User talk:Guinnog/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for your help!

Thanks for your help with the minor edits to Oil pastel. Feel free to contribute towards correcting my horrible spelling and grammer any day. :) Graxe 22:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice edits

Nice edits to Roma people. Cool! --Improv 15:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just a newbie here

Maybe you can help me

John

Guinnog 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Guinnog/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Punkmorten 08:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Glad I could help. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A slice of advice

Grammar, spelling and usage on this site does not use one convention. Edits to 'correct' American, Canadian, or Australian terms and usage will not win you friends. 70.51.176.184 01:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

• I am sure you are right, in fact I knew this already. What makes you think I require this (unsolicited) advice? Guinnog 07:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Botswana money

Hi! Most of the images seem fine to me. Regarding the Botswana notes I have no idea whether they are in the public domain, alas. They better be because I don't think they would qualify under fair use, as their use hardly pertains to "commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself". If my interpretations are correct. I'm not an expert :) Punkmorten 23:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I could imagine these images (which I scanned myself), being 'fair use' and/or 'commentary or criticism relating to the image of the currency itself', in relation to an article about the currency or even the economy of the country concerned. I'm no lawyer though, and have no idea what the precedents are on something like this. Guinnog 01:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo of Castro Valley

Hi Guinnog,

Nice photo of Castro Valley. It looks like Palomares Hills looking south toward Palomares Canyon. Is that correct? Did you take the picture? I thought it might be nice to give a more detailed location description in the caption. --imars 07:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice one

Re: Aerofoil

I'm glad that there are others out there who seem to agree with me...

While I accept Wikipædia's rule that there is no single "correct" form of English (as in, both British and American styles are accepted), it does irritate me to see American English used in international articles such as aerofoil, which have no particular national affilliation. Sure, an article about George W Bush should use American English - naturally, this does not need to be changed since there is no doubt about which country that article is affiliated with. But when it comes to articles with no "native country", so to say, I think that Commonwealth English should be used. There are, after all, more Commonwealth countries - and it is the preferred choice internationally when teaching English as a second language (although the American media influence pushes otherwise).

Anyway... I just had to get that off my chest and say that it is nice to see I am not alone. Eurosong 10:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Southern African languages

Hi there, could I be a pain and lure you into a discussion of styles for African language names? I take courage from the fact that you seek and destroy the pernicious "Botswanan"... Btw, I used to teach at Lotsane SSS, Palapye: where are you? JackyR 02:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Bantu. Yes, tricky one. Recently an editor removed "Bantu-speaking" from Great Zimbabwe, quoting exactly the reasons you give, although it was a hugely positive use. I left the change cos I couldn't decide. I'll have a good think about it - perhaps there is fudge where we can use it per academic/E African use, while acknowledging the offensiveness in SA.

Erm, what's PSS? (embarrassed) I left Palapye in 1995, just before the huge expansion. Lotsane was the only secondary school, although there was a VTC at the end of the village. How about updating my pathetic efforts (and uploading some of your wonderful pics: I noticed the John Mullan site - you?) at Palapye? JackyR 15:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and in case you're interested and haven't found all of these yet, check out:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks
• Portal:Africa
• Wikipedia:List of missing Africa topics
• Wikipedia:African Collaboration of the Fortnight

I'm pretty new here myself, and have had a lot of useful advice from a lovely Admin called Dvyost. He's knowledgeable, patient and tries to answer queries promptly. JackyR 15:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

BDF

Okay, done and dusted as best as I could. --Jcw69 19:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Celtic F.C.

Why are you removing players from the list of transfers?

Copyright of pictures from John Mullen's Pictures

I checked the copyright status on the segregated beach picture you uploaded, and it turns out that it probably can't be used on Wikipedia. Images licensed as "non-commercial use only" uploaded after May 19, 2005 are unfortunately elegible for speedy deletion. Hopefully we'll eventually be able to find acceptable replacements for the UN images that were recently deleted from apartheid. Alr 21:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My bad. Perhaps you could make it clearer that you are the copyright holder in the image page? Alr 21:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• Not at all. Thank you for looking out for my copyright holder's interest! I'll amend all the image pages I've done in the way you suggest. As I said, I'm a bit unclear on wikipedia image copyright categories. Can you direct me to a simple explanation? Thanks again Guinnog 21:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone has just deleted Image:DurbanSign1989.jpg by mistake, even after I removed the speedy tag. Could you re-upload it?

You might want to look at Wikipedia:Image use policy if you haven't already seen it. Even I have to say that the rules regarding images are a bit murky, and seem to be mostly unwritten. Alr 21:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• I will do. I've re uploaded the pic that was deleted and adjusted the tag on it and the other ones I've uploaded to reflect my intent meantime.

I also delinked the reference to the file in our conversation here. Added heading for clarity.

) Guinnog 22:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Celtic Transfers

Just be bold and implement your suggestion. It should stop the in/out/shake it all about with the transfers. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I may do. But it's pretty low on my list of priorities. If someone wants a 'Celtic future signings' page they can start it themselves! Guinnog 23:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Dessydes

My bad, thanks anyways. Dessydes

Image copyright and African issues

• Image copyright: I personally would not use an image that I was unsure about the copyright although I also put up grey area images when I first started. The image copyright issues on wikipedia have become stricter since then even when claiming fair use. Unless you can find something on any official Botswana government website that states free use of images from the website or all Botswana government websites then it is hands off. The Botswana government probably won’t mind using their images in promoting Botswana but for example if someone finds the image and believing it is not copyrighted may use it in a publication, thereby breeching the copyright. So I would say when in doubt rather be on the safe side.

• Spelling: Yes the former British Empire or commonwealth countries all use the British standard of spelling. I believe that articles connected to these countries should rather use the British standard than the American. I normally change them when I find them although I would not start a revert war on a small issue such as this.

• Racial/racialist terms: Only in South Africa has the word Bantu being replaced with Blacks but in other African countries it is still used as the official word for the Bantu people. So just depends on how the word is used in the article.

All I need is for you to stand by your heart and Be Bold -- Jcw69 21:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I did answer the last question, anyway if the entry is blatant racialism then change straight away. As for the word Bantu, you need to read it in context and then make the call. Most times you can change the word to a more PC one, and if there is comeback take it into the discussion page. I tend to use the discussion page to voice uncertainty and if there is a violent response then in most cases it is racist. --Jcw69 07:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for correcting the superpower article.--Nixer 14:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Pride over prejudice

reference here if you want to add it back in. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oops, that was supposed to go to the article talk page. Must have clicked the wrong link. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Russian and US nuclear arsenal.

Just so you know, I'm not a Russophile, I'm only trying to ensure that the article tells the whole story. Jombo 01:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hi! I think you should try User talk:69.218.202.201 before I act. Punkmorten 21:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert Riddell

Ok. I took it down so you can put the temp file back up. Thanks for all the help on this from a (nearly) noobie. Anabanana459 01:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• I've replaced the copyvio notice with your beginning of the Robert Riddell article on the main page. We can delete the temp file now, can't we? Thanks for all the help. Anabanana459 05:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Holy Willie

OK. I won't insist you transfer the text of Holy Willie's Prayer to Wikisource providing that you put links in Wikisource back to the text here. -- RHaworth 10:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Put a copy on Wsource instead as eventually I plan to add a commentary as I've done with Tam O'Shanter. Hope you agree. Thanks for taking an interest and for your help. Guinnog 16:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Titanic

I responded on the RMS Titanic's talk page. MechBrowman 17:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Guinnog, I added some details about the actual salvor-in-possession, about the exact date of the sentence and about rusticle. You took it all out. Why? It's all correct. Are you censoring facts that you had not found out? toscanaman 12:29, 31 January 2006 (CET)

you replied to me: I think you are mistaken about me taking out info. Best wishes. Guinnog 20:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably you reverted some other editing and inadvertedly deleted my additions. I found them all eliminated after one of your editing sessions.--Toscanaman 11:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wasp Factory

I assume you want my advice in rewriting the article to be NPOV, yes? -- Jbamb 05:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I just took it off... enjoy! -- Jbamb 16:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Main Page article

Has the spelling error been fixed? I see no problem with it.--Adam ^(talk) 20:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't mis-use "vandalism"

On this edit [1] on Provisional Irish Republican Army, you used the edit summary "Revert vandalism". The edit you reverted appears to have been made in good faith, and it is unfair to accuse the user of vandalism. Please don't misuse "vandalism" in edit summaries. Thanks. --Ryano 10:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can call that vandalism if you wish, not knowing much about the recent edit history I can't comment. However in reverting back to a version before your anonymous adversary's last edit, you also reverted several edits made in good faith by other users, which is why I don't think the edit summary was appropriate. --Ryano 22:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Lazy Gun

If Iain Banks has not used the Lazy Gun in any of his other works, I think it is unnecessary to create a seperate article about it. I also wonder why an elaborate description of this device is truly necessary to make the article encyclopedic. JFW | T@lk 21:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern. Do you think this information belongs in an encyclopedia at all? Do we need to describe all magical devices used in science fiction novels? Being rather strict with notability I would personally not have included this, but you may disagree with that. Are there other devices in AAdB apart from the Lazy Gun that would need to be described to make the content more balanced? JFW | T@lk 02:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I have no real objection to individual articles, apart from the fact that when the Lazy Gun article was originally created, I felt the content could well be merged by the only book in which this device appears. JFW | T@lk 19:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Flags and emblems

May I assume that you reverted my deletion of flags and emblems from the Northern Ireland article because we were both adding to Discussion at the same time and so you didn't have a chance to read my comparison with North East England? --Red King 00:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of List of countries with nuclear weapons

Due to the repetitive vandalism of List of countries with nuclear weapons, I'm suggesting it goes under Semi-protection and fast. What are your thoughts? CG 11:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Alleged Humanist

Seems hard to believe a "humanist" would be against revealing the sordid, sectarian and offensive births, histories and realities (even to the current day) of Edinburgh Hibernian F.C., Glasgow Celtic F.C., and Dundee Hibernian F.C. I guess, just like in Northern Ireland, you're a Catholic humanist or a Protestant humanist. 67.101.28.220 23:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured Picture

A picture you took, Image:DurbanSign1989.jpg, has just become a Featured Picture! Congratulations, and thanks for uploading it for us. Raven4x4x 04:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

External links

Hi, Mel Etitis had already drawn my atention to these paragraphs, two comments up, and I am leaving singletons alone - there are enough misdescribed plurals(*). I would certainly not take offence at your changing back those in the Ian Banks canon where appropriate. I am afraid I have only read a few Iain Banks books (though almost all Iain M Banks) so I can't help much with that, but will do what I can. Rich Farmbrough. 21:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

(*) Although apparently I'm editing them too fast, and look like a robot... so now I'm waiting for a robot flag on a secondary account.

Look good to me. On sublimation, ISTR that some entities "desublimed". Rich Farmbrough. 23:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally I've changed the source for Lazy gun - see talk:Lazy Gun

Thanks

I have a lot of the Banks articles on my watchlist and keep seeing your name crop up. Thanks for the hard work you're putting in. --Alf ^melmac 21:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

That's very kind of you to say. I'm having fun, but please feel free to dive in if you think I'm going over the top. Guinnog 21:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

German B-17's

About your comment: I have seen in a WWII Mag a Ad for a book that is about a german squadron specializing in inflitration of B-17 groups, rough source , but im a n00blet user Demuregoat 21:06 08 March 2006(UTC)

Thanks

For your well-thought-out copyedits to Space Shuttle program. Nice improvements. Joema 17:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Guinnog 17:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Beagle2.jpg

Hi. I contacted the curator of the NSSDC master catalog site to inquire the copyright status of that image. Let's see what we get as an answer. Awolf002 13:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If this becomes an international spat, at least we'll be mentioned in the Signpost :-)) Awolf002 13:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I received an email from NSSDC that they are looking into the copyright status of the image as we speak. Let's see what the result will be. Awolf002 12:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ivor Cutler

Thanks for your tidying up on this article, and apologies for trampling over your earlier edits to it. I didn't expect anyone to start editing it while I was working on it, so foolishly neglected to apply the {{inuse}} tag. I'll not do that again. I had to leave it in a bit of a hurry too, I'm afraid, but at least it's starting to look better now. Flowerparty■ 03:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I agree it is looking better now. Guinnog 12:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for starting those album articles too. You keep changing songwriting credits for Phyllis King into wikilinks, for some reason. WP:ALBUM has them the other way round, and the MoS suggests things should only be linked on their first occurence in the text, so I'm going to revert you. Hope you don't mind. Flowerparty■ 20:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

US in Iraq, Superpowers article

Hello. I'm rather interested in the point that you are trying to make here in respect of the military power of the US. What I am wondering is whether you mean this as a criticism of the idea of US military hegemony? The nature of insurgent conflict is such that even the strongest army will have a difficult time (eg Russia in Afghanistan, UK in Malaya, US in Vietnam). However on a global scale US military power is undeniable, the Iraq conflict is relatively localised. I'm not sure that it's a matter of balance to mention the insurgency. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

Xdamr 17:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. You're quite right, the last thing we want is for the article to turn into some sort of US love-fest; things like debt are quite important. I just wondered at the Iraq insurgency example, insurgencies are difficult to deal with, just the nature of the beast. All armies, whether good or bad, have difficulties in dealing with such a situation - I don't think that it is necessarily a US specific point. However taken in a wider context - that a technologically advanced military can still be harassed by a few men with rifles, I accept the point has validity (something of a David and Goliath type situation I suppose).

Xdamr 23:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Links removal

Hi! I saw that you removed the links at Prades, and you noted that it was "per wiki policy". Which policy are you referring to? Thanks. olivier 09:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Delinking Dates.

Good day,

You recently delinked some years present in the Quality control article, and I was just wondering if you could explain when it is appropriate to link dates.

Cheers. Folajimi 14:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please use my talk page if you do need to contact me in the future, NOT my user page. Folajimi^(talk)

Rangers F.C.

Might be better just to revert it. I didn't realise it was the same idiot that I blocked for a 3RR violation on Celtic F.C.. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels

Hi thank you for joining the WikiProject. There is still plenty of scope for influencing things and making your contribution count. We are about establishing standards for Novel based articles and writing articles that meet our own and others high standards, and to improve Wikipedia's diet of articles on Fiction books, otherwise called Novels. Could I encourage you to use the userbox {{User WikiProject Novels}} which will add you to the participants category. If you have any questions, do ask. Please be very welcome. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)} 13:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Superpower

Sorry for the use of the word vandalism if it offended you. But seeing as those weren't your edits, I don't see why you seem to have got a bit edgy on it. I think we all agree that the United States is a mile ahead of the rest. The other nations simply don't have that status, you don't need to reference something as obvious as that. Everyone says, future power India, future power China, not China and India are ready to sit at the same level as the United States. Nobleeagle (Talk) 06:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hello Guinnog,

My name is Fernanda Viégas and I have been studying Wikipedia for a while now (you can see a paper I published on the subject here). I would like to ask you a few questions about your activities as a Wikipedia image creator. I am fascinated by the pictorial side of Wikipedia and it would be great to hear about this community from one of its members. Would you be available to participate an email survey this week? Thanks, — Fernanda 03:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | talk

How dare you

How dare you accuse me of vandalism or suggest that my editing would consitute vandalism. I am serious Wikipedia contributor with good intentions. It is absolutely no form of argument to equate the opposing viewpoint to yours as vandalism, and to suggest that is flabbergastingly arrogant. Vandals are people that come here and deliberately spoil articles. I am not a vandal. I demand an apology forthwith. Furthermore, I note from your contributions that you are not active in the empire/imperialism space - whereas I am. I suggest you stick to what you know and don't spoil the broth. Gsd2000 13:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply. You quoted the definition of vandalism as "any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia", and then suggested that "repeatedly removing content without seeking consensus comes into this definition in my opinion." Well, I can use the same argument against you. You are repeatedly adding content that I believe should not be there without seeking a consensus that reduces the quality of the encyclopaedia. Furthermore, you are doing so not having contributed seriously to the discussion. If anything, you are far closer to vandalism than me, because I have spent a fair amount of time explaining my reasons. You have not. Lets just please leave vandalism out of this, because neither of us are vandals here. Serious debate involves citing evidence and making arguments. You have done neither. Gsd2000 14:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you get off your high horse and read the very page (Vandalism) you quoted at me. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." It's fair enough to accuse my edits of being misguided, or ill-considered (I would of course disagree), but because they were in good-faith (a belief, also espoused by others on the talk page, that the information was irrelevant and misleading) it ain't vandalism. Gsd2000 16:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised that you castigate me for my tone when this all began by your unwarranted labelling of my edits as vandalism, and made worse by your rather duplicitous semi-apology in private on my talk page, with a simultaneous repeat of your accusation in public on the British Empire talk page. Vandalism is a serious issue on Wikipedia and I have lost count of the number of time I have reverted true vandalism. I do have strong opinions that I sincerely believe to be justified based on my education and reading, but am not a vandal. Your accusations were defamatory, and instead of retracting your accusation you repeated it, so I had every right to get angry. Gsd2000 23:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I just read your post on my talk page. OK, lets just leave this discussion and get onto the more important point of the article at hand. I will tone down my language, I do get too easily ruffled, but please do think twice before labelling editors vandals. Gsd2000 23:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Falklands and British Empire

Re your readdition of "In one of the few major naval battles so far to have occurred after the end of World War II, Britain was able to secure the Falklands, at the cost of 1000 deaths." I'm not trying to own this paragraph or anything, but I really do think this is somewhat irrelevant. The fact that this was one of the few major naval battles after WW2 is not relevant to the British Empire, and nor is the number of deaths. This is relevant to an article on the Falklands War, and that is where it should be. Don't you think? You have to draw the line somewhere about what goes into an article - that's the job of editors. I really think that these details are superfluous. There were far more significant wars in this article where such information is not provided. I would like to remove this sentence, but given our conversation above I thought it more polite to check with you first. Gsd2000 01:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Re your interest in war - that's very admirable but if everyone added information about their own pet interests to articles then they would rapidly spiral out of control. Military history is an interesting topic in its own right, but in terms of empire, it is not so much the military details of the war that is important but their causes and effects. For example, WW2 demonstrated that the British Empire in the east was essentially indefensible by Britain alone, and that Britain's white dominions had to look to the US for defence rather than the mother country. The details of how the Japanese took Singapore and Hong Kong is too low-level in a high-level discussion of the British Empire. For if you want to bring in military details, then what of how science shaped empire, e.g. in the laying of telegraphic cables, or how disease shaped its population movements? Gsd2000 01:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I do think it's fair to mention war without a brief summary as long as the reader can click on the link to see the details of the war, otherwise every mention of that war in the encyclopaedia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere/Falklands_War&limit=500&from=0 would need the same summary. That's missing the beauty of an encyclopaedia - especially so an online one where all it takes is a click to read more - and risking duplication and inconsistency. There are some occasions where one might want to write a summary (e.g. say an article on British wars) with a "see main article" tag, but most of the time when military aspects are not the main point of the article, a hyperlink will suffice. Gsd2000 01:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on Jooler's talk page

Please, Guinnog, do not lecture me on manners, having publicly labelled me a vandal! Gsd2000 16:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Accusing contributors with whom you disagree of vandalism for reverting your reverts, claiming consensus when there is none (it was 3:4), getting annoyed because someone with an opposing view makes a request for comment to widen the debate after an extensive debate amongst a limited set of individuals. Before you lecture others, ask yourself - are these the actions of a "good" wikipedian? I agree I should probably take a walk around the block before posting sometimes, but still, it's rather galling having you tell me off given your own actions. Gsd2000 17:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your reply. I think we should leave this conversation there. Gsd2000 02:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Center of gravity

Thanks for cleaning up Center of gravity, but if you were planning any further copyedits, you might want to save your effort! The article is pretty much doomed for content reasons, and I will redirect it to Center of mass within a few days, after the latter article explains the situation. Cheers, Melchoir 00:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Original Research

I must say, I find it highly ironic that you are claiming OR (in your edit comment - "Nuclear missile test? sounds like OR to me") for a fact in the very piece of research cited to disprove my claims of OR: http://www.sages.unimelb.edu.au/staff/pdf/Rockall.pdf. Despite participating in a debate relating to OR and someone coming up with this source in the talk page debate to prove it was not OR, you must not have even opened it and read the abstract on the first page: "Rockall was annexed in September 1955 because it was situated within radio-electrical range of a test site for Britain’s first nuclear missile, the American-made ‘Corporal’.", for if you had, you would have cited that if you needed to prove this to yourself. I do not mean this to be antagonistic or arrogant in anyway, but how can I take you seriously as an editor if you are not even prepared to read the very sources that are being cited to settle the debate that you had such strong opinions on? Just because Wikipedia is mainly contributed to by amateurs does not mean that lower academic standards are justified. Gsd2000 11:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Replied on article's talk page. Guinnog 19:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Guinnog, I view your reverts of my rewording highly provocative, so soon after I made them, and given our frosty relations. Immediately reverting my edits just because you have a personal disagreement with me is not on. Gsd2000 23:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW I include myself in the category of "amateur" as I did not continue my history after my undergraduate degree, though I like to think of myself as an informed amateur. There is no insult embedded in the term "amateur", there is no need to get defensive about it, and I am happy to see that you are also informed. Gsd2000 23:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just seen your "don't take this personally" sentence on the talk page. Sure, I won't. I incorrectly assumed it to be a personal vendetta(!) and I apologise for that. Gsd2000 23:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hi Guinnog - what's your trick for image copyrights for coats of arms? Cheers... Gsd2000 00:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer - I appreciate it. I'm going to try to learn how to do it myself! :) Gsd2000 22:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OR?

Hey I noticed you placed the OR tag on the potential super power articles. I was wondering if you could supply an explanation on the talk page. Thanks. Falphin 22:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Same here, I am removing it from Power in international relations at least. You need to always justify addition of tags. Thanks. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks

cheers for adding those pics on the moffat page, is everything else ok? 81.179.89.129 09:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC) oops sorry i wasnt signed in... DjDrAkiraGonzo 10:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

South African Timelines

Help, they want to vote off the Timeline of South African history from wikipedia. Please vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of South African history. Thank you --Jcw69 20:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote, the nomination for deletion has been withdrawn. --Jcw69 12:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Botswanan culture

I too was about to ask for this category to be renamed then checked the talk page and found you agreed. However: it would be inappropriate to move it to "Culture of Botswana", since cultural categories are formatted as "Fooian culture" rather than "Culture of Fooland" unless there is a specific reason not to (e.g. "Dominican culture" might refer to two different countries so is unused). I was going to suggest "Batswanan culture" (consistent with the U.S. State Department handbook) but wasn't 100% convinced (I'd rather have something country-specific than ethnically-specific; much of a muchness with "Culture of Botswana") so decided to check the Oxford English Dictionary first. Surprisingly, they list "Botswanan" as the main adjective for the country. It seems that "Botswanan" may be a valid but seldom unused word. I can't think of an alternative adjective that specifically refers to the entire country of Botswana and that country alone... so while I sympathise with your "war against Botswanan" (until checking the OED I honestly believed it to be an ill-informed nonsense word) I guess I am starting to warm to it. If you disagree enough to want to take a rename request further, then you can follow the instructions on WP:CFD. Happy wikying! TheGrappler 15:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

British Airways Flight 5390 recat

I suspect that the 'Disaster' categories are used generically to include incidents as well. It is not optimal in terms of intuity, but I say that it is relevant to keep the cats. The alternative is to create new cats for incidents. After all, it is not a Category:Airliner crashes caused by mechanical failure either. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 10:15, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Driving on the left or right

I noticed you changed it back to using specific numbers rather than approximations - would you mind adding a footnote and citation if we have an exact figure? I'd changed it because using exact figures with no inline reference is poor form. (If none available, having an unsourced generalization isn't much better, but it would avoid looking like we plagiarized or made the numbers up.) Thanks! --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 22:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Flashman pages

Hey, I just wanted to say a belated nice job on all the articles you created. I was also curious about the book covers - are they from British editions? I like them better than the covers of my paperbacks. --Joelmills 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree that a slow, thorough job is the best way to go on these articles. "Slow", unfortunately, will be the operative word, because I have to do a quick reread of each one before adding to the article. One other section I would like to add to each article is a brief summary of the historical actions, upon which the novel is based. Also, I would like to find some critical reviews, but finding those online for the older books is next to impossible. --Joelmills 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:Comment

I don't compromise if it means policy is to be violated.--MONGO 19:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Petty apartheid

Interesting image on your user page "Petty apartheid". So, now that South Africa is a flourishing democracy, do you now go to that beach often?

I'd love to, but it is rather far from where I now live!Guinnog 07:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Would you recommend this beach as a good place to relax with a family. I am planning a trip to South Africa from Denmark.

Durban had many good beaches in 1989 when I was last there, and I'm sure still has. I am not an expert though. It was a lovely city and I envy you your chance to go and see SA free of apartheid. Have a good time! Guinnog 23:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Delinking dates

Hi, thanks for the positive feedback about delinking dates. You may be interested in: User:Bobblewik/monobook.js/dates.js

Just after your comment, Ambi wrote I've rollbacked some now and will do the rest when I'm not running late for a job interview. I hope that you can keep an eye on us both. She happens to have administrative powers (rollback, block) and is prepared to use them. Thanks. bobblewik 18:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

RE Winston Churchill

How dare you delete my edit which deleted unsourced and uncited assertions of, amongst other things, genocide against Winston Churchill. Since Adolf Hitler's wikipage has been immaculately censored by Catholic apologists and censors, I think Winston Churchill's wikipage deserves, at least, to be comprised of factual, sourced info. That you think otherwise is a sad commentary on this Internet "encyclopedia", where anyone with a grudge can write whatever they want w/o opposition. 216.194.2.153 16:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I know, it just seems that my sole purpose in life is to update that damn counter. It gets mildly repetitive ;) While I'm here

Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and many feel they are also contagious! Spread the WikiLove by smiling to two other people, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:Hcs}} to their talk pages. Happy editing! Note: the template won't work properly without the subst.

Image Tagging for Image:CarolAnnDuffy.png

Thanks for uploading Image:CarolAnnDuffy.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Your ER comments

Thanks for your feedback on my editor review page. I've left my response there. dewet|✉ 07:13, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocking for disruption, Passionate POV?

If adding a link to a website violates policy, then we don't add it. If people are disruptive on talk pages, then a block is justified. My POV, as you wish to call it, is based on the proven evidence, not on nonsense that is based on opinions or junk science that misinformed individuals have gathered from unscientific websites, whose sole or certainly secondary purpose is to make a profit. I don't think I can clarify it more clearly than that. There isn't much room for dialogue if folks keep trying to force policy violating websites into the articles.--MONGO 00:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? There is no threat...if people are disruptive on talk pages, then a block is justified...read the blocking policy WP:BLOCK...if I do the block, it would depend of the serverity of the cause that made me do the block...if rather unjustified, then others would frown on it, if the person is being disruptive and not adding anything of merit to the article and other attempts to get them to behave fail, then a block is justified. Also, I don't need you to repost things on my talk page as I know what I have typed.--MONGO 06:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I will not assume any good faith when POV pushers try to add nonsense to the articles. Hope that clarifies this. Thanks.--MONGO 10:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My edits aren't POV if they are backed by the research of notable sources and not by websites under the control of a few webamsters armed only with their opinion.--MONGO 20:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Hi Guinnog/Archive 1,

Thank you for supporting my RFA! Unfortunately it did not succeed mainly because most opposers wanted me to spend more time on Wikipedia. Thank you for your faith in me & looking forward to your continued support in the future.

Cheers

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 09:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello and questions with India and China

Dear Guinnog,

We had some discussions in the past concerning the article superpower, mainly on the issues of national debt and Iraq. However, I think your position concerning India and China is right. People there are collecting facts and drawing a conclusion from facts. leading those article to crystal balling and original research. How could we call the attention of editors for such things? RegardsCloretti2 14:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank you, Guinnog, for voting in my RFA. It closed with a final result of 75/1/0. Now that I am an administrator here, I will continue to improve this encyclopedia, using my new tools to revert vandalism, block persistent vandals, protect pages that have been vandalized intensively, and close AFD discussions. Any questions? Please contact me by adding a new section on my talk page. Again, thanks to all of you who participated!!! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Highway's RfA

Welcome to VandalProof!

Hi Guinnog/Archive 1, thank you for your interest in VandalProof. I am happy to announce that you are now one of our authorized users, so if you haven't already simply download VandalProof from our main page, install and you're all set!

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof

Please join the VandalProof user category by adding either: {{User VandalProof}} (this also places the user box attached) or, [[Category:Wikipedians using VandalProof|{{PAGENAME}}]] to your user page.

If you have any problems please feel free to contact me or post a message on VandalProof's talk page. Welcome to our team! - Prodego ^talk 18:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup tag on PRC as emerging superpwr.

Hello. Please tell us what you think is bad and I will help fix it. Thanks. Heilme 18:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

2006 World Cup Sex Crime

I really think we should mention that the crimes involved concern sex so it should be in the title so hat readers won't be lookibng for say: gambling... unless of course we can add otter crimes. thx . John wesley 19:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:IanRankin.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:IanRankin.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Rosslyn Chapel

I just wanted to thank you for your time on cleaning the Rosslyn Chapel article. I'm a spelling gnome myself. =) --mboverload@ 09:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

conspiracy

Hi there - thanks for your work on the moon hoax! The trouble with the term 'conspiracy theory' is that it is essentially POV. It has no essential meaning other than to discredit someone elses view. I am sure you will want to point out that it is an npov term to discribe a theory about a conspiracy, but this is simply not the case. You never hear prosecutors in conspiracy cases talking about their conspiracy theory. The term is used only by one side in the moon hoax debate, which should give us cause for pause... For great justice. 15:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• The accusation is that NASA and many others have conspired to mislead the public. If that's not a conspiracy theory, I don't know what is. Wahkeenah 17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks for your comments. I thought it best to post it on both pages. I'm not intentionally spying on either of you though. I find the moon hoax think interesting as a social phenomenon. When I hear these kids talk seriously about why it "couldn't have" happened, I wonder what's going on in our public schools today. I lived through that era and had plenty of doubts about stuff the government was doing, but there was nothing phony about the space program. If anything, the article is too kind to them. I've tried to neutralize (or "neuter") the article, but it's not easy, with everyone weighing into it all the time. It has been worse, though. Wahkeenah 17:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
• I used to make semi-veiled editorial comments within the article. I reformed, and now I do those within the talk page, which is where it belongs. I had an epiphany that maybe I could actually improve the article by dumbing-down the editorializing. I was born in Oregon, but now live in the midwest. Oregon is my vacation spot. I reckon I could have chosen "Multnomah" as a user name, but "Wahkeenah" was a bit less obvious and thus seemed better. Wahkeenah 18:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that your point of view is that the accusations are wrong, but I hope that you can see that Wikipedia needs to write from a neutral point of view. The term 'conspiracy theory' is a term of abuse, used solely to denegrate someones position. It has no meaning independent of 'I don't believe it'. For great justice. 18:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Rebus

Thanks for your message. The date thing is fine - thinking about it, how often to people search for 2000!. Character pages - a big job, but always happy to help. I noticed you changed the John Hannah thing, not sure how long it has been a disambig page, I'm sure when we first started all this I would have checked, but well spotted. Keep up the good work. Mdcollins1984 23:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Seattle page

Thanks for imposing your date preference upon the Seattle page. I've reverted your de-wikifying of the dates and reference you to this quote from WP:DATE:

There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader. Some advocate linking to a more specific article about that year, for example [[2006 in sports|2006]].

Please note the use of some in relation to the linking of years in month. Next time you want to make a "major" change to an article you've never edited before, verify the regular editors for that page are in agreement with the change. --Bobblehead 03:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I don't disagree with you on the wikifying of dates and its overuse on the Seattle page. Just noticed the regulars tend to go through and wikify if they are not already. --Bobblehead 03:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed-wing aircraft

Thanks for your comments, Guinnog... both the one you just left and the one from before! Yes, I do wish that these Americans would recognise Wikipedia as an international site, and that just because there are more of them than there are British people, that doesn't mean they own the internet. I always strive to make things as internationally fair as possible. What's AWB? Something Something Bot? EuroSong 15:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I see our paths cross once again, on the same topic! Tonight I took it upon myself to start replacing "airplane" with "aircraft", by searching the site - and started doing it.. only to come across pages which had recently been edited by you, with the same purpose :) I see your recent contributions are quite commendable. Next step for me is to get the AWB myself... I have applied for approval. Maybe we can get some more people doing this sort of thing - or even start a WikiProject, where we try to internationalise the site as much as possible. EuroSong 00:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought you'd start with fixing "airplane" first, before moving on to "aeroplane" :) How big is the job here? How long will it take with the AWB? I won't try to do more manually tonight: it's too time-consuming. Next up is to change "math" to "arithmetic" or something similar.. hehe EuroSong 00:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:History of South Africa under Apartheid (or whatever the title is...)

Good point you made to Volksgeist. Unfortunately when I initially responded to his question I didn't realise it was him... I get the feeling that he's not South African; people shouldn't have such strong opinions on issues they know zilch about. Just ignore him. You in Scotland? My old English teacher, Mrs Emslie, moved there - do you know her? Only kidding... Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 17:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

E, ke a se itse Setswana (you forgot the object concord). The language is one of the Sesotho languages, like my native Sesotho (I'm the reason why the article is so verbose). I live in Southern Gauteng. Yes, I didn't follow my own advice about ignoring that loonie, but I just couldn't resist! Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Stealth Bombers

Hi, I decided to ask you this question because your comment on the aforementioned's talk page. I heard a rumour that stealth bombers drip an organic substance. Is this true? Black-Velvet 12:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:JohnERaker.png

Thanks for uploading Image:JohnERaker.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

re: Joke

No bother! I know you were. Don't worry about it, it's not your fault. Snoutwood (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

"It's better to act and be wrong than wait and do nothing" — Some famous person. Or something like that. Snoutwood (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! That's what I think, anyways. Snoutwood (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Fenian

I noticed that you made quite substantial changes to this article and in fact labelled your edits with this description - "lose the unverifiable hate speech. everything here needs to be verifiable and NPOV, or else it will be removed per wiki policy)", However it felt to me that your own point of view may be slipping into the article. For example you state that only "some loyalists maintain it does not refer to Catholics in general", surely there are others who have this viewpoint who do not label themselves as a loyalist. You change Paul Lambert from being a Protestant to non-Catholic. You also change it so that it now reads that Celtic fans merely support Irish Nationalism and are victimised for their beliefs, the article prior to your edits gave the indication that there was vocal support for terrorism from Celtic supporters. --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 03:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, I want to see a factual, fair and balanced article. I do not know why you felt it necessary to add "with references" in bold text to your message. I had added one reference already. I am not keen on your use of the word loyalist, as many people who use the word would not refer to themselves as loyalists, maybe this could be expanded to say loyalists and others. You claim that it is only Rangers supporters who use the term of abuse but I have heard it from supporters of many teams, it is obviously difficult to give references for this type of information but I think most people from Scotland would be aware that fans of other teams use the term too. Hearts fans are known to use word as a term of abuse against Hibs fans and Celtic fans, but I have heard fans of others use it. Another aspect that should be looked at is some Celtic supporters refer to themselves as fenians, in fact I believe some Celtic supporters sing a song called "Bold Fenian Men". If you were to register for a webforum for Celtic fans with a username such as "Jim_The_Fenian", not a sole would be offended, it only seems to be outsiders using the term that is offensive. I have heard the argument that it is like black men in America who refer to themselves as niggers, or could it be that the Celtic fan who labels himself a fenian identifies with Irish republicanism rather than as an ironic self-derogatory attitude towards their own religion? --Roy Biv ( talk • contribs ) 01:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from Samir

Dear Guinnog, thanks so much for your support during my recent successful request for adminship. I really appreciate it, my friend. Take care -- Samir धर्म 07:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter June 2006

Here is a new initiative for our project. You are recieving this as you have at some point signed up as a "member" of the project. Have a look at the newsletter via the link and see what you think. The June 2006 issue of the Novels 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. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Iain Banks template

Hey Guinnog. Please take a look at my proposals for "new" Iain Banks templates at Template talk:Iain Banks and Template talk:Iain M Banks. --Fred Bradstadt 16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please

Please Guinnog will you put back the list of airports the a380 is cappable of flying in? I think it's important. JJ 04:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:FlagofBophuthatswana.png

Thanks for uploading Image:FlagofBophuthatswana.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

redirects

Please refrain from batch-bypassing redirects that aren't broken. Not only is it a pointless edit, but it ignores the possibility that a redirect might eventually become a separate article. — Jul. 2, '06 [19:40] <freak|talk>

Piping links makes the source text of pages more difficult to read/edit. What sane person writes "Jack was given a toy [[Space Shuttle program|space shuttle]] for his sixth birthday.", for example. We have a physical object redirecting to an abstract project, they are intimately related, but are not so interchangeable that they should be belt-fed into AWB. Redirects that should be bypassed include the following:

1. Those which refer to the same thing, but exist to accommodate a POV, even if it's a popular one e.g. September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
2. Redirects from misspellings or typographical reductions, e.g. Athiesm, Pokemon

Others should generally be left alone, as long as they are don't reflect some inaccuracy. If you want to "avoid" a bunch of redirects, here's a gold mine for you: Category:Redirects from misspellings, Category:Redirects from title without diacritics. — Jul. 2, '06 [19:59] <freak|talk>

Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. — Jul. 2, '06 [20:09] <freak|talk>

On the other hand rephrasing a paragraph so that the non-redirect title appears naturally in the sentence... [2]... there's nothing wrong with that, in fact I encourage it if it improves the quality of the prose. But generally if you can avoid piping a link (unless it's a proper disambiguation such as like [[Foo (film)|Foo]]) and there's nothing incorrect about the redirect, then it's (generally) better to keep the redirect, so people know what they are clicking on. — Jul. 2, '06 [20:30] <freak|talk>

Fair use rationale for Image:PeterSchmeichel.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PeterSchmeichel.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Concordefire01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Concordefire01.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

2006 FIFA World Cup controversies

Hi Guinnog! Thanks for your recent interest in the AfD of the 2006 World Cup controversies article. Your input is most appreciated. Since the AfD is now closed and the World Cup almost over, I'd like to encourage you to put some input into the improvement of this article, either by improving where you think you can, or by suggesting changes on the talk page. Kind regards, MyNameIsNotBob 03:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks for your work on this page, especially since some of the errors were mine. Ytny 23:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Novels WikiProject Newsletter July 2006

Here is the new edition of our monthly newsletter. The July 2006 issue of the Novels 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. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning to User:CayitAgain

I moved the warning you put on the user's page to their talk pge, where it now sits beside mine from an hour or so before. --Guinnog 17:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a careless error on my part. - Runch 18:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)