User talk:Llywrch/Archive13

Hi Llywrch! I think it's time to undelete "Jacob Barnett" page. This kid is on all the major newspapers. Also he spoke on TED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C70:8170:4009:7651:5D86:BEF3 (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate, I noticed your comments in the Signpost regarding monetary rewards for editing. I prefer not to clog public forums with one-on-one conversations, so I thought I would bring it here instead. You mentioned that with an employer and a family, the time spent contributing to Wikipedia detracts from the time spent with the other two, and that having monetary rewards would make time spent here more worthwhile. My question for you is this: Wouldn't you be afraid that if you were to start receiving monetary compensation for the effort that you put into Wikipedia, editing would shift from [something you enjoy doing for its own sake] to [yet another obligation that you must fulfill]?

Consider that, as much as we all enjoy what we do here, there are those days where we really don't feel like doing any serious editing, and instead find ourselves bopping around the encyclopedia aimlessly. In the case that you were making a bit of extra cash from your editing, and particularly in the case that you or your spouse lose your/his/her job and money is tight, I would imagine that there would be no way to prevent the feelings of pressure to edit. I don't know about you, but I know that the quality of my work would diminish significantly if that kind of pressure ever existed, and I might lose interest in the project entirely. I can think of very few things that would quite as detrimental to my psyche and worldview as the situation I just described. Would it really be worth it to risk throwing all of this away for a few extra shekels here and there?

Curious to hear your thoughts. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with the sentiment that you expressed in the first paragraph of your response: if there is nothing wrong with the content, then there is nothing wrong with the motivations behind its creation, even if they include monetary ones.

One of my concerns with paid editing is that there must necessarily exist some metric for determining who gets paid, and I can't think of any metric that would work well. Payment by number of edits would be far too easy to manipulate, and it devalues the contributions of those who prefer to craft articles offline and then post them all at once. Payment by number of words/paragraphs would encourage editors to include unnecessary details or to be overly circuitous in their phrasing. Payment by FAs/GAs would encourage authors to conceal issues rather than discuss them openly with other editors, and it would encourage authors to go along with anything that anyone says at FAC, even if the suggestions make the articles worse. Even if objectivity is not an issue (and your point about journalists is a good one), there are many other ways that the quality of an article can suffer as a result of extrinsic motivation.

I suspect you may not believe me when I say this, but in response to your question about whether or not I would turn down the money, I think that I would—but I do realize that I would be in the minority by saying that. It's important to note that I'm young, completely non-materialistic, and extremely stubborn about my principles (heck, most people my age don't even have principles to be stubborn about!). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the naming order. I use AWB, so I don't see the edit summary and don't normally read the talk page comments. This time I didn't use AWB and noticed. Next time, make sure listas (on the talk page) and DEFAULTSORT (main article) are filled in. That way the article doesn't get on a todo list and some idiot like me doesn't come around and mess things up. Got to love names.... my favorite is Burmese. They may or may not have a surname and they change names throughout their lives. I still haven't figured out Arabic or Icelandic names. Bgwhite (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across a couple other Ethiopianish names. I thought I'd ask you how to sort the names before I make a mess of them.

Ugaas Abdulrahman Muhumad Qani

Ugaz Abdulrahman Abd Ghani

Bgwhite (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... If I use "normal" Arabic indexing conventions, I would then sort these as "Qani, Abdulrahman Muhumad, Ugaas" and "Abd Ghani, Abdulrahman, Ugaz"??? Bgwhite (talk) 00:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boy. Arabic names are so fun. You are definitely correct about the indexing if they were before 1900. They weren't and after 1900 is a mess. I've been using this as reference... because my brain can understand that paper. According to the paper, I think I'm right, but there are so many different historical, regional and who know what reasons. AHHHHH my brain hurts. I will ask Middayexpress. Bgwhite (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from Bangkok! I have found, much to my pleasant surprise, that my hotel room offers free internet access. I intend to submit CSI effect to FAC once I get back to Boston, but before I do that, I would like to have it read by one more uninvolved editor to make sure that it is clear, concise, and comprehensive. Would you like to be that editor? If our conversation on paid contributing is any indication of your work ethic, then I would greatly appreciate your opinion on my work. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 09:16, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, mate. I definitely agree that we should be writing for the people who have no prior knowledge of the subject, so the suggestions you've made were exactly what I was looking for. I'll make an effort to address/discuss them each once I get back home and have more time to accessify the interwebs. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 10:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand people going on to do other things, in real life or on Wikipedia. Writing or rewriting articles is a lot of work, and I appreciate anyone who does it on any subject. I'm determined to improve the articles on Egyptian religion as much as I can, no matter how long it takes—but I have an unusual capacity for obsession and stubbornness. My frustration is not so much that I don't have help, but that I can't work as fast as I want to. Anyway, I have all the Egyptian religion pages on my watchlist, and I'll keep a closer eye on the rest of the subject from now on. If you ever decide to come back to the project, I'll at least make sure that it hasn't gotten worse in the meantime. A. Parrot (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across four Ethiopian names that had different orders or no order in DEFAULTSORT/Listas.

Tekle Hawaryat   Tekle Haymanot   Tekle Haymanot of Gojjam   Tekle Kiflay

I sorted them as Hawaryat, Tekle.... which is most likely wrong. Should I have done "Tekle Hawaryat"? Bgwhite (talk) 01:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's confusing, but there are different types of Ethiopian names. This one is a Ge'ez (Classical Ethiopic) compound name meaning 'plant of faith' and should be treated as one word beginning with T. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. I'm always in a state of confusion, so confusing names are just background noise :) Bgwhite (talk) 05:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some more names. Names starting with Tesfaye and Tesfai... "Tesfaye Alebachew" and Tesfai Ghirmazion (eritrean) Bgwhite (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you closed the AfD as "no consensus" and suggested there would be consensus as there was no agreement on the notability of geographical landmarks. As there is no agreement on a notability policy for such landmarks, surely we should fall back to the general notability guideline, yet you made no mention of assessing the AfD on this basis. It seems rather strange to suggest that we cannot delete an article unless there is agreement on a wider policy for article of that type. If we take this article on it's own merits, and put aside the interesting but inconclusive debate about the wider picture, then it's clear there is not significant coverage in reliable sources - so surely a delete is the correct option? --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid not, sorry - this is the first time I've heard of him. Regardless, he sounds like an...interesting character, to say the least.

Excellent article - keep up the good work, and happy editing! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I left another reply on my talk page that I would appreciate a response to (no hurry!). I just want to say I am not attacking you or anything, and appreciate the work you are doing, it's simply that I have a local connection to the hill and would like clarification on this issue.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unforunately, MathBot cannot tell if a discussion is closed unless {{subst:afd top}} is put at the top of the nomination, even above the header. Could you please put that template at the top of the nominations in the future? It helps out at WP:OLD when determining which discussions have already been closed. Thanks! Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Duncorn Hill. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider participating in the Gospel of the Ebionites peer review to prepare the article for GAC. Thank you. Ovadyah (talk) 09:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have incorporated all your suggestions. The only thing left to do is expand the last section on what can be inferred from the text about the Ebionites themselves. I am finding that hard to do in three sentences or less. Anyway, I thought you should know that your input was instrumental in determining the scope and direction of the article. Thanks for taking the time. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Gospel of the Ebionites article has been promoted to GA. It wouldn't have happened without your input in peer review. Thanks again. Ovadyah (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I've heard you're one of the "oldest" (meaning one of the earliest editors still active) Wikipedians around. Have you ever thought about writing about what things were like in the "early days"? I'm talking about things like WP:AfD (or VFD?), how templates were used, and other things about "daily life" that were different from how it is now. I'm really curious about it. Thanks! :) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 06:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See, I'm weird like that. I laaaaaike listening to "old fossils" :P I guess I'm just one of those people who is always wondering how things are different from the way they were... I would definitely read the article if you wrote for the Signpost even though I don't usually read the Signpost! — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 00:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, homeboy. I hear watcha sayin'. But you's not sayin' it loud enough, know what I'm sayin?

I don't get down with preppy assholes, puh-litical c'rectness, Jimmy Wales or Susie loudmouth weed-patch. But if you was ta put yo woids tuh-getha fo' us yung 'uns, mebbe we'd like lissen an' shit.

Y'know, put dem woids on ya grill page 'bout what you think an' all - 'bout bein' here and what it was like when you was an OG an' shit, an' how it oughtta be. I cud get down wi' dat, like ever' month mebbe.

Later Peter S Strempel | Talk 03:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ኣመሰገናልሎ. -- llywrch (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Llywrch. I think perhaps we should rename the Ugaz Abdulrahman Abd Ghani page to "Abdulrahman Abd Ghani" i.e. without the "Ugaz" title. This is something I mentioned to Bgwhite when he was fixing the sort values. Thoughts? Middayexpress (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I reverted your recent edit to the Afar people. The Afar are listed in the article as in inhabitants of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Djibouti. If you have other information, please revert my revert and document. Thank you. Tapered (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that to the others. Will that work?Tapered (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look. It's done. Tapered (talk) 07:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your most recent edit. The information IS NOT duplicate/redundant. Your addition seems a good idea. Editing the other categories out is counterproductive--at best, to put it politely. Please desist.Tapered (talk) 00:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you haven't reverted my edit as of this moment. That being the case, I'm not concerned about your evaluation of my character. Think what you will. Tapered (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create the category links, but they checked out. I thought that at least one was dubious, but not so. I learned that Somalia & Djibouti are members of the Arab League. Tapered (talk) 01:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re [1]: because the parties closely affiliated with that dispute (even if just emotionally affiliated) are editing Wikipedia, and that article in particular. Both James Cantor (pro-Bailey) and Andrea James (anit-Bailey) have edited it (and these two arguably have a WP:COI, Cantor a bit less). The "darlieb"-vanished IP editor also seems intimately connected with the sexual-minority issue at hand (based on her other edits), but hey this is not WP:COI, although it certainly is WP:ACTIVISM. A personal friend of L. Conway (User:Dicklyon) has also edited it. That article has been a warzone for years, just look at its history and talk pages. And so have been the associated ones: Autogynephilia etc.

How much time do you want to waste to get a few sentences right in an article that you don't care about more than at curiosity level? The fist law of wiki brawling: do not try to separate a street fight between two guys unless you pack shotgun and are prepared to shoot dead both of them—they're very likely to both turn on you. And bring an MG in case of mob. Only ArbCom has that kind of firepower here. See WP:1LAW.

-- Tijfo098 (talk) 03:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even DGG got fed up now, [2] and that's not so easy to achieve... Tijfo098 (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch, I'm slightly confused by your decision (which was here by the way) regarding the AfD of the band Broadway. Which criterion of WP:NMUSIC did the group pass? I am presuming you mean criterion 6 (Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians), but I am familiar with the two musicians you mentioned and they are not members of the band; in fact, they only provided guest vocals on two of the albums tracks. Surely this is not sufficient to pass WP:NMUSIC. Or am I missing something? I also agree with your comment that print sources like NME should be used more often, but the problem here is that this band has not been featured in them! Given their genre they're probably most likely to be mentioned (over here in the UK) in Rock Sound or Kerrang!, but I have an online subscription to the former and a search through their archives produced no hits, and there's been no evidence regarding the latter. Cheers, doomgaze (talk) 19:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This close has nothing to do with the content of the AFD and incorrectly claims passing WP:NMUSIC in a way they don't. Please change it. duffbeerforme (talk)
  • (1) Please sign your messages on talk pages with ~~~ or ~~~~. (2) No. -- llywrch (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Broadway (Band). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy - no complaints about your closure... it was perfectly reasonable given the votes. What do you think I ought to do next? There's no point in immediately relisting, naturally... at the same time it would both aid Wikipedia and the outside world to have the thing removed. And it's desperately hard to introduce any negative stuff about them as most of that stuff has been cleansed from the net due to their lawyers. Any ideas?

Cheers,

Egg Centric 19:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[3] - it would be about people mindlessly invoking various Wikipedia guidelines/policies in arguments, like some kind of magical mantras, without having actually bothered to read the actual guideline/policy, or adequately explaining how a particular policy/guideline actually applies in a particular case. Subtitle could be "Wikipedia policies and guideline titles (including WP:SFoD) are NOT magical incantations to defeat your opponents with".Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got bold and created it WP:Shadowless Fists of Death. It'd be great if you wrote it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did? Then why is the link red? -- llywrch (talk) 20:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing the exclamation point - will fix it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Gunda Gunda at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Gunda Gunde at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Toдor Boжinov — 08:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch, could I ask you please to make an edit here, rather than tagging it twice? It seems clear to me, so I'm not sure what to do with it. You're welcome to clarify if you think it needs it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of Ogadenia. Gyrofrog (talk) 23:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC) (Using {{pls}})[reply]

[Despondently: ] If little llywrch could see my evil young grandsocks, would never complain of three-year-old again! bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Little Ankle Biter announce nothing, just go for ankles! Swear like navvy, take bites out of cakes, get little 'shonen blocked soon! Little llywrch progeny bite ankles also? [In a fit of deep melancholy, 'Zilla reflects on her own folly in lightheartedly creating Little Stupid, who has now created the evil grandsocks. ] Create socks: easy! Get rid of socks: hard! [Bitterly :] 'Zilla waste time apologising to bitten users ! bishzilla _ROARR!! 13:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Armbrust has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a fresh pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appétit!†

Concerning the comment you left on User:Frietjes' talk page: this editor is not an admin, so while he or she may have prodded the article, someone else actually deleted it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try talking to User:Phantomsteve, who appears to be the deleting admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ken. I just came here to say the same thing. I tagged the article with {{db-band}} after seeing the same action taken for WU LYF, which was the same article, just in all caps. Frietjes (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just re-created the page here: WU LYF with lots of references. Let's see if they what they make of it now. Robman94 (talk) 17:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that lasted only minutes before it got deleted again (by UtherSRG). How they jusitfy deleting an article with references from the NME, the Guardian and the Observer is beyond me. I've started a DRV. Robman94 (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's at AfD! :) Robman94 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Gunda Gunde at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gatoclass (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering how I should go about editing an article whose primary editors seem to oppose any sort of content changes. A while back, I edited the article on Pashtunwali to remove a lot of content that didn't say much and just promoted the article's subject. Much of the content has made its way back into the article.

This is at the top of the talk page. "This goes to all the misunderstandings below. If you are not Pashtun, then you will not understand Pastunwali no matter how hard you try, Pashtunwali is genetic, its in our Pashtun blood, we can be hospitable to our enemies and strangers but please do not disect it as if you can proove something, cause in the end we are Pashtuns and we stick together no matter how hard you try to segregate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.245.13.143 (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)" --Nogburt (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 May 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gunda Gunde, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that, despite being a monastery of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, Gunda Gunde provided many converts to the Roman Catholic faith for missionary (later saint) Justin de Jacobis? You are welcome to check how many hits the 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the survey. As you recommended, I add $50 credit good to the prize for the survey on Village Pump cooldenny (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to check out WU LYF's music yet, they have several videos on their official YouTube and Vimeo channels, check out Heavy Pop, Spitting Blood, LYF, Heavy Pop, Concrete Gold, Lucifer Calling and Such A Sad Puppy Dog. I've only given them a peripheral listen so far. I'd say they're interesting but not earth shattering. I'm curious to know what you think of them. Robman94 (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you're interested, I just scored a pretty cool pic for the WU LYF article. Robman94 (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions at the peer review of List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset and on the talk page. I have looked at your suggestions from Ian Burrow, Hillfort and Hill-top Settlement in Somerset in the First to Eighth Centuries A.D., BAR British Series 91 (Oxford, 1981). Some are, I believe, outside Somerset or alternative names for sites with existing articles. I have started to find information on some that should be in the list but aren't (& three now have articles) & I've added the info into a table on the talk page. Any help you could give with locating other sites (eg a grid ref) or otherwise filling in the blanks would be really great & help me to identify the further work needed.— Rod ^talk 16:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article about a Canadian band could probably use your help, it has several tags on it and there's an old discussion about merging some of the releases into the main article. Just thought you might like to know. Robman94 (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch. There has been a rash of Somali-related fair-use images that have been put up for deletion at WP:FFD. The excuses supplied for these proposed deletions seem to me flimsy at best. For example, an historical image of Sultan Mohamoud Ali Shire of the Warsangali Sultanate receiving a medal from Queen Elizabeth II is both apparently not of historical importance and irrelevant to his article (!). These same sorts of weak excuses have been put forth to justify the proposed deletion of images of the Sultanate of Hobyo's cavalry and fort [4] as well as the Warsangali Sultanate's troops [5], which were used on the relevant Sultanate of Hobyo and Warsangali Sultanate articles, respectively. The attempted deletions also include a one-of-a-kind History Today magazine cover featuring Sultan Shire -- that too is "under review" (c.f. [6]). Basically, I feel that I and the Somali-related pics are not getting a fair shake here, so I would be very grateful if (when you have the time) you could keep an eye on things or, at the very least, weigh in with your opinion at the relevant WP:FFD and WP:NFR sections; viz. [7], [8], [9], [10]. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am, frankly, at least as surprised to see you find File talk:Abd Al-Rahman Al-Jabarti.jpg an obvious keep, as you were to see me find it an obvious delete. This was extensively discussed here. Do we really have to take this all the way through FFD? (BTW, relevant precedent at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 15#File:Svyatoslav face reconstructed.jpg and doubtless many others; normally the speedy process is sufficient for these cases.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi llywrch, recalling your review of Einbinder's book (btw, Ziko featured a nice quote from it on his blog this week), I was wondering whether you would like to contribute to this review? At the moment, the first chapter (about, largely, the history of encyclopedias) is still available. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is to let everyone who has expressed an interest in the topic that the discussion to arrive at a consensus has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting, with discussion taking place at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion. Apologies if you have already commented there, or have seen the discussion and chosen not to comment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Great job on the Ethiopia articles. Baryaw (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey amigo, trust you are well. This is a double for Dungur. Any thoughts one which should be merged into which?♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Llywrch, I've noticed the great work you've been doing on late antique articles, and in particular was interested in your work on Gundobad. I've got quite a lot of books on the subject and couldn't help wondering if you may have some interest in a collaborative effort to make a FA, just let me no (but in all honesty, you should no I'm really slow in writing, differently from you, and I'm also damn lazy). Don't worry of offending my tender feelings with a refusal ;-); I've already got another barbarian king I may want to toy with, so it's really no problem. And thanks again for your edits in the area! Ciao,Aldux (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove the speedy please?♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Actually I cheated by surveying the recent changes pages for an active decent editor and you were one of the first I saw!!♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Essay? Ah you mean my stub/development philosophy. Well just airing my thoughts and excusing why I often create stubs and see their potential. The thing is you tell 100 site visitors you can win a $500 voucher at the end of the month for writing the best article and I am pretty sure it would attract a significant number of them who could spare an hour or so a day to write for wikipedia. If the stakes are right, we have the potential to lure in literally millions of new people. It shouldn't matter as long as there is a mechanism to actually get people to produce good and better articles. In such a process we could literally get several hundred articles dramatically improved and pay out a tiny fraction of our annual budget. The problem is that the foundation and Jimbo still think of any reward scheme as a taboo. If you want the goods you have to get people to go that step further than normal to produce. Real people demand real incentives, we ca't just rely on the good will of people if we are serious about producing a universal quality and coverage encyclopedia. If I won an Amazon voucher or something I'd likely buy books on African history and use to create articles. I definitely think it would work. it does frustrate me greatly that they are not experimenting with things like this and seeing if they produce result. You advertise across the Internet that there is a $500 reward for writing a Best Article of the Month on wikipedia and the results would be astounding I think.. We should also have a monthly Core Contest which rewards those who work to dramatically improve our core articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I've watched Wikipedia fail to achieve its potential because of incompetent gardeners & absentee owners, who have inadvertently slowed its growth, poisoned its health & threatened its long-term existence. " That's exactly how I feel. I can't believe the people running wikipedia are so dense. We both know exactly what it would take to get certain jobs done on here which desperately need it and also to attract the thousands of editors the foundation naively think will come and produce out of good will in a frankly appalling environment. We easily have the man power to do so, but if they won't even release any bait then you'll never attract anybody. Why are they so pig ignorant of rewarding people.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is though there are many things on here I wouldn't do for free. If somebody offered a reward I'd develop any article of their choice to FA level, but otherwise wouldn't bother. Similarly I wouldn't perform tasks which are extremely time consuming manually aside from stub building. Not lazy obviously but the chance of reward would certainly get me to do things which I otherwise might not go to the effort of doing. I think it would bring outthe best in people, which is what we want.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You had invited me to a local wikipedia gathering in Portland some time ago. Do you still have them? I'd be interested in going if you do. Let me know. Ed Welter (talk) 16:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Llywrch,

I have read with interest your comment about myself, and after hesitation, I find better to give you a little answer. You wrote : « this guy … is just another computer geek and amateur historian like me ». Not really. My own private library is not only google but thousand of scientific books and ten of thousand of papers. When I speak of someone’s work, I have read and studied it. I have obtained a D.E.A. (just under doctorate) of History at ‘Université Paris-La Sorbonne’ in 1997 and will submit my doctoral thesis next year. I’m directing an area of resarch into a prestigious unity of the french C.N.R.S. Moreover, I have been invited to participate to many international universitary conferences (Oxford, London, Leeds, Stockolm, Rome, Göttingen, Paris, Brioude, Lyon, etc.), and I have organized some myself under the patronage of french scientific institutions. I’m sometimes requested to give courses to students undergraduates (Sorbonne, Marne-La-Vallée, Lyon, Metz). I have published a dozen of papers in scientific publications, and more of 2500 pages in six books, wich are often cited in scientific works, and so on (Detailed information available upon request). Did you do the same, or just a part of it? On this point we have to disagree. But, fortunately, on other point, I fully agree with you. It is a curious thing to find my name as reference in so many wikipedia’s notices, sometimes for matters I just mentioned. Please, have fun deleting my name as often as you want (but be cautious: e.g. for Ennodius, you delete my name but you leave Gioanni’s who rely himself essentialy on my own works for Ennodius’s family).

Best regards,

Christian Settipani — Preceding unsigned comment added by Settipani (talk • contribs) 15:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I won't get into a pissing match over the respective sizes of our "private" libraries -- except to note that my research for Wikipedia articles relies far less on Google searches than other Wikipedians. The fact that your works are not readily accessible in my part of the world forces me to rely on what I can find on Google, though, & beyond your association with Descent from antiquity, there was little to indicate you were anything but an amateur -- like me. If your biographical article is incorrect or incomplete, please feel free to improve on it. Otherwise, we will simply need to agree my point that using your publications as a source in many articles is not appropriate for Wikipedia. And congratulations on completing your doctoral thesis. -- llywrch (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

Hello there. Thanks for the message. It is my opinion that wiki burnout can only be remedied by time away from it, when one can reacquire a sense of one's priorities. --Merovingian (T, C, L) 00:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's kind of a mess. Usually what I do is click through to the discussion page where the comments are transcluded from. That increases the width so it's a little easier. You might do that already, but I thought I'd suggest it just in case. Hope you're well, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi llywrch, I am indeed still here, although I rarely have the time or motivation to do anything major. I usually just answer reference desk questions and revert vandalism. When I first started here, I'm not sure what I imagined Wikipedia would be like eight years later...I wouldn't say it's completely disappointing, but most of the time it's way too frustrating. More than anything I think I treat Wikipedia like a bibliographic database these days. And if I do work on an article, I only have patience for things that no one else is going to look at. In any case, now I also need to focus on publishing stuff in real-life, so Wikipedia is just a distraction. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Llywrch. Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238#Merger of Isdud into Ashdod regarding your closure of Talk:Ashdod#Merge proposal? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as one of the two main contributors to this article, I think your opinion on its name would be particularly valuable. Thanks, --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article YADAV needs correction. some of the users ( wikipedia admin ) have deliberately put in wrong information.

some references ignored.

http://books.google.com/books?ei=4RqGTvHVDYPOrQf59-TrDA&ct=result&id=wWEiAQAAMAAJ&dq=semi+historical+evidences+ahir&q=semi+historical#search_anchor Social movements and social transformation: a study of two backward classes movements in India MSA RAO

Temples of Kr̥ṣṇa in South India: history, art, and traditions in Tamilnāḍu " is written by T. Padmaja http://books.google.com/books?id=F-_eR1isesMC&pg=RA1-PA34&dq=Yadavas+of+South+India+velir&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=nqvloPNdEZgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=people+of+india+rajasthan&hl=en#v=onepage&q=ahir&f=false

There are 100 of books which have so much positive information but the users have deliberately put in all negative information. kindly help. please correct the article. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaucf (talk • contribs) 02:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume at this stage i may proceed with the merger per WP:GF as proposed by yourself here [11]. Thank you for your reply.Greyshark09 (talk) Ashdod" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">19:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Llywrch/Archive13! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Cheers. Much appreciate the cookie. Thought you could use something stronger after a hard days work! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You contributed to a recent discussion about an editor who was creating many stubs. The conclusion was that this was just a case of a prolific editor, with no violation of policy. There remains a question about whether very small stubs are useful, regardless of how they are created. You may want to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stub/Archive 15#Minimum size. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Editor_changing_another.E2.80.99s_post. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...for your contribution to the article caveman! Chrisrus (talk) 03:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your copyedit here is otherwise appreciated, but I do not think that you should remove references simply because the reference is the same for several sentences in a row. That convention may work in the writings of a single author that are static over time, but it is dangerous in a collaborative work like Wikipedia which is always subject to revision. Quite simply, by removing these references, you have made it more difficult for a future author to move those sentences around or to determine whether they are properly sourced. Savidan 19:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been around quite that long (only six years), but I do not share that presumption. As a reader, it's equally plausible to me that at some point there could have existed an unsourced sentence or paragraph to which the sourced sentence was added. Or, there could have existed a sourced sentence, before which unsourced sentences were added. It seems unlikely that contributors prone to add unsourced content would be aware of, or follow, your convention. Similarly, an editor may not duplicate a footnote when moving text either because they do not understand that they should or because they share the confusion of the reader. On the other hand, it's hard to see what the harm of "repetitive" footnotes. When they are defined using ref-names, the reader can see that they have identical numbers, and thus are identical, without even looking at the footnote section of the article (nor is that section clogged). Nor do I think that footnotes are only for the insecure or edit-warriors. There are many useful reasons why the extremely secure sole author (or group of peaceful authors) might wish to provide their readers with precise sourcing. Savidan 23:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks. Your comments and ideas are very useful for Otium. Doug Coldwell talk 12:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Antipope Laurentius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Communion, Zeno, Pope Anastasius

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am reviewing Ionian Islands under Venetian rule for GA, and checked out the peer review. I am optimistic about the article, which I find well-done, but am reluctant to promote it unless issues in the peer review are resolved. I saw your comments there; would you mind telling me what you think ought to be done? DCItalk 14:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the time it's taken to reply; I've been off the website with holidays and all. I have taken the liberty of promoting the "nominee" to B-class, as I think it meets the criteria for that level. I will forward your concerns and post them on the GA review, which I put on hold for a week. This should give the nominator time to fix up any issues: if he doesn't, I am afraid I'll have to list the review as failed. DCItalk 21:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Debre Zeyit#Page name. Gyrofrog (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did decide to pass Ionian islands under Venetian rule for GA. I thought it met GA requirements, and, for an article created on August 10, I found it to be mighty fine work. There were issues, no doubt, but I hope that the article's GA status will survive a reassessment, if one occurs. I will edit/revise it periodically to ensure that it remains at GA quality. DCItalk 02:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try this list. Read your comment on the Signpost and looked for myself. I started here before you and I found 5 Wikipedians who started before me who made edits this year. Rmhermen (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages you might be interested in Talk:Middle Ages#Is this article about the European Middle Ages or some universal history period?. Dougweller (talk) 12:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Llywrch! You may be interested in uploading these images here. I made a flickr agreement with that guy. If you upload place them in this you'll see the common license of the images.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, I thought it was my browser/font setting which was doing it!♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of woredas of the Oromia Region, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dema (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere, sometime ago, you wrote the following:

"....but I doubt we established, long-term editors will ever receive any. Not when one of the FEW non-content pages where Wikipedians have the possibility of socializing or standing out is Wikipedia:Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents; the fact Wikipedians socialize there leads newcomers to believe that the only way to make an impression on Wikipedia is to be an enfant terrible or otherwise stand out with incivil behavior. People who quietly write articles, try to play nice with other editors, or otherwise make a minimum of fuss are met with silence -- which unfortunately sends the message that they don't matter as much as a semi-literate editor with poor social skills who is dragged to WP:AN/I on a regular basis for being a jerk, yet finds an adoring crowd of supporters to defend him there. The troublemaker is rewarded; the good Wikipedian is ignored, discouraged, & leaves. User:Llywrch

I saved it for an essay I created a while back on Incivility. Do you remember where and what the circumstances were? There is a current Case regarding Editor Malleus Fatuorum. I'm sure you must be aware of it (Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence (It may be at Workshop)I'll come back with links) A claim was made that his actions cause new editors to leave WikiPedia...but verification by diff is lacking. Can you provide diffs that show editors that state they are leaving because of incivility? Either MF's or any other editor whose aggresive responses have led to departure of the "newbie". It may be a bit late to share as evidence but it may convince other editors that there are negative results that harm the Encyclopedia when editors bite each other. Maybe "Don't bite the Newbies" should be updated to "Dont bite each other" --Buster Seven Talk 10:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

You ask the question about why ships that are named after him are "omitted". They are not purposely omitted. Since you are the person who seems to know about this, why not add it?

Amandajm (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that "ships" were not included is that it was me who divided up the categories and I simply didn't think of it. The "Cultural references" article in which you suggested placing it seemed the perfect place to me. Maybe other things have been left out as well, such as location names etc. If you would contribute, it would be much appreciated, particularly if you were able to cite references, in order that there is ^{[citation needed]} tag added to what you do.

Amandajm (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you around for ages, but just noticed your comment on a Signpost article about how you've been editing articles longer than 99.999% of all of the editors. I couldn't help checking your contribution history out after that, and lo and behold! You got here the month before I did. I wonder how many of us have stuck around this long?

Cheers, — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

Sorry to hear things aren't to your satisfaction. I hope you can stick it out at least until the end of the year, since it's our decade anniversary coming up! Out of curiosity, who were the other two? It'd be nice to meet some other old farts veterans. — Hex (❝?!❞) 22:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just rediscovered that list today after leaving you the above comment. I see a few familiar names. Dominus, who coincidentally arrived the same month I did, I know from the Perl programming world. I know Evan from the real world, too. We met at WikiSym 2007. The majority of people there I don't recognize, though, and will take a while to browse through them. — Hex (❝?!❞) 01:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your nice words. I try to keep updating little by little. My main idea was just to update the lists of subdivisions of Ethiopia according to state of 2007 but I'll keep updating statistical information also. Hopefully I could finish it before the next census :) Vatse (talk) 23:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NNW have changed Ethiopia location map - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ethiopia_location_map.svg and hopefully the maps of Ethiopian regions would be changed soon. But I have no idea how the maps in infobox's of settlements would be changed. Could you please help me with it? Vatse (talk) 08:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Llywrch. Can you recommend any potential reviewers for peer review of the Josephus on Jesus article? You did a terrific job reviewing the GE article, which is now WP:GA thanks to your input, so I thought I would ask you for a short-list of names. This troubled article needs input from top-shelf reviewers to make it to WP:FA. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Llywrch. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 01:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Richard Burbage, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Marston and John Fletcher (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1637 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to John Mason

Lawn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wild rye

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Subhas Chandra Bose; Hawkeye on corps commanders; Nick-D on American special forces Op-ed: The Land on commemorating World War I

Hi. The article 'Irgalem' has a dead link that could not be repaired automatically. Can you help fix it?

Dead: http://130.238.24.99/library/resources/dossiers/local_history_of_ethiopia/xyz/ORTYIR.pdf

• You added this in November 2007.
• The bot checked The Wayback Machine and WebCite but couldn't find a suitable replacement.

This link is marked with {{Dead link}} in the article. Please take a look at that article and fix what you can. Thank you!

PS- you can opt-out of these notifications by adding {{Bots|deny=BlevintronBot}} to your user page or user talk page. BlevintronBot (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. - llywrch (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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) 09:25, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

<font=3> You're invited to participate in Wikipedia Takes Portland 2012, an annual event which occurs each September in Portland, Oregon as part of Wikipedia Takes America and Wiki Loves Monuments in the United States. Photographing sites in Portland listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) is the main focus of Wikipedia Takes Portland. This year the event will kick off at Saturday, September 22nd at noon at Pioneer Courthouse Square. Currently, there are no formal plans--this is simply an opportunity to meet fellow Wikipedians before trekking around PDX to photograph sites on the Register. Not interested in coming downtown? You can still upload your images as part of the international photo competition. Be sure to RSVP and share the results of your work HERE (number of images uploaded, links to galleries, successes, feedback, etc. Click here for more information about meetups in Portland! --Another Believer (Talk) 15:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

1785 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Siamese

January 20 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Siamese

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<font=3>WIKIPEDIA LOVES LIBRARIES: MULTNOMAH COUNTY EDIT-ATHON! You're invited to participate in Wikipedia Loves Libraries 2012, an edit-athon hosted by Multnomah County Library for the purpose of improving stubs relating to Multnomah County. The event will take place on Saturday, October 27, 2012 from 2:00-4:00pm at the Central Library in downtown Portland. You can view details about this Wiki Loves Libraries event here. Be sure to RSVP and share the results of your work HERE. Click here for more information about meetups in Portland! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:05, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Llywrch/Archive13,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Hex (❝?!❞) 18:40, 4 November 2012 (UTC).[reply]

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Vlaardingen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egmond (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to invite you to rejoin the Ethiopia WikiProject. I have made significant changes to the project page and completely redesigned the project. I have moved all members to an inactive list. Therefore, we need old members to comeback and reestablish their active roll in this project.

I would also encourage you to join one of the "Departments" of the project by adding you name to its members page. I have started with the outreach department myself but you are welcome to jump start any of the other 8 (9 total) departments available or join me. I would recommend the history department (WP:ETHH). And of course, thank you! For your many contributions to Ethiopia-related articles አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 08:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Cape Bon (468), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Candidus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help and opinion in making this move. I have changed the offending apostrophe as it is now the accepted form for the name of region. But there is still an extra comma. Check discussion below. አቤል ዳዊት (Janweh) (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

WIKIPEDIA EDIT-ATHON! You're invited to the upcoming Wikipedia edit-athon, scheduled for Saturday, February 9 from 2–5pm in Old Town. Sponsored by Wiki Strategies and Prichard Communications, the event will begin with an introduction to Wikipedia, followed by an edit-a-thon focused on Portland's food scene, all things that "Keep Portland Weird", and local startup businesses. Details and signup here!

Hope to see you there! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder about tomorrow's event -- thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday, March 9 - Women's History Month Edit-a-Thon at the University of Oregon - You are invited!

Come celebrate Women's History Month at the University of Oregon in Eugene, Oregon, on March 9! This event, facilitated by WikiWoman Sarah Stierch, is hosted by the Fembot, in collaboration with ASOU Women's Center, the Center for the Study of Women in Society, the School of Journalism and Communication, and the UO Libraries. Please bring your laptop and be prepared to edit about women and women's history! The event is March 9, from 1-4 PM, at the University of Oregon Library. You must RSVP here - see you there! SarahStierch (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you were involved in discussions at Talk:Egyptian chronology but nothing happened. A new editor thinks that maybe the articles on Egyptian chronology should actually mention the different chronologies and not just Rohl or Velikovsky, etc - what a bizarre idea! I've raised it at the wikiproject. But, I really know very very little about the issues. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Decimation (Roman army), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cohort (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Kingdom of Makuria for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You are invited to join Darius Dhlomo Drive, a project which aims to cleanup and resolve one of the oldest copyright investigations on the sire. We hope that you will join and help to clean what's left of the copyright violations. You are getting this invitation because you have helped out previously, and I am inviting you back to hopefully wrap this up. Wizardman 01:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samsun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theodore Laskaris (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, the Gospel of the Ebionites article is currently under review in WP:Featured_article_candidates/Gospel_of_the_Ebionites/archive1. You did the first peer review to get it promoted to GA. I would appreciate it if you could find some time in your busy life to re-review the article and comment on it for FAC. I'm concerned the nomination is going to fail due to a lack of reviewer participation. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your comments and completed your requests for changes; I hope they meet with your approval. Imo, the article is greatly improved as a result of a second peer review and the FAC process, irrespective of the outcome. Thanks for your insightful comments and the time you spent reviewing it. Ignocrates (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your comments and completed the last set of requested changes (I begged your indulgence on the last one). Btw, you skipped over points (4) and (5) from the first round of changes. You might want to respond to them for the sake of completeness. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 12:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was promoted to FA today. Thanks for the awesome review! I'm sure your thoroughness made a difference. Ignocrates (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo, I am interested in hydronymy as it looks the language of prehistoric Europe is reflected therein. I left a message on the wikiproject rivers talkpage, just looking for editors with similar interests to exchange information. I have discovered the so called old european hydronymy is not limited to Europe but has many correspondences in Iran, India and furhter away so I think this disproves the current scholarly etymological interpretations. Presently I am trying to research Bengal and Burma. Thanks for reading.Aldrasto11 (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	"WIKNIC" 2013! You're invited to the upcoming "Wiknic", scheduled for Saturday, June 22. In typical Wikipedia fashion, you can help decide the location. Details and signup here!

Hope you are able to attend! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Saint Timothy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Romans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, after this outburst of enthusiasm on the Gospel of the Ebionites talk page, I think there is a possibility the article may be headed to WP:FAR. Would you be willing to keep watch over the article, possibly with the help of oculi, and navigate the article through the shoals of FAR? I have decided to reopen the Ebionites 2 arbitration case, and I may be tied up with that for awhile. There is also a chance I won't be the one left standing after arbitration closes. Let me know. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A question has been raised about the reliability of Fred Lapham as a source here. Please provide any more information you may have on his bio there. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 23:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ignocrates indicated that he would contact you regarding this matter, and I note he did. I believe the above statement also rather clearly misstates the extent of the question raised by Keilana, regarding a matter which, regretably, Ignocrates has to date rarely if ever displayed any understanding of. The question is not only regarding reliability, but also weight as per WP:WEIGHT. I am going to assume, not having checked your history, that you are sufficiently acquainted with the recent developments in early Christianity to know that there are, at this point, a rather incredible number of articles relating to the topic in one way or another which are purely speculative, at least in part because, without any real changes in the subject matter itself, that is, pretty much, one of the few things that such journals can really do. This is fine, and no one objects to that. But, honestly, that also has to be taken into account in determining how much weight to give such matters in our articles here. Such questions as that, regardless of the rather prejudicial and I think poorly-thought through accusations of others, is one of the reasons I want to have some sort of guidelines regarding religion developed. The six discussions I lined to at the bottom of User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion were, to my eyes anyway, even if I did take a bit long in going over the other material, most of which seemed to me to be fairly straightforward application of existing policies and guidelines. I initially limited the discussion in the drafting stage at least in part because of how two editors with very strong and rather obvious opinions derailed the last attempts at guidelines. Those two, neither of whom I will name, did not involve anyone other than myself in the current discussion.

Also, I would, depending on the amount of time you have available for such a task, very sincerely welcome another editor reviewing the history of conduct of Ovadyah/Ignocrates for the purposes of them being able to provide evidence to the ArbCom, should the case be accepted. Also, I think it might be useful to perhaps look over the history of contributions and actions on the Ebionite webring, which although I have not myself checked, might be able to provide some additional information regarding some of the issues involved here.

Lastly, I would welcome on the article talk page your own judgment regarding whether, with the additional information and questions put forward, you believe that the article as it stands might be reasonably considered for removal from FA status. Sorry for throwing all of this at you personally, by the way, but it is useful to have competent, knowledgable editors who had not been previously involved able to review these matters. Regarding my own conduct, I have always said that if any admin wished to advise me that my conduct was unacceptable, and indicated I should not continue as an admin, I would revoke my own adminship, and I want to make it clear now that you would clearly be included in that group. John Carter (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fyi, John Carter opened a Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Gospel_of_the_Ebionites/archive1 as expected. As a reviewer for the first peer review and also FAC, your unique perspective would be greatly appreciated. Ignocrates (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be worth noting that Kebra Nagast and a few other articles, including Saint Peter, are all included as points to start discussion regarding matters of weight in various articles on the User:John Carter/Guidelines discussion page. Given the rather weak form of response, which I guess I could understand given the length of the beginning sections, the six articles linked to were included as specific indicators pointing out the problems we seem to have at present regarding the lack of clear identification as to how much, if any, weight to give various marginally notable or non-notable or very minor religious beliefs, or former beliefs, or, in the case of Scientology, apparently potentially actual religious beliefs of mystery religions which seem to engage in efforts to obfuscate or hide some of their religious beliefs. All of these topics are, in some way, probably encyclopedic, but at present we haven't figured out so far as I can tell any real guidelines for how to deal with them in main articles, or, if not in main articles, perhaps somewhere else, like spinout articles. If spinout articles, of course, then there are the questions as to whether they might have individual spinout in some particular cases (like, for instance, "Confirmation in the Roman Catholic Church", which seems to have rather different views of it than most others), and/or whether they should be lumped together in one "Confirmation variations in Christianity" article, or somewhere else. In none of the articles I included was I actually doing anything but trying to point out some of what seem to me to be weaknesses in our current guideline structure by pointing out specific examples of where the existing guidelines and policies seem to be less than clear. John Carter (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just as clarification, I probably would myself support more articles like Christ myth theory and maybe even the neo-deism, and other "variations on a theme" type subjects dealing with various pseudoscientific, political, and religious topics, if we could come up with some sort of clear guidelines for them. But, without any sort of such guidelines, we have problems. And, FWIW, there are problems of this type regarding even some of the major Christian groups. The Jehovah's Witnesses' religious education program, at this point, doesn't seem to have had enough independent sources on it to qualify as notable without SYNTH application, and isn't even mentioned in the only reference work I know of specifically dealing with the JWs. A lot of the more current religious groups, and this probably includes Scientology, Falun Gong, Raelians, the JWs, and a lot of the other somewhat controversial ones, get a lot of coverage of various sorts, but that coverage tends to deal with only a few aspects of the group. So, another questionn might be how to deal with the aspects of a religion which, like Sunday school/religious education, are par for the course for a lot of religions, and in most cases of pretty much unquestioned notability, but where the independent reliable sources on such topics of particular groups, like the JWs, may not in and of themselves have enough established notability to make a separate article of established notability, and may not for various reasons, like WEIGHT, arguably perhaps not even merit discussion in the other existing articles on the topics. Those sorts of questions exist with a lot of groups which receive attention for only certain aspects of their group. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]