User talk:MPerel/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

vn-6 This editor's user page, talk page and/or subpages have been vandalized 6 times.
Archive
Archives
  • 2007
  • 2008

   Discussion Conventions

  • Please post new messages at the bottom of the page to prevent confusion.
  • Please sign your comments. Type ~~~~ after your text or use the edit toolbar.
  • Please use section headings to separate conversation topics.

See: Welcome to Wikipedia, FAQ, Wikiquette, Be nice, and Talk page guidelines.

Wikipedia policy
Article standards
Neutral point of view
Verifiability
No original research
Biographies of living persons
Working with others
Civility
Consensus
No personal attacks
Dispute resolution
No legal threats
Global principles
What Wikipedia is not
Ignore all rules
Today is Sunday, June 15, 2008, 17:02 (UTC/GMT).
There are 2,413,822 articles on the English Wikipedia.

Contents


[edit] Portal:Indian Christianity Launched

We are happy to announce the launch of Portal:Indian Christianity by Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Christianity , a work force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity and Wikipedia:WikiProject India. Please share your comments and suggestions. - Tinucherian (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apostolic Succession

Hi. We're basically in agreement on the statement about Anglican orders in the article. It seems silly to have a dispute between two such like minded editors. But we simply can't leave a statement unsupported by citations that appears to likely be false in the article. I'd like to ask you to please revert your last edit, which removed the word some. The current sentence makes it sounds that all Anglican bishops have been ordained in those lines when we have no evidence to support that other than the often quoted line that you and I have both heard many times (from the mouths of priests), and yet neither of us have ever seen any evidence of it. I hope you will please revert your last edit so that the article will exist without unverified claims while we work on finding citations. Thank you. Dgf32 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the citation for the article. Sorry if I got a little agitated. Dgf32 (talk) 18:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No offense taken, I look forward to working with you in the future. -- SECisek (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Directory

Christian Church Directory obviously has to go, but also so does the Template:Christian Church Directory footer. I don't know the right procedure. Tb (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was on it, but I got sidelined by other edits. It will be tagged ASAP. -- SECisek (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and there's also Christian_church_directory_of_the_United_States created by the same user. Perhaps she has made more too. Tb (talk) 18:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Gosh you being so helpful a as part of the Maintenance Department and Outreach Department, he say sarcastically.
So now that I have put so much effort into deleting my many weeks of efforts toward a request you left up, how/where do you think my efforts could be better spent elsewhere.--Carlaude (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I was unaware of the request until you pointed it out. In my defense, There are a number of editors who work to maintain the project and the portal. I was unable to edit for most of the new year and have only recently had a chance to do some house cleaning.

How/where? Category:Christianity articles needing attention is always a good place to start when looking for top priority articles. I know this experience must be frustrating and I am sorry.

I can relate, there was an attempt to delist Christianity as a good article some time ago. I protested. The reason I was given was that the article "needed major changes" to remain GA. I worked on the article for about three days straight, I mean day and night, and then suddenly found the article delisted while I was still working on it - 2 days prior to the end of the 5 days it was required to sit at GAR. The reason being that "major changes" had taken place and the article was now "too unstable" to remain GA.

So, there was a demand for major changes, or the article would be delisted, and then the article was delisted by a single editor due to major improvements taking place.

I gave up, stated my piece to the editor in question, and moved on to other articles and projects. Wikipedia can be frustrating, but we seem to think it is a worthwhile hobby. I hope you will continue to help us no matter what happens with the deletion debate. Best, -- SECisek (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for at least replying.--Carlaude (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hubert Walter article

Please pay attention to why some does an edit. The Archbishop of Canterbury inbox was giving the article trouble in spacing while the bishop box did not. The original use of the bishop box was to point out his previous posts since the Canterbury box did not allow previous postings. Glad to see moving it to the top corrects that. The sample information for the Bishop's infobox is for the current Archbishop of Canterbury no less.

You move the officeholder box instead of looking to see that it was for more then just the Justiciar. Additional there were two section there for him being Justiciar. What do you mean by GA? 21:48, 3 March 2008 Secisek (Talk | contribs) (27,976 bytes) (The Canterbury box trumps the bishop box. It is in use on all 104 Archbishops. Do not make this change to a GA without consensus.) (undo) Spshu (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

He means the article is a Good Article. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

All seems fine now. As long as Ealdgyth is here, do we want the Canterbury box to allow for previous postings? This could be done with ease for both Canterbury and York. -- SECisek (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't mind adding some of the information from the plain bishop infobox to the ABC and ABY infoboxes. It certainly won't hurt at all. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll put it on my to-do list and let you know when it gets done. I'll make the new lines optional so we can add back info at our lesiure. -- SECisek (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and check out Augustine of Canterbury. It's pretty dang close to GA now, just needs a bit of tweaking that Angus and Mike Christie suggested. Now that I'm able to edit again, it should be ready for GAN very quickly. You can see where my progress is here: User:Ealdgyth/Works In Progress#Articles I'm preparing. —Preceding comment was added at 22:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad form

It seems, rather, like bad form to change a template without discussion—- then when called on this-- to revert and discuss claiming the other is edit waring.--Carlaude (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that's pretty much the expected normal procedure. Tb (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Too bad there such backward procedures here.
So is there somewhere I can find these procedures written down so that I am not needlessly insulted by SECisek in his edit comments?
Is it also good form or normal procedure to delete an entire articles while they are under discussion for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaude (talk • contribs) 18:10, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, whoa, slow down. I have never insulted you personaly and if you have felt insulted by any of my posts/edits, then I am sorry. As for policy, links to many of them can be found on the top of this page.

I assume by "deleting" an article you are refering to the blanking of the directories and redirecting them to the list. You yourself indicated it would be alright to reformat the directories into a list. The list already exists, so I redirected. If you want to restore the directories and go through AfD, we can, but consensus is strongly against the category and is growing against the "Find a Church" template, so it would probably just postpone the redirect. We can disagree about these issues and a whole lot more with out insulting one another. This does not mean enough to me to get nasty about it. Best wishes, -- SECisek (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas Cranmer

Hello Secisek. I noticed that you are the shepherd of the Cranmer article and got the article to GA. I was wondering if you are planning to advance it to FA. I'm hunting for another article to adopt and I am interested on the subject of Cranmer. If you already have plans on it, then I got some other candidates to work on as well. Drop me a line on my talk page! --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to keep the thread in one place...Perhaps we can continue the conversation over there? --RelHistBuff (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Father Garnet

Please check the Wikipedia page Hanged, drawn and quartered for mention of Father Garnet not being mutilated because of intervention from the crowd of on-lookers. This was not the source of my information, however. Wloveral (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User page

If you want to be a bit more anonymous, you can request that your user page be deleted. Then, recreate it with the redirect. The point of doing this: your edit history will be accessible by admins only. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar for you

The Saint's Star Award for hard work and diligence on theChristianity WikiProject


This is long overdue. You deserve this Barnstar for your help in Wikiproject Christianity and WP Indian Christianity- Tinucherian (talk) 06:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Aw, shucks. Thanks! --SECisek (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, just saw that, I'd like to offer my congrats and encouragement to keep up your great work! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

You made a lot of edits to Anne Boelyn! 81.149.250.228 (talk) 11:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we saved its GA status. I am proud of that article now. -- Secisek (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edmund the Martyr

Cool that you've renom for GA. I gave up watch listing it long ago! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to review this for you, but it might be a couple of days I'm a bit busy in the immediate future and I have two other GA requests to deal with first. I was happy to help with Boleyn and Martyn, they were both excellent.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, one other thing, which category should he be listed under if passed - religious figures or monarchs?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Secisek, you may find this frustrating, but I've now 'met' users that are several magnitudes more difficult. Yes, a thousand times! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] William Wilberforce

We may get another Anglicanism GA out of William Wilberforce. It looks promising. (I was involved in the nasty Roman Catholic Church FAC for the past couple of weeks. It failed but was worth taking part as it clarified for me what must be done to the Anglicanism article should it ever get past B-Class) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki misery

Well, before stepping into the horror of the RCC FAC :-), I was deep into the gore of the Introduction to Evolution FA. That made it to FA! Since then spending more time at the Novels Project. Will I think be returning back to Anglicanism. Your comment about "going at each other like Roundheads and Laud's men" made me laugh. My diocese made it into the news for a couple of weeks in Feb 'cause of the Civil War Redux :-) No bishops burnt at the stake...so all is well. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

You are using an infobox that was created for a different religion (not a big deal). Template:Infobox Orthodox leadership has been created for solely for the Orthodox Church (infobox is colored, see Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Society#Religious_leaders) I'm going to have some extra sections added to it to make it more like the one you have been using. The only thing is that this infobox is colored for Eastern Orthodox churches, are we going to group Oriental Orthodox churches with it? I think we should, theyre pretty similar. Here is a page with the new infobox: Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens. Like I said, past positions will prob be added shortly, also your input at User talk:Trödel might be useful. Grk1011 (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply. Grk1011 asked for my help on a religious Infobox - something I volunteered to do at List of infoboxes/Society some time ago - and which hasn't been edited or maintained from the looks of it. Like many things on Wikipedia there are people going about trying to solve similar problems on different articles and eventually they run into each other as a standard is developed and it spreads. Personally, I don't really have a dog in the hunt, so I would be happy with either solution. I do like the idea of having different colors mean things. Additionally, I have grown fond of the {{LDSInfobox}} - and created it based on the {{Infobox Pope}} a couple years ago. Because of the very specific names for office used in the LDSInfobox - I would suggest that it would not be appropriate to use {{Infobox bishopbiog}} instead.
Additionally, I am available to help with the template programmning if you want to have some conditional logic based on the denomination. I.e. start passing a parameter like "Denomination=..." or "Style=..." that would then change the terms used to describe the beginning of service and end of service to something other than the generic "term began, term ended". See {{Infobox LDS Temple}} and {{LDS Temple list}} for some examples of uses of logic made to control the look of an Infobox or a list of items in a table.
I am on infrequently because of other commitments now - but please leave a note on my talk page and I'll try to work in some time to help within a week. --Trödel 05:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protestant NAV Box - Christian Church (Disciples of Christ

Your recent edit removing the NAV box and your question about why use it are interesting. Do you think perhaps one reason to use it, is that it may need to be edited so that it does in fact navigate to protestant groups? For now, at least I do not have time to do that one myself. Thanks for your help in cleaning up the page. John Park (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I added the church to the box and put the box back on the page. Is this what you requested? -- Secisek (talk) 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. For now, I'd be cmfortable either way. There are so many things I have not figured out yet. I have been focused on content and references and I am just beginning to look at page apearance and boxes that were there when I started. John Park (talk) 22:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You can always come to me with any questions you might have. On the whole, we as a project seem to be moving away from the nav boxes. They are clumsy and grow like topsy. The footers at the bottom of the page seem like the way to go. I figured the Campbellites were important enough to put on the box, though. Again, Welcome! -- Secisek (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I did not mean to come across as snippy, just responding to the question posed. Thanks for the explanation. I am finding a lot of great people in the Wiki community. I can see how the NAV boxes can quickly raise POV issues about categories and lables. Would you reccomend that it be dropped from the CC(DOC) article?? John Park (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not snippy at all. It is your call. If you drop it let me know and I will remove it from the nav box. -- Secisek (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Question about extraneous material edits

As you know from our recent exchange, I am editing the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) article, with a view toward getting it to Feature Article quality. This morning there is a section added by an unregistered Editor that is really extraneous material, about the Churches of Christ that withdrew from our movement between 1865 and 1906. I moved the end of a block quote that the new text landed in, so that the added section would not be seen as part of the quote. I also added a clarifying header to the top of the article.

I do not want to trigger an editing battle by just deleting it. I think the person who added is probably acting in good faith. (However, I do not understand the logic that says "we withdrew and want no part of their heresy and we are the only church, but we want everyone to know we are a part of them.") I also understand that the article I am working on is a community project, not just mine. Edits from others really are desirable and usually helpful.

My question is this: Do you have any suggestions for proper protocol for removing extraneous material from an article, without prompting a battle? My inclination on my next round of edits, is to first move it into the history section headed "Divisions" and then remove it completely when I get to the polishing stage. Is there a better approach? John Park (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't ask me but I have been following your edits with interest, and am excited about the improvements you are making. I would say that I think it is important that the article say something about the relation of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) with the other Churches of Christ. There is an existing section titled "Division" which I think is nicely written to address the issue. But I think that, from the perspective of the other Churches of Christ, the article might seem a little POV-centric. It sounds a bit as if the history section is written in such a way as to suggest that the current Disciples of Christ was founded back then, oh, and there were these other groups that split off. From their perspective, they were founded back then too, and have an equal share in the majority of that history. Perhaps it might work to do two things: take the paragraph you rightly deleted (IMO) and see if there are particular facts or perspectives that might well be incorporated in the existing Division section; and have the history begin with some kind of acknowledgement that the current Disciples are only one strand that originated in the story of Scott and Campbell. Tb (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Good advice. Remember to ask that additions be cited or you will never get it to FA. -- Secisek (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and the affirmation! I see the value of collaboration, and appreciate the help, from both of you! John Park (talk) 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crusades

Hey Secisek, thanks for the help with the Crusades task force. I regret not creating a new Project from the very beginning; hopefully that can be fixed. Thanks also for boldly moving the German Crusade article. I could swear it has been referred to that way somewhere, but back when that article was created, it was easier to get away with just making up a title and hoping it would be fixed later. (And now I know much more about the crusades and crusade historiography than I did back then.) Adam Bishop (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Archbishop of Canterbury

Significant changes has been made towards the above template. What is your commet? --Ngckmax (talk) 10:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

They seem to have been reverted. Or am I missing something? --Secisek (talk) 17:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edmund the Martyr

A 'mediator' wants a summary of the salient points in the Edmund the Martyr problem. I wonder if you'd care to summarize? I remember at some point you found evidence where the fringe theory was coming from...maybe it is relevant...maybe not. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to get this today, what really needs to happen is one editor needs to get the WP:POINT. -- Secisek (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abusive sky-fairy guy

This guy's edits are not incorrect, but his abusive language is of course unacceptable. You may wish to endorse Wikipedia:Requests for comment/89.242.164.114. Tb (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

He's probably a board school kid. Its best to quietly revert and wait till he passes. Britanica capitalizes the Sky Faries in their treatment of them. -- Secisek (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
You may not know this, in fact, but it is a Wikipedia policy that pronouns referring to the deity are not capitalized. See WP:MOSCAPS, where it says, "Pronouns referring to deities...do not begin with a capital letter." Tb (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah pronouns! I see. Use of pronouns should be avoided when discussing God hor a number of reasons. We can correct this going forward. -- Secisek (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with avoiding pronouns entirely, for gender concerns if no other. Tb (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. -- Secisek (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused; you've just done edits to Adam (Bible) and Christianity and Judaism which restore capitalized pronouns, under the edit summary "replaced pronouns." Will you fix those please? Under no circumstances is it permissible to capitalize these pronouns in Wikipedia. Tb (talk) 18:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It has to be permissable in direct quotes from sources. You cannot even correct a misspelling that occurs between quotation marks. -- Secisek (talk) 19:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Adam (Bible) you extended the quotation to include words not actually there. (Are you confusing Genesis 5:2 with Genesis 1:27?) The words seem to be KJV, which does not capitalize pronouns anyhow. In the case of Christianity and Judaism no quotes were involved at all. Tb (talk) 19:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Good call on KJV. Is there any consensus where quotes should come from? I doubt it. I try not to cite anything out of the bible as unless you are using it as a source for itself, as in: "The bible states...", and in that case you may be violating WP:OR. -- Secisek (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, TB was really quick to defend this "anonymous" editor's edits. And not just revert them but to comment on both of our talk pages. Seems pretty fishy to me.-Crunchy Numbers (talk) 19:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's not suggest anything. Assume good faith. Tb was largely correct and he was even correct that one of my corrections introduced another error. I just think we have to show IP editors who edit against WP:TE that their work is pointless, as it will be reverted quietly and almost instatntly. -- Secisek (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes from Bible

(Responding to above) I am not aware of any policy about where Biblical quotations come from, and I did hunt for one at one point. It is a hornets' nest of chaos I would rather not get involved in. I think that the practice of quoting from the KJV is risky, and the worst choice as a rule, because the language is not contemporary English. But a policy picking a translation would be a disaster too. In general, I leave translations alone unless I have a reason, and then I change things to NRSV, which has achieved scholarly consensus. When I add my own quotes, I always choose NRSV. As for using the Bible as a source, I think it is reasonable, in a case such as Adam (Bible) or other clearly religious contexts, and where interpretation is not at issue. Where there are variant interpretations, then it becomes important to require more than the Bible as a source, at the very least, in order to avoid WP:OR. I think of it really rather like a book synopsis: the book itself is a perfectly good source, unless there is a genuine dispute about it. Tb (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of "Crusade"

I see you reverted me on the Spanish Armada. Fair enough, but I think it reminds us we need to have a definition of what is or is not a Crusade. Was the Spanish Armada the last instance of the granting of a crusader indulgence? If not, what others are there and how long did the papacy continue to grant such things? Should we consider post-medieval actions as Crusades at all (that was my initial reason for reverting: 1588 is just too late). Srnec (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EdChampion

In a case such as this, all that can be done is to reply as politely and sensibly as possible and address the issue at hand without becoming drawn into a slanging match that benefits nobody. Well done on not doing so so far and please continue to abide by WP:CIVIL yourself even if others do not. If such behaviour persists then they have only themselves to blame for the consequences.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{subst:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/Welcome}}

Hi frnd, You dont need to sign again while using {{subst:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/Welcome}} . I had tweaked the templete to have it automatically signed by the person who writes it.... Tinucherian (talk) 08:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Great! -- Secisek (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I'm really not that much in favor of using a specifically Anglican bishop infobox on pre-Reformation bishops in England. I think it implies that they were Anglican, and I don't really see much wrong with the bishop infobox. Persuade me (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it "specifically Anglican" other than the name? It could be moved to where the Archbishop of Canterbury box is now. -- Secisek (talk) 02:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the little "Anglicanism portal" kinda shouts Anglican. Why is it needed to change it when the generic bishop box works fine? Another issue i have is that it specifies province, which is really redundant in the case of pre-Reformation bishops. I won't scream if you replace them all, but I really have no motivation at all to change them from the current generic bishop box to something else. I've got enough on my plate. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The portal tag shouldn't be there. I also didn't mean them ALL. I should have been clearer, the intention is just to replace the York and Canterbury boxes as this one gives the missing fields from the general bishop box. Province will not appear if left blank, none of the field will which is why it superior to the existing boxes. Maybe I can just cut the relavent code into the templates already in use. -- Secisek (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Okies, that makes more sense. If the portal tag gets out I can see using the box for York and Canterbury. Although I'll still leave it to you to do (grins). Ealdgyth - Talk 03:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh! And check out Augustine of Canterbury. Would you scream if we took out the picture from the infobox? Ealdgyth - Talk 03:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

With all the windows and statues of him in Great Britain, nobody can get us a descent fair-use photo? That Victorian fantasy drawing is a little silly. How about these stamps what is fair-use on postage? -- Secisek (talk) 03:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Flag of Anglican Communion.svg

I have created the flag of Anglican Communion. I hope it is useful in somewhere of Anglican Project. --Ngckmax (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sure we will, thank you. -- Secisek (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue I - April 2008

Aloha. The April 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 15:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue II - May 2008

Aloha. The May 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 17:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - June 2008

Aloha. The June 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii|WikiProject Hawaiʻi]] 04:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaiʻi WikiProject Newsletter - Issue III - June 2008

Aloha. The June 2008 issue of the Hawaiʻi WikiProject newsletter has been published. To change your delivery options or unsubscribe, visit this link. Mahalo nui loa. WikiProject Hawaiʻi 04:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)