums should not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself - ie if the article is about a particular forum, which this article patently isn't. --Cherry blossom tree 23:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

You'll be removing the link that has appeared for rossendale forum during a major edit then CBT ? No doubt on the rossendale ramsbottom and bacup pages too. edit- just checked...whitworth, bacup, hasslingdon, rossendale valley, rawtenstall and rossendale I haven't re added the link I added because I do see your point, I have also looked into the discussion on the forum links subject after adding the above and will discuss it further there. I believe a forum can provide information beyond what is available in the article. However I have suggested to the owner that they get a site with information and images to link the forum to. Would that be more agreable?. Sorry I didn't know how to sign I'm just learning. Madhatter1uk 22:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're referring to http://www.rossendaleonline.co.uk/? While this does include a forum it also includes information beyond that - news, a directory and so on. I have no problem with links that supply further information beyond what is in the article but links that are just to a forum shouldn't be included. --Cherry blossom tree 14:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean 'includes a forum' it is 'just' a forum and as such under your rules it should be removed so why hasn't it been? There is no difference between that forum and the one that I added other than the owner adds news from a feeder, it is still a forum, it has no site pages other than news threads. either thats a forum and should be removed or it's not and I'm adding the links that I added back on. Madhatter1uk 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, the fact that you think good practice is being violated in one instance never gives you the right to do so in another. Secondly, it is demonstrably false that that site is just a forum - there are also news stories, a business directory and a calendar of events. Having said that, there isn't much content and if I were writing the article from scratch I would not include it but it is enough of an edge case for me to remove it either. If you feel so strongly that it shouldn't be in the article, then remove it - it is enough of an edge case for me not to revert such an edit. --Cherry blossom tree 22:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Central Asia has finally been created! If you're interested, please consider joining us. Aelfthrytha 21:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - there was a conversation about Islam on WikiProject Countering systemic bias that seemed to stop in May, but without any resolution. I've made a suggestion there, and just thought I'd let you know. --Singkong2005 ^t_c 03:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments regarding Sarah Edmondson at Talk:James E. Edmondson, and I agree that we should exercise caution in deciding whether to include the information in this article, which is why I decided to initiate a discussion on the issue, instead of simply including it and risking an edit war. --TommyBoy 22:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cherry blossom tree: I trust you've seen my post to the talk page? I hope it meets with your approval. I think it's best to go easy with this one since it seems good faith attempts to clean up the purple prose have been reverted before, and a revert war between four editors isn't any more pleasant than one between two. :-) I hope that the prior warning of impending trimming will preclude reverts (fingers crossed!). It is regrettable that Andrew is somewhat uncivil, but IMO there's no point in belabouring it at present since he doesn't seem to hold WP policies and guidelines in high regard (at present). Let's continue to

Yeah, I've no intention of starting an edit war, don't worry. I think your approach sounds wise, especially since Andrew doesn't seem too keen on editing in a standard manner. If there's anything I can do to help, I'm happy to. I think it's probably best to just have a look over it once you're finished, to avoid getting in the way. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 18:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was recently editing this article which you mostly wrote and some of it seemed to be identical to this article (listed as a source from the first edit.) You seem have added to the article line by line over a few days yet the linked article claims not to have changed since 1998. Can you shed any light on what happened here, please? Thanks --Cherry blossom tree 22:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was one of my first articles (I started wikiediting in June 2005 and the Alkonost is of July), inspired by the Viktor Vasnetsov article. That is why I worked slowly. The Encyclopedia Mythica article was one of the sources of the Alkonost. I was trying to retell it rather than copy-paste, but after looking back it appears that I could do a better job in it. Thanks for the rewording abakharev 01:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was just curious, that's all. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 18:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with the endnotes. I now understand what to do. I think I may take a hack at that part of the tutorial to help avoid the confusion I was having. 199.44.82.167 14:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

answered at talk: and user talk:.

Cherry Blossom Tree - I strongly disagree with your deletion of the paragraph about volunteering from the Kule Loklo page. Kule Loklo is a recreation of a California Indian village that is deteriorating and is desperately in need of volunteers to restore and maintain it. The paragraph you deleted was an attempt to let people know that it not only is a place that tourists can visit, but a place that interested people can maintain.

Without additional volunteers, there soon won't be much of the village left. The subterraneau sweatlodge is already unsafe to enter, and several structures are on the verge of collapse. One already has collapsed. This is not a for profit-venture. It is native and non-native people working together to preserve history and educate the public about the fact that traditional Native American culture was far, far more diverse than standard representation we see in the media. Tamalpa 01:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Tamalpa[reply]

I don't doubt that it is a good cause but recruiting for volunteers is not the sort of thing that should be in an encyclopaedia article. Most of what you've written above would fit better and achieve a similar aim - write something about the current condition of the site, what's being done about it and what needs to be done about it. Make it obvious that volunteers are needed but don't outright ask for them. --Cherry blossom tree 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the change I made along with my edut summary. Let's discuss first if you're not satisfied with it.--Hraefen ^Talk 15:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what the problem is. I don't doubt that the song title is real. I'm just not really sure that there's much point to having a disambiguation page there - the Happy Mondays song was mentioned on in Bob's your uncle anyway. I suppose it could be a hatnote if you'd prefer that but it doesn't really matter. Having two articles under the same title (only a spelling variation) which contain the same content (one in slightly more detail) seems bizarre to me. The situation I left the article in was the same as the one I found it in except 'yer' was spelt 'your' in the title and I had corrected a few facts. I really can't see what issues this situation could raise. --Cherry blossom tree 16:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see at k.d. lang and bell hooks, Wikipedia uses lower-case capitalization for proper nouns in cases where the subject chooses to be known in that way. An editor received an e-mail from a woman claiming to be drake [3]; her official website [4] and her production company's website [5] both list her that way. Stilgar135 18:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia generally uses whatever name most people would expect to find an article at. Three of the four external links in the article spell her name with capitals (admittedly I have no idea how reliable IAFD or AFDB are, but IMDB is usually pretty good and they spell her with capitals and kd lang in lowercase, for example) and most of the first couple of pages on Google do the same. But frankly it's entirely unimportant and if you want to change it it doesn't bother me at all. --Cherry blossom tree 18:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the second opinion on this article; I was going to keep an eye on it and give the editor some time to rewrite, as he/she said on my talk page that he/she had written the school's site, but was really on the fence as to whether to stub it for copyvio. Learning experience for me! Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right. I hadn't seen that he/she claimed to be the author of the school's website also (I checked your talk page but was looking for a signature.) If that is the case then the material can be used but first we need to confirm that the user really does hold the copyright by having them send an e-mail to permissions@wikimedia... stating this. Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission is the page about this. Thanks for letting me know. --Cherry blossom tree 17:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Can i have your-email so that i can send the details about the copyright to you...

discussion at User talk:Truelife

Hi,

I've sent an e-mail regarding the authenticity and approval for the article Trinity Catholic College to your email. Can you tell me what's next?

thanks Truelife 10:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 11:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are 'controversial' details banned from controversial topics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.42.81.33 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 22 September 2006

I take it you're referring to Lyndon B. Johnson? No, they're not banned but it's generally not a good idea to include them out of context in the lead paragraph without citations. --Cherry blossom tree 00:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the restoration of Trinity Catholic College....it's greatly appreciated.

Truelife 00:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note regarding the Carsulae Site Plan. I am very happy to upload the image but to be candid, I forget how to do it. Can you instruct? JVian 16:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded the image for you to Commons at

GFDL but if this (or anything else) on that page is incorrect then you can change it. If you've changed your ming and prefer not to upload it then let me know and I'll arrange for it to be removed. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 15:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you - a big help! JVian 17:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI, recently in a vain attemp, i think i nominated myself for admin....can u check if this is still the case.

thanks

Truelife 13:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did - the page is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/truelife. You did not include it on the main Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page, though, so no-one has voted on it yet. I'd suggest it's probably best not to do so anyway - you wouldn't have much chance of being promoted. You haven't been here very long or made many edits. People tend to look for a long record of good contributions before supporting a request for adminship. You can see the standards employed by some users at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Standards. Hope this helps. --Cherry blossom tree 15:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've re-requested this article and since you were the only editor who was so kind as to respond the first time I'd thought you might like to take a look. regards --KaptKos 09:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cherry blossom tree, thanks for your comment on Wanderingscribe's talk page; you mentioned a lot of things I should have included. I'm wondering whether this user warrants an RfC regarding his/her username, as it seems to be a single-purpose account created solely to push POV against the blogger of the same name. I'd appreciate your comments as I'm not sure where this stands with respect to

It does appear to be a single purpose account. I'm not really sure it's worth taking any further action at this stage, though. The disruption is more or less under control. Hopefully the user will either come to work within the relevant policies or get bored and give up fairly soon. The username could possibly also imply that they have some connection with the blog. If the user stays around for a longish period then it might be worth changing but probably a waste of time if he/she leaves soon. I think it's probably best to give it a bit more time and see what happens. --Cherry blossom tree 09:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable - thanks. --YFB ¿ 12:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mwai KibakiCherry blossom tree,

Thanks for stepping in and trying to explain that the Mwai Kibaki article is simply providing a synopsis of news reports. I would never resort to slander in an on-line encyclopedia and consider it to be one of the most dangerous aspects of the Internet, anonymous character assassination. That is why I went to the article in the first play, the claims that someone was posting slanderous information. I have told the other editor that all negative comments must be backed up with precise references and neutrally reported, or I will delete them, and he is attempting to comply fully, and is leaving my neutralizing writing to stand in the article. KP Botany 18:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's time to start requesting this user be blocked. KP Botany 17:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you'e right. I'll give a final warning on the user's talk page and if it happens again then report it to

WP:AIV. --Cherry blossom tree 22:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

On the story itself. It's one of those things that never would have gotten a second breath in the press if Kibaki and his supporters had not denied it so strangely, and now his 'supporters' vehemently denying it and trying to remove it from view. I can't help but think that the people who keep deleting it are actually enemies of Kibaki's trying to make sure the issue gets as much publicity as possible with these edit wars--however, speculation is beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Just one more reason it's important to only present what is said, without bias. I will look at your most recent edit when I regain the stomach for it, to see if I agree with you, as I think it was a little better and less biased a few dozen edits ago. KP Botany 23:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'd already tabbed it. Pretty innocuous and accurate change. Gee, let me find something objectionable with a statement of fact....KP Botany 23:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cherry, thanks for your quick answer for my question about Permanent link. However, I'm afraid to tell you that I didn't understand exactly what it means, how I can use it and when is it gone! --TheEgyptian 23:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pages on Wikipedia change over time as people add, alter or remove information. If you look at a page today, it may look different when you look at it again in a week's time. If you save the permanent link, rather than the general article title, then it will always look as it does today. In order to use it you can copy the link and save it, and it will always point to the version of the article you see at that time. This is mainly useful when you need someone else to see the same version of the article you see, some time in the future. For example, if you cite a specific fact to a Wikipedia article and link to it then you might want to link to the permanent version of the article so that if someone follows your link then they will always see the version with that fact in it, even if it is removed or altered at a later date. Hope this helps. --Cherry blossom tree 23:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it helped :) Thanks a lot, I appreciate it...you're such a blossom tree :) --TheEgyptian 23:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 29 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bill Orban, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 00:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Also, I'm glad to find you, you maintain a v. useful page, and I shall "bookmark" you for future reference. JohnClarknew 21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

instead of constantly untagging my image [[6]], please help me!

it would be ok if i tagged it with a { { film-screenshot } }?

most of the pics from the Skeletor article are tagged like that.

--Killergon2 01:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure. I think that tag will at least be OK for now, but if anyone ever looks closely at fair use on that page then quite a few of the images will probably be deleted. That tag is probably the most accurate, though it doesn't guarantee that the image won't be deleted in the future. --Cherry blossom tree 23:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You have vandalised the page John Seigenthaler, Sr. four times over the course of a month. If you continue then you will be blocked."

Ridiculous. My edits are immediately recognizable as vandalism and last less than a minute in every case, since all of you self-righteous Wikipedos have that page on your watch lists. Where's the harm? --203.173.7.238 10:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way we see it, unfortunately. Wikipedia receives 285 thousand page views per minute, so even if your vandalism only lasts for a minute there's a fair chance that someone will see it eventually. If that person already knows a bit about the subject then it will just irritate them but if not then they could be misled or at least confused, which is the opposite of what Wikipedia is trying to do.

The instances in which you humorously identified Seigenthaler as the assassin of Kennedy and a 9/11 hijacker also constitute libel. The person who originally vandalised the article lost his job over the incident and could have been prosecuted. That probably won't happen to you, but for that reason and also simple human decency we put a lot of effort into preventing things like that appearing in Wikipedia.

Finally, your messing around simply wastes the time of other people who have to fix it after you've finished when they could have been doing something more constructive. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia then you're welcome to but it is not your playground and if you continue to treat it as such then I'm afraid you will be blocked. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 14:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Atta one was awesome. Alright, I'll lay low for a few weeks. Thanks for the tip-off, toots.--203.173.7.238 16:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if the paragraph you have twice re-added is accurate - it does not represent a neutral point of view and is entirely original research. If you wish to dispute this then please do it on the talk page rather than simply re-adding the paragraph. Thankyou. --Cherry blossom tree 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then change it until it is 'neutral'. There is a core of truth to the paragraph & I am far from sharing Ms. B's views. Too many people are more anxious about enforcing wiki rules than making a genuine contribution. 88888 11:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to edit that paragraph until it is neutral. Unfortunately that would require me to insert sources, which I have not (after an admittedly brief search) been able to locate. I am hoping that another editor who knows the subject better will be able to do so. Until that point, It is better for the article to exclude that paragraph completely than to include it in a form that violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:No original research to insult its subject. --Cherry blossom tree 13:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted paragraph is essay-like in tone. It doesn't sit well in what should be a terse encyclopaedia entry - it's baggy, and devotes a disproportionately large number of words to a single sub-theme. The NPOV violation matters as well.

The article tells you that JB has a lot of strongly held and controversial opinions that don't always seem to sit well with each other. It warns the reader that she doesn't like Islam, and includes an example of a time she was simply, objectively wrong (as opposed to in violation of the I-don't-like-what-she-wrote Act). That's all that's needed. Regards to all, Notreallydavid 01:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(CherryBT - Ooops, I meant to place the above in the JB discussion, not here. I'll put it there as well when I've had coffee and a pee. Notreallydavid 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I didn't call you CBT because that can have a Rude Meaning. Notreallydavid 01:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

(besides cognitive behavioural therapy, which probably isn't Rude at all) Notreallydavid 02:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

or closed beta test, that's not rude either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.37.184.18 (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had to look that up. Isn't Wikipedia great? --Cherry blossom tree 00:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It is no big problem, but if there is a good reference for older pronounciations then great! I'm a grockle from Carleen and I have had my head bitten off a few times when mis-speaking the local names; so I might be a little oversensitive... Cheers.LessHeard vanU 23:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if there's a reference for the other version then it should be added. I reverted to the previous version since I could fine no reference to older pronunciations after a brief search and even if it is accurate then stating "other pronunciations are incorrect" covers it for the present. --Cherry blossom tree 00:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock lifted or expired. Sorry for the trouble! Request handled by: Luna Santin 00:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Cherry blossom tree 00:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I make it a point to check a few times a day. This one was an easy call, nice and quick. ;) Luna Santin 00:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment at the help desk. Some months ago there were issues about unsourced middle names at Scarlett Johansson and Natalie Portman. I doubt these are connected to the user you were discussing, but I thought it was worth mentioning. --Cherry blossom tree 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you remember an approximate date or IP/username. If it was some months ago it would be nearly impossible for me to look at it if the article history is long enough. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I suppose I should have mentioned that. It was discussed on the talk page in March/April 2006. --Cherry blossom tree 23:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New version: Image:Christiansborg Castle2.jpg. Have a nice editing, M.K. 17:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's perfect. --Cherry blossom tree 23:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! M.K. 12:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is all really an experiment in the tendencies of human nature. By allowing Wikipedia to be edited by anyone, you are allowing vandals, morons, and jokers to publish their warped opinions on every subject imaginable, but also letting the decent intellects who want to make the internet not stupid edit. I'm a cynic and a skeptic. But the question is, will people realize the basic rightness of human decency, or be idiots and use this as their literary playground?

Fading Into Green 15:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's a discussion on what to do with expandable articles here. As you've discussed this before I would appreciate comments. JASpencer 18:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to do a double team effort with me to get Red rain in Kerala upto featured status in 4 weeks for april fools day? its a good article at present so shouldn't take much, just possibly expansion and more references RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 14:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to do what I can, though it's not really my field. I see User:Worldtraveller has commented on the talk page. It might be worth contacting User:CrazyC83 who wrote filed a peer review on it and also the India and Meteorology Wikiprojects. --Cherry blossom tree 12:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your urgent help would be most appreciated

]

DYK

On 1 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nils Olav, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page .

--BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for tagging this article as a copyvio. For future reference, you don't need to blank the article when you ask a speedy deletion, that way it's easier for us to check the source and the article before deleting. Thanks! -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the infringing text because I felt the whole article was not a copyvio. Don't hesitate to remove more if I missed some. -- lucasbfr ^talk 14:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for trying to help (are you an Aussie)? We really need examples from

Here are a few from newspapers:

• "Having piled up 124 points in their previous tournament matches, England needed a 60-plus haul to maintain their Bradmanesque average." (the Independent [7])
• "Queensland Premier Peter Beattie referred to Thorpe as the "Bradman of the pool" during a speech at a function for this year's Goodwill Games in Brisbane." (AAP General News [8])
• "It [Glasgow Celtic's form] was consistency on a Bradmanesque scale." (Sunday Mirror [9])
• "Bradmanesque in stature, Claudius bestrode the hockey world like a Colossus, winning three Olympic golds and a silver." (the Telegraph (Calcutta) [10])
• "[John Howard's] supporters would no doubt proclaim his time at the political crease as Bradmanesque." (Herald Sun [11])
• "AUSTRALIA boasts a Bradmanesque batting average at the Commonwealth Games." (Daily Telegraph [12])
• "In the highest compliment ever, Charlesworth describes "the kid from Campbelltown" as comparable to Bradman. "A goal every two games is very good for an international player," he said. "Her records are Bradmanesque that's her quickness." (Macarthur Chronicle [13])

Hope they help. I have discovered from my (unscientific) researches that Ian Thorpe si the public figure most likely to be compared to Bradman. --Cherry blossom tree (not an Aussie) 21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have sceen on some user pages (I cant remember which) a box that explains how many incodents of vandilism they have revered, how many articles they have created ect. I woudered if you knew how I could put this on my user page, and if it updates its self. It is not just a user box, it is a table of its own. I know I havent been overly clear, but it is hard to explan. Thank You! Tiddly Tom 21:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can simply use a standard userbox template - {{Userbox |side-box colour |main box colour |side-box content |main box content}}. For example, {{Userbox|blue|red|4|This user has started 4 articles}} would produce the following userbox.

4	This user has started 4 articles

Hope this helps. --Cherry blossom tree 21:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you message. This is one possibilty that I could use, but I was looking for an automated method (I cant rember how many times I have reverted vandlism or speedy deleted pages). Thanks for your help though! Tiddly Tom 22:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that there is no automated method - the database doesn't keep track of how many times you have reverted vandalism etc. You could try asking one of the users who has such a userbox, but I imagine they do it manually. --Cherry blossom tree 22:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have some interesting theories regarding cricketers and their nicknames. Entertaining though they undoubtedly are, I think it's probably best all round if you don't add them to Wikipedia again. If you want to make jokes then Uncyclopedia may interest you. --Cherry blossom tree 18:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Theories??" He cried incredulously, "Theories?! It's fact damnit, I was there I tell you..." Ahem. Yes, I think on the hole, you're probably quite correct. many thanks for your compliments and link, it looks quite promising given that I have sod all to do with my time other than dream up elaborate fantasies involving cricketing doyens. I was thinking of moving onto the match referees (Something involving Madugalle and a farmyard animal leapt to mind), but since you havn't reacted in the typical manner of your no doubt erstwhile colleagues and flown off the handle at me, I feel inclined to comply with your wishes. Larry Grayson 21:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Colne Cricket Club, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page .

--Circeus 20:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain why the external link 'Bryan Ferry Discussion Forum' was removed on 4th August 2007? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SaveOurSouls (talk • contribs) 16:16, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

Yes. Wikipedia's policy on

external links recommends that links to discussion forums should not be included. --Cherry blossom tree 20:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for letting me know. Twinkle must have screwed up when I did that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, CBT; no offense, but I'm just going to disengage from you on the

Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April.

That discussion must produce a conclusion.

We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction).

Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion.

Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note this message conforms to

I am reraising an issue on challenged books not belonging on the banned books page. See here. Thanks. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the issues settled down, so I would've unprotected it. I have no idea how I missed your message a few days earlier, my apologies for that. Wizardman 22:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated

I have nominated USS Lawrence (1812) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Bonewah (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]