User talk:ICBUW

Thanks for uploading

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Icbuw logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file 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. --Skier Dude (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for the info you provide at Talk:Depleted uranium. I suggest you put something on your user page: User:ICBUW - if for no other reason that it will then no longer be a red link. I suggest putting some links there for ICBUW, etc.. I really appreciate this link you provided recently at Talk:Depleted uranium:

• International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons - Weapons and Platforms.

I was recently looking for that info, and could not find anything quickly from Google. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, give me a shout if there's anything else you need. It's an interesting issue - even if the reality is somewhat different to that advanced by the Internet! Incidentally, we still haven't had any updates on the WHO in Fallujah. Most recent thing we heard was the local branch of the environment ministry has still not undertaken any assessments - crazy really but that's Iraq for you. My colleague's heading out again next month and is planning to try and write a situation report on the DU issue - seems like very little clearance and management has been done, but then they have a range of competing priorities...

Hi,
Is your account shared by different people (presumably at the

Ah, I had no idea. I'm the only one who updates the page using the account, will check the info re user names and alter if necessary.

No worries. If somebody had taken you to

WP:UAA

you might well have got blocked until name changed, and that's not much fun for a newbie who didn't know the rule existed.

Also, a couple of suggestions for discussions on article talk pages (and user talk pages, like this one):

• It's a good idea to sign all your comments on these pages. Do this with four tildes, ~~~~. If you still forget sometimes, you can ask a bot to help - put {{YesAutosign}} on your userpage (or on this page), and SineBot will follow you round adding signatures wherever you forgot.
• You can indent your replies with colons. Asterisks (*) make bullet points. They work in combination too. Indenting helps people keep track of who is replying to what - on some pages it doesn't make much difference, but I'm guessing that you'll be editing on a few more controversial pages where a few editors (including me) might start bickering, so clear presentation is more important.

Have fun... bobrayner (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, and the links. Unfortunately, I may not have much time to do anything for a few weeks or months. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for disclosing your

Hi VQuakr the link to our report page was for background purposes only. I know there are a few folk that follow the DU issue on the talk page and for whom it may have been of interest. The link to IRIN's coverage is probably a usable source for the findings of the study should anyone wish to add them to the page. That said the report contains US strike data and an analysis of the targets that DU was used against, which is presumably neutral, even if the analysis sections don't meet NPOV. The raw targeting data is here http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/docs/229.xls but is probably of limited use for the purposes of the article. ICBUW (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Web small.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 05:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]