User talk:FloNight/archive 12

Your nominee has his day now ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 00:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! :-) FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woof Woof! — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 00:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

woof ;-) FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rhoda Fox Graves, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 8, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ann Baumgartner, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 9, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mildred "Micky" Axton, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I liked your post on the VP, and blogged about it. user:Reagle also did some related work on analyzing which biographies of women were missing that might be of interest to you: [1] best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting discussion. At least one of the articles that I created this month was in EB but not on WP. When I get done I'll make an effort to see how many of them had EB articles already.

FloNight♥♥♥♥ 08:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bessie A. Buchanan, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Calmer Waters 00:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On March 13, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Katharine Bement Davis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear god, no! Thanks for reverting, I was moving Macedonia (comics) to prep 2, and must've clicked the edit button on the whole section instead of the subsection. Sorry! Yazan (talk) 12:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted, thanks for the heads up! Yazan (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, lack of coffee and blurry eyes, do I know that feeling! Thanks for the encouragement. It all started off with frustration about how long my DYKs were taking to get confirmed, and then the ball started rolling. Happy Editing! :)

On March 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mary Elliott Flanery, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 18, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ida Sammis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On April 4, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Eliza Calvert Hall, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On April 5, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lillian H. South, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On April 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ellen Hardin Walworth, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary at Talk:Social_movement#WikiProject_Social_Movements. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up -- that was very kind of you to let me know. I clarified who I was agreeing with on my moved comment.EGMichaels (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-) FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am relatively new to Wikipedia. I am having trouble with a couple of editors applying the "notability" guidelines. It is uneven. I have an earned PhD in a historical area and yet the way things are applied do not seem to be fair or fairly applied to all articles. Could you look at these two and let me know what you think?

• Fred J. Strain
• Who’s_Who_in_Nebraska

Please look at the talk page about the proposed deletion. Thanks. Drmissio (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Social_movements. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody but us seems to be interested... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is sad! FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we go ahead and create it? I can - over the next coupe of weeks / months - take care of implementing a (talk page) assessment scheme. Not sure what else I could do alone, unfortunately :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still interested but not sure if the two of us is enough to do it. I'll let you decide. Either way, thanks for your interest and help. :-) FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a social movement taskforce within WikiProject Sociology would be better...? I'll see about forming one. If it grows, we can always split it into an independent wikiproject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thanks for keeping a watchful eye on the article on Lena Meyer-Landrut! I see you deleted some revisions and edit summaries recently. As a regular contributor to the article I would be interested in what happened that this measure had to be taken - also in order to know what to do in case something similar happens again. Best regards Janfrie1988 (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! Janfrie1988 (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about my move? I was never happy with the original awkward title (it was one my student's articles). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that losing "impact" from the title makes it sound less like an essay and more like an encyclopedia article. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.
  
• Please be advised that planning is now underway (see here) for DC Meetup #10. --NBahn (talk) 15:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail. :) Willking1979 (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You sent it after I went off line last night. I'll look in to it now. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has come up many times in this discussion. I was looking to comment, but would like your input on this proposed policy beforehand. Thanks. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd like to have a chat about my old accounts. I was accused of being a sock today, and this gets old; it happens regularly. I still have access to some of them, although they're all blocked. I'm thinking of doing something along the lines of what I did with my old commons accounts, Commons:User:Davenbelle and Commons:User:Moby Dick. They're hosting imagery from that time. The commons accounts are blocked, but it was done at my request.

I would like my old en:wp accounts unblocked. This is distinct from the remaining restriction that I only use this account. I would like that dropped, too, but believe it would have to be an explicit motion (which I'm thinking of seeking, too). I believe that the past few years has shown that I'm not socking and can be trusted to not do so again. Really, I have no interest.

Before I get too many ideas, I figured I should talk and as you led on this, here I am. I'd certainly not edit with the old accounts absent explicit leave of the current AC, and would be sure to keep everything legit. Hope you're enjoying your post-AC time. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that a request to lift a restriction has been made in an ArbCom case in which you were an arbitrator.[2]Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#Straw Poll of uninvolved admins regarding consensus for action re WMC where I have noted your previous preferred option and included it in the poll. I have done this action because you have noted that you were time constrained because of RL matters, and you may not have time to place your option before the poll closes. If you wish to certify (by subbing my sig with yours) or change or remove the !vote, please do so promptly. Thanks LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm trying to answer your diffs but keep getting e/c with you, which is a pain. I feel some urgency anout responding to your diffs, as several editors (Bozmo, LHVU, Lar) seem to think its a good idea to close up this request before troubling themselves with the "due process" of letting me reply. Could you perhaps let me answer? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll let you finish. But if you have questions about my diffs I want to reply. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I expect to quibble them all. But there should be no hurry on this - the rather indecent haste on closing this is wrong; at least AGK has said so. Do you really want this closed before I have a chance to reply to your diffs? That seems quite unjust and a violation of due process. I invite you to remove LHVU's addition of your vote, pending my responses (unless you really have made up your mind and are immune to any reply I could make, of course) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done for the night. Is still haven't worked through all your diffs but the super-close-fast brigade seems to be backed off for a bit, so I hope you can wait until the morrow for the rest William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I was under the impression that this matter was time sensitive and that was the reason that I reviewed your contributions right away. As I stated, I barely scratched the surface of reviewing diffs. If there is going to delay then I will add more. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney, someone mentioned that you have been working on interwiki matters. The lack of communication between the WPs is of great concern to me—the great opportunity lost.

I wonder whether you might give an opinion on a recent interwiki proposal for The Signpost. I lack the experience to know whether this is pie in the sky, culturally and technically. Tony (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've been working with the WMF strategic planning process and addressing cross wiki issues and ideas. I'll take a look at the idea and weigh in this discussion and also add a link to it on the Strategic Planning wiki, too. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I'm not sure where to take this forward; not enough people have commented at the Signpost page. Tony (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One way to do this would be to write it as a proposal on the Strategic planning wiki. Call for proposals. Now that the general goals and recommendations have been made, the Strategic Planning process is looking to move forward with concrete well defined proposals that have support of a base of people that are interested in making it happen.

If you write up the proposal on the Strategic Planning wiki, I'll help you by promoting it on the Strategic Planning wiki Village Pump and other wiki's VPs. Once we have an interested group of people to help, then we can move forward with it. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for this helpful suggestion. I will link the discussion at the Signpost talk page to it, to see whether others will assist. Tony (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email on Tue, May 18, 2010 at about 13:36 UTC. I wonder wondering if you have had a chance to review it and had any thoughts? –xeno^talk 14:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, xeno :-) I've been away from home most of May so I'm really far behind on my emails. But back home now, so I'll take a look for your email and will reply today. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image was replaced by LTS's newer logo so deletion seems fine. --FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed [3] (as you may know, I am the instructor who supervises this student assignment). I am curious - why did you remove it, and where to? I was leaving the existing material, letting the students try to incorporate / rewrite it... perhaps it might be moved to the talk with an explanation for why you carry out that change (I am asking, because I know the students are going to ask me that soon :D). Thanks for your interest, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time looking a sources today and I removed it because I thought that the article needed a complete rewrite. I was glad to see the students doing it. I didn't want the students to feel that they needed to use was already there in the article. The content is still in the history so they have access to it if they want to incorporate in in some way. But I suppose that I could move it to the talk page or a subpage instead. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal, but you may wish to delete the 2nd through 4th sentences from this subpage. They were added by one of the students, but are a verbatim copy from the second reference. Kanguole 00:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about the copyright violation in the text. I saw who added it and didn't think it was a student but instead a blocked user who is editing logged out. I'll highlight those lines on the subpage as being material directly lifted from the source and note the ways that it can be fixed to be usable.

Kanguole, you're doing a nice job working with the students. :-) I'm looking forward to seeing their finished work. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was mistaken about who added that, probably because it was added after the students started work. Kanguole 14:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Mountain Coal Fields task force		An invitation to join us!
		You're invited to be a part of the Eastern Mountain Coal Fields task force, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Eastern Kentucky Coal Field region of Kentucky. To accept this invitation, click here!

J654567 (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation. I have a strong interest in seeing more content added about this area of Kentucky. I'm originally from Huntington, and have been living in the Lexington area since 1983. I've edited about this area some, and will try to give it more attention since you all are focusing on it now. I'm pretty sure that I have some more images that I could add but right now I'm crazy busy and don't have loads of time to look for them now. But will put it on my to do list. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Mountain Coal Coal Fields task force		Welcome to our task force!
		Thank you for joining the Eastern Mountain Coal Fields task force. Please take a few moments and look over our project page. We encourage every member to find their niche and work on the parts of the project they most enjoy. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask on our project talk page. Once again, welcome!

Thank you for joining our task force. I'm glad to hear that you are willing to pay more attention to the Eastern Mountain Coal Fields region because most wikipedians in Kentucky seem to ignore it. Also if you do find the images you mentioned, that would be great. This area could definately use some more images. Your help in getting this task force established is greatly appreciated! J654567 (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• J. K. Ralston, western artist — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 17:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice article...FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    

WOOF WOOF! — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 18:30, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That tasted great! I put it on my awards page! — Rlevse • Talk • 18:40, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to invite you to participate in the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. In May, about 30 editors helped remove the {{copyedit}} tag from 1175 articles. The backlog is still over 7500 articles, and extends back to the beginning of 2008! We really need your help to reduce it. Copyediting just a couple articles can qualify you for a barnstar. Serious copyeditors can win prestigious and exclusive rewards. See the event page for more information. And thanks for your consideration. monosock 04:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you were pretty active in getting some articles recognized for Women's History Month. Just thought I'd point out that I brought Martha Layne Collins to GA status earlier this year. That might be an article you target for FA and possible main page treatment for WHM 2011. I know it's early, but that gives you plenty of time, and I'll try to pitch in where I can if you decide to go this route. I think I've picked all the low-hanging fruit as far as references, but if you find additional ones, let me know. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:BLP unverified has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

May I ask you for your help in educating people about the purpose of the template? We're about to lose a useful tool for BLP improvement.--Father Goose (talk) 00:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Feminism Task Force Member! Please accept this invitation to join a discussion on creating a full-fledged WikiProject Feminism. If you support this idea, please register your support here. All feedback is appreciated! Thanks!

Since you're into women's articles, new article and DYK if you care to help improve. Up on July 6th, anniversary of the court ruling! — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New article on a Scouter, psychiatrist, and author. Very interesting. Pls help improve. Up for DYK too. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update. R is at the first layover waiting for the next plane. WOOF! — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 12:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sitting at the airport at zero dark thirty. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 08:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flight at second airport got cancelled. Damn airlines. — Dog The Teddy Bear • ^Bully! • 18:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)11:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIII (July 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Volume 3, Issue 2 • Summer 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup News in brief	Features Infobox road upgrade Editing needed near bottom of leaderboard Junction list updates	State and national updates Project reports
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— JCbot (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered your accusations against me on the proposed decision talkpage and I am telling you here as a courtesy. It would have been good if you could have informed me of the presentation of new evidence against myself so that I might have had an opportunity to explain my side of the argument or even to defend my own actions. Polargeo (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Flo! My first double DYK hook! It's at T:TDYK under "The Witch of Pungo". The articles are Grace Sherwood and Pungo, Virginia. Since you are interested in women's articles,I thought you may want to help improve them. The "Allegations of witchcraft" section in the Sherwood article could especially use a copyedit. She had ridiculous accusations of witchcraft made against her. Thanks for all prior and future help. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch this page for announcements.
—NBahn (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.

See User_talk:Rlevse#Grace_Sherwood_AKA_Witch_of_Pungo_Pre-FAC — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Grace Sherwood/archive1 and we're off. FAC constructive comments, help, review, etc would be greatly appreciated. Last night and this I add a lot, especially the "personal life" section, so review and copyedit of those edits would be greatly appreciated. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is some talk of a Nashville area meetup. Would love to have your participation! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Davies ^talk 21:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you showed some interest in the BLP problems in the CC area, take a peek at this one I just happened upon:[4]. He is notable enough for an article, but it seems his article was created for the sole purpose of discrediting and smearing him. Minor4th 12:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me of your concerns. As I expected, you're wrong. I've pointed out your errors at [5] (Christy), [6] [7] (Seitz), [8] (Balling) and [9] (Spencer). I await your response and preferrably retraction William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...about my ideas here? I'd appreciate your input! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:AE#Result concerning Brews ohare

Hi Flo, hope you're well. If you have a moment, please see my latest post to the ongoing Brews Ohare AE thread, which you commented on a few days ago. Regards, AGK 17:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I want look at Brews Ohare's response, too. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flo, I saw you on the list of users with oversite rights and would like you to help out. I chose you from the list as the other people who I have interacted with before on the list appear to be busy with the CC arbcom case, hopefully you are not too busy. If you are not busy would you mind looking into this?User_talk:Jmh649#Can_you_delete_contribution.3F Admin Doc James advised me to seek out oversite. Thanks.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the page and semi-protected it to stop further edits. I'll look into it further to see if suppression is needed. Thanks for your help by following up. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Thank you for sorting this issue out. It might be worth adding the URL to the spam black list.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update.  :) I thought I'd remembered seeing a variation on that same theme the other day; if this is a bigger problem than it appears, I'll simply supress any future attempts I might find rather than tagging them as socks. PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FloNight: I have also asked AGK for an opinion on the matter below. I hope you both might help out.

I wonder if you could take a crack at explaining what WGFinely means by the following provision 2 of his admonition:

“that you are topic banned from physics and such behaviors should not be carried over to mathematics and this AE serves as formal warning to him for the topic of mathematics.”

I will not take your opinion as an official statement, but simply as a possibility for interpretation. I have already asked WGFinley to explain this matter during the procedure, and he has not done so. I have just now asked him again, on his Talk page.

Here are two possibilities that occur to me:

1. Finley is confused about what a topic ban is, and somehow thinks a physics topic ban should be applicable to mathematics.

2. The words "topic ban" are just stuttering and have no place here. What Finley intends is to refer to the wording “adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum” that appears in the remedy Blackburne cited, and Finley has just confused this provision with the topic ban.

My concern is that editors will use this admonition to support intervention in any editing of math articles on the basis that WGFinley has warned me off editing math altogether. I think any such use of this admonition exceeds its authority, nevermind being simply incorrect. What is your advice?

Thanks for your council. I understand that any answer is not a statement of policy, but just your opinion. Brews ohare (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #12 on Saturday, October 23, 6pm at Bertucci's in Foggy Bottom. Special guests at this meetup will include Wikimedia CTO Danese Cooper, other Wikimedia technical staff and volunteer developers who will be in DC for Hack-A-Ton DC. Please RSVP on the meetup page.

You can remove your name from the Washington DC Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Volume 3, Issue 3 • Fall 2010 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup News in brief Portal selected articles and pictures	Features Bot automates graphics creation, saves work Featured Article, eh? Reviews needed at ACR	State and national updates Project reports for Delaware Maryland Michigan Minnesota
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

— JCbot (talk) 01:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note; Climate change has not been much in my purview so I am rapidly trying to get myself up to speed. As an experienced editor, I am curious as to your view of my actions. I feel quite comfortable with them on any other part of the project, but am (as I note) new to climate change as a topic of discord. The edit I came across here was pretty evidently problematic. I thought it uncontroversial to revert it, as I would any newly added content where the editor himself added a {{fact}} tag (it was also technically a BLP violation, but that's less important here). I have no opinion (and expressed none) on the edit once a source was found, only that it became an edit war. As I say, outside of climate change this sort of thing is routine. If you see it as problematic in climate change articles, because of the lengthy history of discord, I appreciate your insight on the matter and will remember that in the future. It was certainly not my intent to upset the climate change applecart, either with my block or my AN notice (which was largely unrelated to Climate change, although I think it confused some folks).

Regarding my editing history, I appreciate the information in your links. Very occasionally, when I feel like the question is sufficiently obvious given my non-expertise, I try to address it on the talk page. But most of what I have done is focus on clear, unequivocal vandalism (as is my custom on most areas of Wikipedia). But I very much appreciate the heads up to be mindful of such things. I'll be more careful, if you see talk page discussions as something of a bright line sort of issue. I would appreciate any additional insights you might have regarding this. Thanks again, --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me, I appreciate the clarification. I'm fairly familiar with administrative policy and guidelines, but I appreciate the reminder. I'm not sure, however, so let me as if you disagree with any of my administrative actions. My interactions with Off2riorob seemed perfectly routine, and very much in the line of ordinary administrative action. Was that the "editorial dispute" you were thinking of (if not, I would be very interested to know what you're seeing). I'm happy to abide by such a prohibition (particularly since I visit climate articles only incidentally), but if any edits to climate change articles taints admins from enforcing climate change sanctions (including routine and uncontroversial reverts), I would guess there will never be an admin when you need one. Thanks again for getting back to me. --TeaDrinker (talk) 08:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any edits to the CC area and participation in discussions cause an admin to be involved so you definitely should not act as an administrator in the area. You had direct interaction with Off2riorob on the article when you reverted him, and then blocked him for his further edits to the article. So, you were definitely involved.

Additionally, I looked through your edits and saw that recently you've made a number of edits in articles related to the CC topic and participated in talk page discussions, too. [10], [11], [12],[13], [14], example of recent edits to CC related articles) As a general rule, if a page comes up on your watch list because you edited it then you don't act as an admin about anything related to it. For situations in this topic area you are like a regular editor and need to find someone else to handle anything that needs admin attention.

I feel that being an active article writer AND and active admin is much more difficult to carry out than most people realize because quite easily admins get drawn into situations where they act as an admin when they are involved because the pages are on your watchlist and beckon you to get involved :-).

Since the CC case spells out when an admin is involved, I thought it was important to remind you not to participate as an involved admin in the topic area. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 09:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I respect your opinion in this case. It is certainly a bit of a messy issue. Thanks again, --TeaDrinker (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 05:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom secret ballot RFC.

Arbcom left a grey area with the topic bans. There is no way that comments on a user's own talk page can count as "process". It is not wise of WMC to continue pointing out problems on his talk page and I have warned him against it. But it is completely unacceptable to obsess over another editor's legitimate though inopportune use of a lack of clarity in the way that you have been doing. Your actions on WMC's talk page would have been acceptable if they had happened before Beeblebrox's bad block or if that block had already been reverted. But that's not the situation we are in, and the fact that you have reacted to the second admin !vote for overturning the block with a call for closing the appeal only makes it appear a lot worse.

This is a formal warning from an involved non-admin, telling you that you seem to have got caught in the polarisation. Hans Adler 14:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. From it, I think that you've misread I few things. But, I'll take it into consideration. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further clarification: While a few other people have mistakenly posted in the uninvolved admin section, only one admin had suggested overturning the block. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to your words here at WP:AE. I hope it's OK. Offliner (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I note that you edited the above page in June. I wonder if you could revisit it. There is an editor who is intent on putting in material that is poorly written, badly sourced and spammy. The editor seems to have an uncanny knowledge of the subject. If I revert the changes again I will breach WP:3R. I'd love another opinion. Cheers. Gillyweed (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, how you been? --DanielCD (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing ok. Mainly just been doing maintenance edits lately, nothing substantive. I have loads of pics on my camera, but am having trouble transferring them to the comp. Perhaps when I figure out what's wrong I can upload some more flower pics 'n such. I've got quite a few new ones. --DanielCD (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, does your addition to the block log there ..Contact ArbCom prior to editing for follow up to SPI .. have any weight as to the length of the block? I am asking this as the thread is still open on ANI as to a possible reduction back from the present indef to the previous two weeks, regarding your comment, does that affect ant time change in the length of the block that may occur out of the discussion? Off2riorob (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Flo - is your block/notice a way to make sure MN contacts and discuss the matter with ArbCom? Ravensfire (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm speaking as a checkuser who has been in contact with Marknutley and ArbCom about the best way to handle the situation. He should not be unblocked with out contacting ArbCom in relation to the SPI findings. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I was guessing that was the case, but wasn't sure. With MN a bit ticked off about the SPI, I wanted to make sure. Appreciate the reply! (and good luck getting this straightened out, which doesn't seem simple) Ravensfire (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at AN/I, too. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I have boldly closed the ANI thread as it seems there is nothing more to discuss, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
BrownBot (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Flo, nutley has added an unblock template to his talkpage with a comment to nudge ARBCOM , so I am just giving you a nudge as per his request, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...as I was just about to point out at Mark's, "strictly speaking, I don't think that girl and husband are compatible" ... and then you do this. Grrr!--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I rethought my remark after I made it. Originally, I was going to say I was a lady, but was afraid someone would add a ^{[citation needed]} tag. :-) FloNight♥♥♥♥ 12:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, geek humor and wiki humor mesh perfectly - I just about fell out of my chair laughing this morning! Thanks for a badly needed chuckle. Ravensfire (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know everyone's jumpy about BLPs but when a user makes 7 edits that have to be deleted, wouldn't it be better to, you know, block the user and move on (they still aren't blocked), rather than rushing to indefinitely semi-protect the article? Gurch (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I make my decision based on the particulars of each situation. For example, I'm reluctant to semi-protect when an ip or new account is reverting BLP violations. But in this instance, imo, it would not most likely prevent future additions of the content in the near future to block either the one account who reverted OR the one additional ip address who did. I did not have time to do a CU at the same time, but when I did later, I saw nothing that reassured me that blocking one account or ip would fix the situation.

In this situation, the main issue that needs follow up is whether the content needs to be suppressed or not. I did it out of caution because of the wording of the content and because of the type of reference (an issue blog) used to source the content. I did a quick check online but didn't see it anywhere else. But if the material is found in a good source then I would unsuppress the material. We are lucky to have that option now with the revdel tool. Any way, thanks for your question. I don't mind explaining my reasoning for handling a situation in a particular way. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you on IRC? I have a question about oversight. Nothing urgent. Basket of Puppies 22:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably best to reach me by email since I'm not planning to go on IRC any time soon. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the bottom of his talk page and Alison's. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FloNight. I notice Marc Haynes has been fully edit protected for over a month now and I rather think the controversy that provoked the edits has died down. It's difficult for me to review the full history but it looks like the only users to make the controversial additions (others amended and corrected them) were Bocktrompet and 217.171.129.77. These may be the same user. The Bocktrompet account now looks abandoned and the IP has not attempted to reinsert anything so I don't think this is likely to reappear. Would you now consider lifting the protection? Many thanks. --Contributions/131.111.128.77 (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

131.111.128.77, the page history and log show that the page was protected for one month and expired December 10th. So far so good and no need to re-protect. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FloNight: the logs are telling me that you indef-blocked Marknutley (talk · contribs · logs · block log) on the third of this month. I discovered this because he seems to be writing an article in userspace (collaborating with another editor - Silver seren (talk · contribs · logs · block log) - whom I assume will do any needed mainspace edits). This is a good bit outside the norm for someone who's indef-blocked, but there's nothing about it on his talk page, and I don't know if this is a legitimate deal he struck with you, an advanced case of meat-puppetry, some odd technical thing in popups on my end that shows him as blocked when he isn't, or some other form of weirdness. Do you know what the deal is? --Ludwigs2 04:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwigs, I blocked him after discussion with him and arbcom found that was the best approach to resolve the immediate situation. Since then MN has been in contact with arbcom and he is awaiting the seating of the new arbcom to proceed with working out possible details of an unblock with editing restrictions. I'm not monitoring his editing of his talk page, so don't know if it is problematic or not. If you have concerns and want a second opinion, then you could ask ArbCom or take it to AN or AN/I. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no real concerns; I was just confused by it. --Ludwigs2 15:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FloNight/archive 12! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FloNight/archive 12! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.

• Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
• Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
• Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
• Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.

Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.

Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read the BLP page. It asks that with regard to someones birth date you only list the year. Which is what I did. I left out the actual birth date. I listed his name... what would be considered a reliable source?? A birth cert?? A marriage cert?? A drivers Lic?? Also I listed other info that has been updated on their site that apparently wiki takes as a published source. You deleted that also. Can you help me understand this?? I do not have a personal interest in this nor is any of this out of spite. I do not even know this person personally, so I am confused with the accusation!

  Im Just Starting 03:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just-the-beginning (talk • contribs)  

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=507451520 Justin Lack: Drone 1... http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1538821052 Drone III.... as also stated on their website. I am not attacking just listing information.

Reply on your talk page. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Im Just Starting

Volume 4, Issue 1 • Winter 2011 • About the Newsletter
Departments Assessment roundup Portal selected articles and pictures	Features The Year in Review Royal Award Conferred USRD busy at work at FAC	State and national updates Project reports for CA MI MN NE NJ UT WA
Archives • Newsroom • Full Issue • Shortcut: WP:USRD/NEWS

—

JCbot (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so old, the years fly by. ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]