User talk:Drumpler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hi, Drumpler, Welcome to Wikipedia!


[edit]

Here are some tasks you can do:

I hope you like this place--I sure do--and want to stay. If you need help on how to title new articles check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and The FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or The Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on My User talk Page.

Additional Tips:

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

  • If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
  • If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • You may want to add yourself to the New User Log
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

--Leo44 (talk) 13:21, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon

Thank you for contacting me. I do, of course, agree with you, that the group's leader is certainly a fairly biased source of information, just as a former member such as yourself would be. I haven't had much time to consider the comments made on the talk page since my own, however, so I'm not yet sure where I weigh in on the particulars of the issue. I will look into it, and add my opinion on the matter as soon as I have the time, since I am the person who originally raised the question of original research. Dan0 00 04:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation request

Hi just wanted to let you know, I translated the headlines in this article per your request. Cheers! --Jnpet 09:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! My very first award! Cheers! --Jnpet 01:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shalom

Hello, my name is Alastair and I am a postgrad theological student at a Presbyterian College in Australia. I am just making a note here of my appreciation of Drumpler letting me know that criticism of my edits at God and gender#Christianity is from people who have previously attempted to influence text via making comments from a number of accounts.

I am not surprised. In fact, other clues had made me think this was the case. It may be that help will be needed, though at this stage I feel OK. I did the right things. When they put text into the article that seemed wrong to me, I asked for sources. When they provided sources I checked them. The best source was James Trimm, so I decided to Google him. It would appear he is an academic opportunist. Bought a PhD from a diploma mill, paid to have his work published by a sympathetic publisher and seeks support from Mormons, Jews or Christians using slightly different versions of his theory.

Please do not quote me regarding James Trimm. These are potentially slanderous allegations, and I hope they are not true. I only make them here to show that I've been investigating sources cited in an article I'm watching.

I feel sad for the people who support JT. They shouldn't be doing what they are doing at Wiki, however it is clear they are not personally astute enough to see through James Trimm. I hope (and pray) that by handling things in a firm, fair but friendly way, I may even help them see they are playing silly games about important matters.

Thanks once more for the tip-off, it gives me great encouragement to know someone else is watching.

Shalom. Alastair Haines 04:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My comments above are semi-public, that is, I mean exactly what is said, if read in context, and am willing to take responsibility for them. However, they are not intended for general publication. Because I have not spoken first to those I speak about, it is important that it is understood by others I am making no personal complaints. It is a matter of principle with me that I speak in defence of others without talking with them first, but do not complain to third parties before seeking resolution directly. In short, I am happy for what I have written to be passed to Wiki admin, and trust their judgement and discretion in making use of it. Alastair Haines 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Friend, I really value what you have written at God and gender. I particularly like the way you make concessions to our friends who are basically acting out of desparation. Emotionally, it is always nice when someone either supports you or at least backs your right to say what you are saying; however, I'm personally not too emotionally involved, and I know I have sources to back everything I say. I don't need a bunch of people agreeing with an edit I make, all I need is a source. I serve readers, by connecting them with sources. Unfortunately, others have opinions backed only by dubious sources and a cheer squad. I do not pity them, I have compassion for them. Peace. Alastair Haines 22:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't 3RR!

Friend, just wait 24 hours, there is no rush to revert. In an emergency, I am happy to do a revert for you, but such an emergency should never arise. Wait 24 hours, or even longer. The sooner you revert something, the more likely someone will be online to just undo it. The 3RR rule is restricted to a 24-hour period like a kind of cooling off thing. It also allows others to get involved. Don't 3RR, it's not necessary. Stay cool, you are in control of yourself. :D Alastair Haines 15:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Good man! Stick to those Wiki standards. ;) Also, I hope you are taking time to relax and enjoy life. I think you've got a worthwhile project in documenting MLT for future generations, and for people in other groups like them. Keep pushing for professional standards in what you do, and remember that professionals take time out. Your doing great buddy, pity I live thousands of miles away, it'd be great to catch a film and eat up big on junk food together some time. Cheers :D Alastair Haines 15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
I would recommend you simply quote parts of sermons that are relevant to things you want to say. Then you are covered by fair use. Don't post his sermons on your site. That could well be a breach of copyright. Alastair Haines 10:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Good thinking about going the mediation rather than reporting route. Yes, openning things up for others to mediate is a great idea, it's less confrontational in many ways, more assertive in others. I am grateful for your appreciation of my interest in your good work, someone needs to cheer as you keep going, even when the odds are against you. Bravo buddy! :D Alastair Haines 06:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
You certainly do your detective work! Good effort tracing the IP address. :D Alastair Haines 07:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey, thanks for the barnstar! :D

Man, it means a lot to me, editing can get hairy at times, nice to be making friends. Cheers, friend! :D Alastair Haines 13:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1 Corinthians 13

You asked about this:

“ Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. ”

I'll look for a reference for you, so you don't just have my ideas. The interpretation is not controversial in mainstream Christianity. The key phrase for interpretation is when perfection comes. In other words, Paul is making a contrast between now and then. Whatever we have now is imperfect, when perfection comes the imperfect will disappear. This principle is common sense, of course. Here though, Paul applies it to "spiritual matters" (see 1 Corinthians 12:1). Chapters 12 to 14 are a sustained argument about not becoming fascinated or superior about spiritual things. Love is the greatest spiritual gift, and must not be overlooked as the greatest spiritual gift. Even prophecy (which Paul approves of), if it is without love, is without value. Love is perfect already and will last forever. Knowing a little truth about the future has value, but will not have value when everyone knows the full truth in that future.

I think you are really on to something here. MLT sound like they make exactly the errors early Christians in Corinth were making. It is not surprising that they find it hard to understand Paul's argument in Corinthians. Paul did not write these verses so people could go around prophesying and when they are proved wrong say, "well, Paul says our prophesying will not be perfect, but he doesn't tell us to stop doing it."

Chapter 14 makes it clear that Paul's purpose is teaching people to examine their motives and see if their words -- prophecy or tounges or any words really -- are words that edify, build up and encourage people in their knowledge and trust and love towards God. The implication is that we are tempted to "show off" the abilities God has given us, as though they make us special. God doesn't give us abilities so we can impress others about ourselves, rather he gives us abilities so we can use them to help others -- that's love. The gifts without love are empty and useless, but with love they are powerful to change the hearts and minds of people for their benefit and God's glory. As it turns out, loving actions do impress people, but the point is that they work out that it is God who changes us so we genuinely want to help others, in the end God gets more praise than we do.

So, the answer to your question, in a nut-shell is: partial prophecy is mentioned by Paul as a contrast to the perfection of love, it is not an "excuse" or a "dropping of standards".

For a well-known scholar's teaching on these chapters (12-14) visit Matthew Henry. Alastair Haines 06:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Documentary evidence regarding the history of MLT can be destroyed, stolen or protected and that is certainly a loss to extablishing the truth and providing justice where there has been wrong-doing. People have a right to change their minds, but not to deny what they have said in the past. However, it is a sad fact of life that people avoid taking responsibility for past words and actions. There's little that can be done about it, except to keep documents and copies that you posess in safe keeping.
Your own eye witness testimony and memories of words and ideas are also legitimate evidence regarding MLT. In some cases these are better than MLT documents, which will cast positive light on their views and practices. In other cases, eye-witness reports are of less weight than documents, because memories can change. If you note something in a diary, it's amazing how often recollections will differ to it. However, on the whole, people's memories are pretty good, especially about important things.
The thing to remember is, you are an absolute authority on your perceptions and memories of things. These things can be challenged, people will question your honesty, your motives, your abilities to remember when tired or sick -- in short, people will question your competance as a witness, but their own challenges also say things about them.
One thing you give to others who are scrutinizing MLT is your own observations. Another thing you give is your analysis of their documents. Ultimately, others will be able to evaluate these documents for themselves, so long as they have access. However, what people cannot get access to, without your making it available, is the contents of your own mind and heart. You know considerably more than documents could ever provide. Unlike Wiki, for a newspaper article or a court of law, your own observations are credible testimony of a high order. But yes, for the MLT article at Wiki, if something rests only on your own observation, I'm afraid this cannot be added, unless it is published by media or courts. Don't pursue those things for the sake of Wiki though! LoL Alastair Haines 07:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of living people

Wiki rightly has strict policies on biographies of living people. The two main ones are nothing slanderous and secondly only notable people. To a certain extent the two are deliberately vague around the edges. However, I think biographical material regarding Chris Warren is pretty much on the boundary in both areas. I honestly pray that he won't end up being a legitimate recipiant of legally sound, negative text. If he avoids this, he'll probably remain safely non-notable. If he becomes notable, however, I fear it would be because of proven allegations against him.

Probably some pretty safe background biographical information would be an asset to the article. Despite all the current controversies, and despite some mistakes he might have made, Chris has achieved some impressive things, people don't follow someone without good reasons.

Anyway, that's my opinion. It's your call, and things might change over time. Alastair Haines 08:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status request per your EAR.

Hello,

A few weeks ago, you submitted a request for editor assistance regarding the Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon article. This is a courtesy follow-up to find out how the issue has turned out.

Please feel free to leave a message on my talk page at your earliest convenience. --Aarktica 20:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the timely reply. Sounds to me like the issue resolved itself, would you agree? --Aarktica 15:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You mentioned that you "just noticed" my message. Just out of curiosity, how was it that you missed the orange new notice message? --Aarktica 15:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
All requests are marked as stale after ten days of inactivity. Unless new incidents occur, it will be archived before too long.
That said, if you have any further incidents, you may elect to pursue WP:3O or WP:3RR, depending on how events unfold. --Aarktica 19:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:GAME. --Aarktica 19:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit]  :-)

Somehow funny. I don't know what's really going on. Someone "attacks" and anotherone appoligzies very intensivly. ... All my best whishes to you and the both others. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits to Adventures of Lolo

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Drumpler! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bfreewebs\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 00:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just a quick comment

After looking at your edit summary, I realized that I may have done the deed which irks you so. Typically, I write long comments, so there happens to be a good possibility of several people commenting briefly in my intended position. In these cases, I usually 'cut in' to my intended spot. I know this can be annoying, but I only do it when the context demands it. In case I've pissed you off with my placement, I'm just here to say sorry for that. --C.Logan 09:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Left a response for you

I left a response for you here. You were correct in your interpretation. thanks! --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

I consider the fact that one editor is adding Dylan again and another is removing it to be edit warring; I've seen this exact pattern happen before at this article; it doesn't need to be WP:3RR given that it is the same editors reverting each other over the same content they've been arguing about for months. The protection is preventative; I see a lot of potential for this continuing ad infinitum given what I'm seeing on the talk page. The protection is also temporary whilst I sort out the logical next step here, because I think it is pretty obvious something has to change here. If you feel this page should not be protected, you can list it at WP:RFPP and another admin will review the protection. If you feel there is one editor who is being disruptive and ignoring consensus, and mediation/dispute resolution has been exhausted, I'd suggest taking it to WP:CN or WP:ARBCOM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isotope23 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Orthodox?

I'd noticed it too. I was actually considering removing the reference to 'expectations' in my own comment in cooperation, but I don't think his removal of the sentence changes my meaning: he's essentially expressed that same idea in the past, so anyone reading would know that that is what he believes.

I'm a little curious as to why it was removed, although if I could speculate from behind my own bias, I would naturally assume that he realized the statement was a little bit faulty. Either way, we've all mis-stated things before, so it's more likely that what he wanted to say came out the wrong way. I suppose I'll keep it in mind, however.--C.Logan 08:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hm...

If Nintendo has the same list on their site, then arguably our version is a copyvio. Additionally, it does not appear to contain information from reliable external sources (per our WP:V/WP:RS policies). I'd say you may have a point here. If you want to this, I'd suggest doing a shared nom for all (four? five?) of these lists. I've asked Scott for another opinion on this matter. >Radiant< 09:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to your message

I replied on my talkpage, but the summary is "away from the article talkpage for a few days, reviewed it now, satisfied there is rough consensus, will unprotect page".--Isotope23 13:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

You probably know more about this situation than I do. Would it be appropriate in the ArbCom "paper"work to perhaps request some assistance in resolving the disputes regarding BLP, location and criteria for determining whether individuals are "former" converts, and the like; basically, the real issues which have been pushed to the side by the obsession with Dylan? John Carter 17:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template deletions

Hi. No mistake is really catastrophic around here since one can always recover anything that has been lost so don't worry about making mistakes: if you're not following proper procedure, someone will tell you how it's done (as I'm doing right now). Except in very special circumstances, templates are not deleted unless a proper debate has taken place at templates for deletion. This is because many templates are used scarcely and in fairly obscure ways so it's often hard to tell whether a template has any reason to be. If you see a template that seems like it should be deleted, then it's best to add to it {{tfd}} and then add it to the list at templates for deletion (you can find the details there, it's all pretty simple). The only exception is for templates which are obviously mistakenly created (in that case, use {{db-test}}) or those that are clearly pure vandalism ({{db-vandal}}) or that are extremely divisive or inflammatory ({{db-t1}}). All of the latter are pretty rare since vandals are mostly active on the main article space and as an admin who actively works on speedy deletion, I rarely speedy delete templates. If you have any further questions, just let me know. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 19:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CN on Bus stop

Hi Drumpler. I've posted to the Community Sanction Noticeboard here concerning Bus stop. Your comments would be most welcome, as well as help finding diffs to back up what I say there. There are so many to sift through that it is a daunting task to find them all. Thank you. Nick Graves 04:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Admin Incident?

What? First, I never once forum shopped. I created a funny little userbox which I put on my userpage which no body reads. excuse me. I went to Village pump to ask for help from an unbiased editor a few days ago because I am sick and tired of this discussion going nowhere. My PointsDebate page is for myself only, and no one was supposed to see that, there are no links anywhere to it, so that is irreverent. Also, I was not the one to start the mediation case, it was Miles. I have never vandalized a page. The reason I deleted the comment about NeoSamus was that the mediation page said no comments, so I was helping. I deleted the comments off of their userpage after I talked to Neo_Samus, and he agreed to stay out of it until we got to the first stage of mediation. I have not done anything wrong, and I think that you are not being fair, and are not helping as much as you think you are, accusing people of things, and whatnot. Excuse me for caring about stuff. LN3000 17:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bus... you know.

Wow. Delusion? Desperation? How else could those first four sentences even be serious?

Anyway, you're right. It's better to just ignore the user who is, quite frankly, behaving in a disruptive (and perhaps even trollish) manner. I'm not sure why I continue to get involved in those discussions; it's at least a bit amusing for me, anyway.

Also, if you haven't noticed, Bus stop prefers to criticize your good suggestion to myself and the other editors.--C.Logan 01:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:POKE is doing some housecleaning

This notice is to inform you that because many people have added their names to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#Participants but do not seem to be active, all names are being deleted in an effort to find out who is still truly interested in the project. All you have to do is re-add your name if you'd still like to be considered a member of WP:POKE. Any questions, you can contact me on my talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 17:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] can you please tell me........

can you please tell me why you said "It would seem that you have made a number of vandelous edits" --Mhart54com 04:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC) you know its rude to not answer when someone talks too you?--Mhart54com 01:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, it's quite possible he hasn't been online the last couple of days. You can be PATIENT, instead of being pushy. People DO go on these things called "vacations." LN3000 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Mind your own business, LN. You don't have to act rudely, just because a person was impatient. RobJ1981 00:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the accusation had been raised on his talk page constantly by several parties. I had hoped he'd have read it. He has cleared the contents of his talk page more than once but hasn't archived it, even though I provided him a link to show him how to do so. Drumpler 01:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

um.....no you are the first to bring this up, i didn't archive it because i don't want too, have you got a problem with that. and i would appreciate it if actually answered my question--Mhart54com 09:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you asked, I'm sure Land of penis, an article you created, would fall under this criteria. And once more, I'd recommend you read WP:ARCHIVE and also this page which discusses exactly why you should archive over deleting. There are extreme cases where deletion is relevant (such as deleting comments about one's personal life, etc.), but this does not seem to be one of them. Drumpler 16:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

i didnt create "Land of penis" wen i was new here i saw it in the kakashi page (i think) and put a speedy deletion tag on it, but the thing was already deleted, so putting the tag on it created the page AGAIN, if you look i changed the page so it didnt say "Land of penis" i changed it to something other then that. i want to get rid of that dam thing because i didnt create it--Mhart54com 05:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DO NOT DO THAT AGAIN!

look at the dam subject--Mhart54com 01:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Um...?--C.Logan 02:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue is he keeps deleting his talk page over an article he claimed he didn't write and I keep saying, it doesn't matter, he should archive it instead. Drumpler 09:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

just let me delete that land of penis thing its driving me nuts. I have read the dam archive thing and i don't get how you do it--Mhart54com 10:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thanks for the help, not--Mhart54com 12:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet another "Um...?" is in order.--C.Logan 14:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
C.Logan dont be an ass--Mhart54com 22:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
<3--C.Logan 03:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
......um..C.Logan dont be an.... elephant, what will you do now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue eyes gold dragon (talk • contribs) 07:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If you want to chat go to a chat room!!!--Mhart54com 01:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Or here's an idea, Mhart54com. Don't post to my talk page unless it relates to a Wikipedia article the two of us are working on. And stop being uncivil. Drumpler 03:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If they are going too ask you something why not start a new discussion? I have had it with you and your crap, don't bother replying--Mhart54com 10:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization of Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon

In general, individual branches or traditions of Christianity fall under any of several subcategories: denominations, organizations, theology, orders, history. Maybe I misread the article, but I did not see how Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon would be considered relevant to all aspects of Christianity, as a direct placement in Category:Christianity would imply. There are many other articles at that level which are not appropriate, and I have been cleaning them up, but it can be a painstaking process. -choster 02:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

f

[edit] Can you please block me?

I don't want my account anymore and people wont block it--Mhart54com 05:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counter-cult organizations

(Copied from User talk:Milomedes)
"What's with the bias against counter-cult organizations? Drumpler 02:19, 12 September 2007"

1. They are not WP:V reliable sources. 2. They are openly POV biased against cults. 3. There's a long-standing LOGRTAC consensus against citing anti-cult exit counselor Rick Ross's personal essays (although his archive of mainstream news articles is extensively cited), so by extension of fairness that applies to other anti- and counter- organizations opposed to cults. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 04:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm curious as to why they aren't reliable sources. If they're extensively footnoted and written by experts, they should be fine. 2. Many sources carry a bias. An unbiased Wikipedia article notes these sources and provides the counter-sources. That way, many sides of the argument are considered. 3. I don't know where these LOGRTAC archives are cited, but note also that consensus can change. Ross, inspite of his own stance, is considered an expert on the subject by various news media and other mental health professionals and thus would qualify as a reliable source.
Are we supposed to just quote the sociologists and "experts" who speak favorably of these groups? What about [1] and [2], experts, who speak of many of the biases of these own experts, such as those who discredit former members in favour of the testimonies of current members? I think providing both sides of the issue would make it fair and balanced. Drumpler 05:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I've also looked more carefully at the source removed. I'd also be curious as to how Christian Research Journal defines a cult. Drumpler 05:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be confusing the LOGRTAC list article with the Cult debate text article, as well as being unfamiliar with WP:V reliable source policy. Please take up these questions with User:Will Beback. Milo 08:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it isn't intended, but your statements as to what I have and have not reviewed come off as a tad accusatory. Regardless, I disagree with the criteria of said article and highlighted the two experts because of a tendency of sociologists to actually side with the cults in question (more or less becoming "cult apologists" -- isn't this a POV issue?). Their definition of a "cult" is what actually seems to be favoured in this article whereas groups such as Ross et al. might have a different definiton. Ross himself also has his own criteria for determining cults and is regarded as a professional. Is there anything on his site that would seem to demonstrate that there is no fact-checking? That his material isn't peer reviewed? Or anything that would make his work unverifiable? I've found his information to be, largely on the whole, reliable. Drumpler 09:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re : Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon deletion

Done. :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 18:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Death Note "forum"

Alright, that's fine if you think that's the best way to handle it and you feel that strongly about it.
Personally, I'd put the message on the editor's talk page (even if it's an ip editor), and I don't consider my action as biting. For one: newcomers are not made of sugar, two: being that careful with them would render the 'talk page is not a forum' guideline useless because every 'forum' message posted would stay under the 'do not bite the newbies' guideline and you'd still get a useless mess on the talk pages. Key to the city 22:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Nintendo Page Redesign

A new page design is being considered for the WikiProject Nintendo page. A rough draft can be viewed here. Please add all comments and thoughts to the discussion. From the automated, Anibot 22:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon

The list of participants of the Pokémon WikiProject is quite sizable, however, there is no way to determine which of whom are active contributors to that project. All participants in the list have been moved to Inactive. If you consider yourself to be an active member of the Pokémon WikiProject, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#Participants and move your username to the Active section. Thank you. Useight (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)