This user may have left Wikipedia. Joshuaingram has not edited Wikipedia since 10 April 2015. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
This page intentionally left blank Except for this message box claiming blankness Which is probably just a figment of your imagination anyway Why don't you go somewhere else and stop worrying about it! Ya paranoid.
}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Arguing with Idiots, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. (will post explanation below)tedder (talk) 01:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know you know about
WP:EW. As a final reminder, editcomments and comments such as this do not help build a consensus. Even if the "you" is not meant to be a specific "you", please focus on the issues, not the person. tedder (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
First, I'm not sure what in that statement constitutes a personal attack. Second, if what I said constitutes a personal attack, why aren't you saying the same thing to Jim? (I'm not trying to be indignant or rude, I just want to know what the problem is, and why I'm the only one getting warnings.) JOSHUA INGRAM 02:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting this warning specifically because of the edit summary on this post. Unless you can convince me that the "head slap" and text was directed at yourself, it's uncivil at best, and a personal attack at worst. I'm willing to AGF that it wasn't directed at a specific user, though it may have been. Even if it was directed at anyone and everyone, it's an uncivil remark that doesn't lead to consensus.
I agree, the other user(s) involved have probably breached the civility line, but your comments (especially in the edit summary) are well and truly over the line. tedder (talk) 02:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, honest to God, I am really not getting how that was over the line. I commented that it was really bad (meaning ironic) when someone is ignorant to the definition of ignorance (ignorance is, of course, a lack of knowledge within a single topic or issue). Then the head slap comment was simply a visualization of putting my face in my hand. I'm not trying to be argumentative or combative, I swear to God, I honestly do not understand what the problem is. And I absolutely donot understand how his responding to my statement, and putting, "Arguing with Idiots (insert joke here)" was any better. I'm not trying to dodge blame, or redirect it, I just hate it when some people are punished when others did the same thing (or worse) and no one says a word. JOSHUA INGRAM 02:59, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand where you are coming from. Just know some of your edit summaries (and messages) are approaching that line. Your summary was basically saying "what's worse than being stupid? you." Even if that wasn't your intent, it can easily come off fairly aggressive and uncivil. tedder (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for taking the time to explain, and letting me explain. I appreciate it, and I will try not to toe the line anymore without provocation. However, if I get goaded, I can't promise that I won't at least swing back. JOSHUA INGRAM 03:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help explain it. However, keep in mind that "provocation" and "goading" aren't valid excuses. If someone else goes over your line, ignore it or report it. Responding will just get both of you blocked. (such as to
}}
Does anyone know how to tell who is watching a certain page? I swear to God I saw a button recently pop up that said something to the effect of, "See who's watching this page." Or am I just crazy? J DIGGITY SPEAKS 20:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I don't think you're crazy, I do believe you are mistaken. Watchlists are private and only the user has access to them. Perhaps you've confused it with this external tool, which tells you how many people are watching a page, but not who they are. AJCham 20:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New Section
Hi BAYBEE! I don't really like this. But here you go I'm trying something new :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kourtneyingram (talk • contribs) 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Gooberface! Don't forget to sign your posts! J DIGGITY SPEAKS 20:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
talk pages. They are used for improving an article. Thank you A8UDI 00:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I expected that. I just had to get that off my chest. Neanderthal vandalism pisses me off. J DIGGITY SPEAKS 00:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
hey
@
neocon
the article is much clearer on what a neoconservative actually is. sorry- I jumped up & down prematurely.
I kinda figured he was a generally big a Bush White House supporter, therefore I labeled hastily. I kinda thought since pnac has effectively brought about a world that is so much closer to what it envisioned approx 10 years ago, that neocons ruled the day. I figured beck was down with most of that. I think I had a little Hannity on the brain. So, I'm gonn throw away my knee-jerk Beck-as-neocon notion and be more careful.
Even if I were right, I can't just make a first sentence edit to glenn beck and thereby necess acheive something meaningful. say, like if I wanted to get a few hundred
american flags into the hands of kuwaitis and then get them to fervently wave them, that shit takes planning! you need a genuine coalition. offtopic? anyway, like I said, I won't fight the silly battles in the wrong places. godspeed. n-dimensional§кakkl€ 04:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't randomly pick fights for fun. Your edit had several classic signs of vandalism, and I reverted it. I was not trying to start a war. However, I would caution you to try doing some research and before you try to make edits to BLP's, especially BLP's as hotly contested as Glenn Beck's. Maybe read some rules first? J DIGGITY SPEAKS 04:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. I've locked the article for now, and suggest you attempt to reach consensus on the talk page. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 19:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
The Christmas sweater link violates BLP and EL, as it doesn't relate directly to the subject in any clearly meaningful way, so maybe a note at either of those noticeboards,
WP:ARBCOM becomes an option. At this point, I could see saying that a "Criticism" section might be in order, but none of the criticisms seem to me anyway to be independent of the controversies, so it might permit redundancy. but a "Criticism and Controversy" section as opposed to "Public reception" might be a bit less problematic, although you might want to ask about that at the BLPN, as that is a bit outside of my purview. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Your new thread definitely crossed the line. Please read
WP:TPG. You do yourself and no one else any good by making comments regarding the behavior of someone else which are themselves a violation of talk page guidelines. I very sincerely urge you to restructure your comments in a way which is acceptable by wikipedia guidelines. John Carter (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
You haven't been much if any trouble, honestly, although if you want someone who can be a more active helper than I have been I could well understand that. These are contentious articles, and, in all honesty, I think I've "notaforum"'ed at least two pages in the past two days, removing several comments both times, which indicates I'm probably 75% or so toward true Scrooge-hood myself riught now. I read at the beginning of the month on one of the noticeboards that December tends to be "Drama Month" around here, so I don't think I or you or anyone else are alone here. When you see people misbehaving, it's harder to behave yourself. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are going to have to very careful regarding your use of language. Saying someone is "lying" is unacceptable as per
WP:CIVILITY and other policies and guidelines. Talk about the edit, not the editor. "Reverted edit, find nothing on talk page which supports contention made" or something like that would work better. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Please sign your comments.
As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to
user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Bytebear (talk) 01:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you mind telling me why you posted this here? Since the last time I forgot to sign my posts was eight days ago, and I have corrected nearly all of them, I'm wondering why you would bother to post this, as I am an established user with over 650 edits to my name (perhaps not as impressive as your 7500, but still enough to know the signing policy), and not some idiot still using an IP address. Can you explain that to me? J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 05:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I think I posted it to the wrong users talk page. My mistake. Bytebear (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's all right, man. Shit happens. I was just a little confused, is all. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 01:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
Thanks for the Barnstar. Interesting user/talk pages you have. Hope it's all right to post here. :)
Lynne was not trolling. Both of you were acting insensible and out of order. For all of Lynne's oppositition, she did it without the cursing, without the bullying, and without the condescending nature that the two of you displayed. Jersey John (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Mom, I'll try to do better next time. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 00:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glen Beck is a very fact gathering speaker and only goes on facts not hearsay. No, the libs can't stand him, but who can stand a person who tells the truth about himself. He exposes them as the cheap copies of real caring people that they are. No one would like eveyone to know the truth about them. Glen should use his knowledge and go into the political arena. RUN FOR PRESIDENT GLEN, TAKE OUT THAT MUSILUM BUM OF A PRESIDENT AND HIS MAFIA STYLE THUGGS FROM CHICAGO WITH HIM. Before he ruins or destroys this nation UNDER GOD more then he has, or even beyond fixing it.Obama has broken ties with Irael and making footsy under the table with the Arabs and radical musilums. Such an embarassing president for our nation.Everything he does is turning to garbage, wheres the JOBS ! Take them back from China or even out the trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.141.63 (talk) 14:23, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
Fact One: That he is widely regarded as a bit of a nut and right wing conspiracy theorist. Fact Two: That he does engage in conspiracy theory musing on his show (heck is format of his television show--that is what the chalk board is all about). Fact Three: He has been inconsistent on a number of his own statements and beliefs (going from We have a terrible health care system to we have the best health care system in the world in about 9 months---but the pivot came with Obama Care. I will grant he has a huge following and most people recognize he is very good at what he does. But you can't ignore how polarizing of a figure he is, in the article. LynnCityofsin (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fact One: Completely untrue, and I can prove it here, where a poll showed that Beck is the fourth most admired man in the world. Beck came in below Nelson Mandela, and above the Pope. How many people will admit to admiring a "right-wing nut and conspriacy theorist?" Fact Two: I agree, but he also supports these "musings" with verifiable facts. Fact Three: He has consistently stated that yes, we have a terrible healthcare system, but it is still the best in the world. And yes, he is a polarizing figure, but you can say that about a lot of people. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All that poll shows is that 2% of the respondents admire Beck. Also, I am pretty sure that poll was taken among Americans. It wasn't a global poll. I have always maintained he is loved and hated. But his fans do not make up a majority. LynnCityofsin (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you had bothered reading the damn poll question, it was, "What man that you have heard or read about, living today in any part of the world, do you admire most? And who is your second choice?" This means that Beck was the fourth most mentioned man by all respondents, meaning that he is the fourth most admired man in the world (by Americans), not "admired by 2%." And yes, that poll was taken among Americans, which is apt because Beck is an American political figure. I personally don't give a shit what people around the world think about our political figures, and that goes for the ones I don't like, too. And I never said that his fans make up a majority. I said that he is not...how did you put it? Oh yeah, your horribly neutral statement, "He is widely regarded as a bit of a nut and right wing conspiracy theorist." J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 21:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the question. Diggity, look at the numbers again. Those are the percentage of people who selected that person as the most admired. He may be fourth on the list, but he only got 2% of the respondents. 2% of respondents to a poll saying Beck is the person they admire most in the world, doesn't preclude half or more of the country thinking the guy is a nut. Hell, Obama got something like 30% of the respondents, and I am pretty sure half the country thinks he is socialist scum. I actually think the two men are comparable figures when it comes to how polarizing they are. It is fair to say that Obama is widely regarded as a big government liberal, or radical if you like, becuase I think it is clear about half the country views him as such. By the same token, I think it is fair to say about half the country views Beck as a right wing conspiracy nut. LynnCityofsin (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could agree with half. That seems to be the reach of the Mainstream Media nowadays. But what about the other half? Does the other half still, "tune in because they know he'll do something crazy?" Has your opinion on that half changed? And what about the remainder? I mean, we only covered two halves, there are still some left. Are the ones left still, "fringe folk?" J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Diggity, I was half kidding when I said that; I thought that was obvious. But let me clarify my position. I believe approx. half (or at least a quart ot half) of of the US feels he is a right wing nut/fearmonger/comspiracy theorist etc. But I also think the other half (again quarter to half) think he is a brilliant man, shining the light on key issues. For the sake of argument lets say there are two large camps in the US: one views him as a right wing conspiracy theorist, the other as a champion of individual liberty and the common man. I think it is a good idea to quibble over the details, but I also believe it is obvious to anyone with even a vague interest in US politics and media that this is the case. LynnCityofsin (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, you did not sound (in as much as typed words can sound a certain way) like you were kidding, and so I responded as though you were serious. I keep bringing it up because you seem to get angry when I leave things out. Second, I happen to agree with you on the groups stated in your last statement. However, I disagree on the percentages, and I think there is a third group. First, I would say that somewhere between 10% and 40% hate Beck and/or disagree with everything he says, mostly on the left, but some on the right (we'll call them the "Republicans Can Do No Wrong" crowd). We'll call it 25% for the sake of argument. Likewise, there are probably between 10% and 40% that love Beck and/or agree with everything he says, mostly on the right, but a few on the left (we'll call them the "Not Fully Acquainted With The Tenets Of Progressivism" crowd). We'll call it 25% here, too. However, I contend that there is a third crowd, a group that either does not subscribe to any party, or is at least capable of removing themselves from said party's establishment. A group that is truly independent, and by independent, I don't mean they hate all parties or anything like that, they just don't like the stances that the parties take. I contend this because that's where I fall, and I know a few Beck fans that fall in that category as well. I would call that group, based on his ratings and fan base, 10-40%, and we'll call it 25%. The last 25% of the country are the people, like my parents, who have no opinion because they either do not care, or do not pay enough attention to even know who he is. (If you were to ask my dad his opinion on Glenn Beck, you would get an expectant stare, the kind you get when people are waiting for you to finish your sentence.) Therefore, I contend that he is more admired and liked more than he is hated and ridiculed. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 01:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Josh, thanks for the feedback. This was my first time uploading a file and using it as an image. Wikipedia is excellent in explaining the technicalities in making edits... it isn't good at explaining when to edit and how to decide one edit over another.
Can you please tell me how it is decided that one photo is perhaps better than another? How did you choose another photo over mine? Are the decisions based on consensus, democracy, perhaps an individuals subjectivity? Is there an process for selecting at all?
Thank you, and I appreciate your help friend.
Peace,
brandon
First, it's not a problem. I don't mind giving feedback to anyone. Second, if you are going to leave posts on talk pages, you need to leave a signature.
Third, uh, are you being serious? Did it not occur to you that maybe a picture of Glenn Beck (or anyone for that matter) with a frickin poodle is an appropriate main picture? Or are you joking? I want you to tell me first so I can give you the proper...feedback. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 00:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is wrong with a poodle being in the photo? I'm sorry, but I'm really not familiar with your line of reasoning. If a picture of a person on wiki shows a chair in the background, does this premise the photo should not be used? Can you link me to a set of criteria that must be met for a photo to be used? I'm not trying to troll, I just want to understand, for future reference, how to decide on using one photo over another.
Well, obviously a picture with a goddamn poodle in it is not proper for an encyclopedia.
Wikipedia's policy on images used in BLP's states: "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. [emphasis mine] This is particularly important for police booking photos ("mugshots"), which can carry additional connotations beyond the record of an arrest, or situations where a subject is not expecting to be photographed." I'm wondering how it is not obvious that putting up a picture of a guy with a poodle, especially a man who's profession and fame have nothing to do with poodles, is not the least bit proper for use in an encyclopedia. I'm still not sure if you aren't getting it, or if you're just fucking with me, but here's an easy way to figure it out for yourself: Would you want to put yourself up in an encyclopedia with a poodle in your lap? What we try to do is use the most official-looking pictures we can, while not violating any copyright laws. If you have a problem with my removing the picture you put up, then take it to the Beck talk page and put it up for discussion. However, I can tell you now that that would be a waste of time, and they will all tell you the same thing I'm telling you now, only a little less bluntly. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 02:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you friend, that answers my question. The link is very helpful too. Take care :) --FusionHalo 14:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conservapedia
I bet you have an account there, and are well liked, particuarly by, perhaps, TK and his ilk. LOL wouldn't be surprised in the least. Jersey John (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I might have an account there (I don't remember if I actually went through the account creation process before I left), but I haven't been back since I figured out it was just as biased as Liberapedia, only the other direction. And just who are you? J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glenn Beck ANI discussion
Hi there! I'm not sure you've seen but you were mentioned by LynnCityofSin in an ANI discussion. (Unfortunately its been archived now so I can't find the link for you). No administrators seem to want to get involved but I wanted to beg you to treat LynnCityofSin with a little more courtesy. Looking over the discussion I can see why you're getting frustrated, anyone would be, but swearing at the user or otherwise demeaning them is not the way to go. They seem to genuinely want to help but they obviously have no idea how to go about it.
I'm going to leave some helpful tips and a note to be more civil towards yourself and other editors on LynnCityofSin's page, but I think the entire process will be easier if swearing and demeaning comments are taken out of the equation. And if LynnCityofSin will not stop making personal accusations against you, not stooping to their level will make you the better man! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 13:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Automatic Editcount
Hey, I noticed that a while back you asked if there was an automatic updating userbox to display your edit count. You might want to know that I have created a bot for it, and it is waiting for approval. I would appreciate a comment from you there, as it may help the approval process which would benefit lots of users that would like automatically updating edit counts. Thank you. - EdoDodotalk 19:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arguing with Idiots
I have brought back up a discussion in the Arguing with Idiots Talk Page(I'd link you but I'm not sure how) and see that you were a contributor to the former discussion. I'm rounding up the people from the previous discussion. Any input would be appreciated. :) Ink Falls 02:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beck University
I believe that your comments on
WP:BLP guidelines, are rude, meant to be uncivil, and are not helping to produce constructive dialog on the talk page. In order to help promote more positive dialog, I ask that you please redact your derogatory comments and cease the current level of hostility. Thank you. Akerans (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
First of all, the Beck University article is not a BLP, therefore not subject to those guidelines. Second, yeah, they were meant to be a little rude. Third, not meant to be uncivil in any way. Fourth, they are absolutely meant to produce constructive dialogue on the talk page. Or at least, more constructive dialogue. And I will absolutely not redact my comments unless an administrator comes and explains exactly what is absolutely unacceptable. Also, while I appreciate that you kept this conversation off the talk pages of articles, don't waste your time scolding me on article talk pages. I won't listen. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 19:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beck University is not a BLP, but Keith Olbermann is a BLP, and BLP states that [e]ditors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. However, since you are not clear on BLP, and have demonstrated you're not willing to work with me on this, I will abide by your wishes and request administration assistance. Good day. Akerans (talk) 21:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Truly, hell hath ice cubed. Defending JDogg? It was a joke..juvenile? Yes. (Beavis and Butthead/Southpark fans unite!!) But a violation of BLP? No. Lighten up (for the moment..until Josh says something really stupid)Jimintheatl (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's true. I will probably say something much dumber shortly. (But Beavis and Butthead? I disagree. South Park is dead on, though!) J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 20:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone on that talk page has more time in Wikipedia than I, and you all seem to know one another. If you all deal with each other in that manner, then so be it. But, not everyone is part of that clique, and will see your comments to one another as joking around. Akerans (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At first I thought this was a joke, but now I realize you are serious. I think. I can't really wrap my mind around what you are saying I did wrong. Let me work through it. I said this:
"So the grand Keith Olberwomann found something to say about this. Why is that so important? Is someone spending too much time worshiping....I mean, watching Keith? Just because it comes out of a progressive's mouth doesn't always make it notable, Jim."
I fail to see how this is an addition of information about Keith Olbermann, since I was commenting on information added about Keith Olbermann, and I would set my computer on fire if you somehow found an administrator (excluding administrators with a vendetta against me, which, to my knowledge, there are none) that would agree with you on this. In my opinion, this is a case of you taking the rules just a little to literally. Sometimes you will get shit like this happening. My advice to you is to not take things that are said on talk pages quite so seriously. But please let me know if you do find an administrator that will agree with you, so I can set my computer on fire. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 20:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really wrap my mind around what you are saying I did wrong. You did an excellent job explaining what you did wrong here. You said, [a]nother reason is to keep people from making unfounded statements about the subjects of BLP's. On the actual Olbermann Talk Page, my comments would have been deleted, and rightfully so! But on an unrelated talk page of another article, no one cares. You basically admit it's wrong, but it's okay because it's hidden away and no one cares? Well, I care, that's why I brought it up. Since you've helped me confirm it's not alright, I'll edit them for you. Akerans (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I meant in any way shape or form. And if you edit my comments, I will return them to their original form and report you to the nearest administrator. If you want to find an administrator to change them, be my guest. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 22:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Akerans (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
July 2010
Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for instructions. Thank you. Akerans (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
So, I guess I'm not going to be setting my computer on fire anytime soon, am I? J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 00:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to gloat. Sorry to have wasted your time. Akerans (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a problem. And I wasn't gloating, just making sure you were done. J DIGGITY (U ¢ ME) 01:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.
With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team, Roger Daviestalk 19:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lincoln Memorial section
We are currently attempting to bring the Abraham Lincoln article to FA status and are trying to establish consensus regarding images. Your consensus and opinion is needed on the Abraham Lincoln talk page. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you may know, the Counter-Vandalism unit is inactive. So for reviving the WikiProject, we will need to sort out the members. So if you are active, please put your username at the bottom of the list at Wikipedia talk:Counter-Vandalism Unit#Sort out the members.
You are receiving this message as a current member of the CVU.
Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by
here
MOTDs (
This space for rent
)
You may have noticed over the past few days that the MOTD that you link to on your user page has simply displayed a red link. This is due to the fact that not enough people are reviewing pending MOTDs
This space for rent). Any help would be appreciated! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply
This full-day event will include a tour of the facility; presentations from National Archives Wikipedian-in-Residence, Dominic McDevitt-Parks, and Exhibit Specialist, Dee Harris; and time in the research room to work on projects. The focus of the projects will be scanning, writing articles, transcribing, or categorizing images on Commons.
Wikipedians from St. Louis and elsewhere in the region are encouraged to make a day-trip of it and come to Kansas City for this special opportunity!
And two local editions of the Great American Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit." Come meet (and geek out with, if you want) your local Wikipedians in a laid-back atmosphere:
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.--GilderienChat|List of good deeds 20:58, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill[talk] 16:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
This message has been sent by
Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Churches until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. 
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — 
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Right and Wrong. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 26#Right and Wrong until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)