User talk:Singularity/Archive 9
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Hawaiian diacritics
Don't know if you've seen this, but as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Hawaii, you might want to comment on the current proposal in the Wikiproject Hawaii MOS [1]; User:Erudy has posted a "modest proposal" to basically eliminate all diacritics from Hawaiian articles, except for a citation at the beginning. Right now there are only 4 comments, evenly split. As far as I can tell all of those supporting it haven't contributed to Hawaiian articles, so it would be disturbing if they claimed victory when hardly anyone who is actually from or connected to Hawaiʻi has put in their voice. KarlM 11:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Astronomical changes
Until 26 July 2007 there used to be a "related changes" service which provided an up-to-date summary of every change made to an astronomical page on Wikipedia, and this represented the best tool available for combating vandalism on the Astronomy pages. Do you know what happened to this? On the deletion log it says "why not move it to the project that would have the most use for such a thing?" (see this), but I cannot find the related changes service on Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy. According to your comment on the deletion log the page was deleted on 26 July 2007. Do you know what has happened to the astronomical changes service (can it be found somewhere else on Wikipedia)? The deletion log seems to be filled up with comments from Wikipedia newbies who have no idea what a Wikipedia "related changes" service is, and mistakenly thought that this was some kind of category or list page. Rnt20 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Only a kindly request
Could you possibly let me review the contents of those deleted pages:
- Timeline of trends in music (1920-1929)
- Timeline of trends in music (1910-1919)
- Timeline of trends in music (1900-1909)
I would be gratefull if you copy it to my talk page (or my ukrainian talk page). That would be usefull for developing some articles in ukrainian wikipedia and of course I do promise not to restore deleted english pages --A4 15:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you! --A4 12:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Golf
Hi Singularity/Archive 9
I thought that a way to further improve the golf articles on Wikipedia is for the whole project to work together towards a goal. An example of this could be a certain number of good articles in so many months, or to create the project's first ever featured article. If you are interested, come to the talk page and discuss it. And hopefully through this the project can continue to work towards several goals in the near future. Grover 10:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy Delete
Thanks for the speedy delete of that Hong Kong Secondary school. I appreciate it! Josborne2382 11:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Invite to discuss goals for WP:Golf
You are invited. Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Golf#Goals. michfan2123 15:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] DRV related to an AFD you closed
An editor has asked for a Wikipedia:Deletion review#PAWNGAME of PAWNGAME, which is related to an AFD you closed for another title. You may wish to participate in the deletion review. GRBerry (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Note
I see that you're semi-away. But wanted to drop you a note: I'm undeleting Box Ghost (which you deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Box Ghost) in order to merge the contents to List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts, and redirect to that list, per being similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skulker (Danny Phantom). Feel free to let me know of any thoughts or concerns. - jc37 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Warriors Role Call
Shrewpelt (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
- Personally, I've never read Warriors, so I know nothing about the series. The move is fine with me. Singularity 00:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Chessckers
Hi, could you restore this to my user space? Thanks, Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 04:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Adopter
Hi Singularity,
I've started to clean up the Adopters' list. You appear to have changed username since you added yourself to the list but not updated your info there. In case you're still interested, can you kindly update your information? Or, if you're not interested any more, would you mind removing yourself? Thank you and happy editing, Snowolf How can I help? 22:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)~~
[edit] RfA thanks
Dear Singularity, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind support on my request for adminship which succeeded with a final result of (72/19/6).
Now that I am a sysop, do not hesitate to contact me with any queries you have. I would be glad to help you along with the other group of kind and helpful administrators.
Thank you again and I look forward to editing alongside you in the future. — E talk 12:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Roll Call for WikiProject Artemis Fowl
 |
Greetings from the Artemis Fowl Project. Your name is listed on our participants page, but we are unsure of how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the Project's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the Project, please add your name to the active list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the current work. On behalf of the Project, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you consider yourself inactive, I hope you will consider returning to respond to just one request per week, or as many as you can manage. Happy editing, The Artemis Fowl Project Coordinators'. |
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 01:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR
| Hello fellow Wikipedia administrators open to recall category member! |
|---|
|
I am leaving you this message because recent events have given me concern. When Aaron Brenneman and I, and others, first developed this category well over a year ago, we visualized it as a simple idea. A low hassle, low bureaucracy process. We also visualized it as a process that people would come to trust, in fact as a way of increasing trust in those admins who chose to subscribe to the notion of recall. The very informal approach to who is qualified to recall, what happens during it, and the process in general were all part of that approach. But recent events have suggested that this low structure approach may not be entirely effective. More than one of the recent recalls we have seen have been marred by controversy around what was going to happen, and when. Worse, they were marred by some folk having the perception, rightly or wrongly, that the admin being recalled was trying to change the rules, avoid the process, or in other ways somehow go back on their word. This is bad. It's bad for you the admin, bad for the trust in the process, and bad for the community as a whole. I think a way to address this issue is to increase the predictability of the process in advance. I have tried to do that for myself. In my User:Lar/Accountability page, I have given pretty concrete definitions of the criteria for recall, and of the choices I can make, and of the process for the petition, and of the process for other choices I might make (the modified RfC or the RfAr). I think it would be very helpful if other admins who have voluntarily made themselves subject to recall went to similar detail. It is not necessary to adopt the exact same conditions, steps, criteria, etc. It's just helpful to have SOME. Those are mine, fashion yours as you see fit, I would not be so presumptuous as to say mine are right for you. In fact I urge you not to just adopt mine, as I do change them from time to time without notice, but instead develop your own. You are very welcome to start with mine if you so wish, though. But do something. If you have not already, I urge you to make your process more concrete, now, while there is no pressure and you can think clearly about what you want. Do it now rather than later, during a recall when folk may not react well to perceived changes in process or commitment. Further, I suggest that after you document your process, that you give a reference to it for the benefit of other admins who may want to see what others have done. List it in this table as a resource for the benefit of all. If you use someone else's by reference rather than copy, I suggest you might want to do as Cacharoth did, and give a link to a specific version. Do you have to do these things? Not at all. These are suggestions from me, and me alone, and are entirely up to you to embrace or ignore. I just think that doing this now, thinking now, documenting now, will save you trouble later, if you should for whatever reason happen to be recalled. I apologise if this message seems impersonal, but with over 130 members in the category, leaving a personal message for each of you might not have been feasible, and I feel this is important enough to violate social norms a bit. I hope that's OK. Thanks for your time and consideration, and best wishes. Larry Pieniazek NOTE: You are receiving this message because you are listed in the Wikipedia administrators open to recall category. This is a voluntary category, and you should not be in it if you do not want to be. If you did not list yourself, you may want to review the change records to determine who added you, and ask them why they added you. |
...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "O"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "P"s through "S"s! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 04:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Classical Greece
Hi Singularity- I finished the requested proofread of the Greece_in_classical_antiquity article in mid-December and uploaded the changes. You'll see that someone moved the article sometime during the translation period. I gave some notes on the talk page. -Eric (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Roll Call for WikiProject Artemis Fowl
|
Greetings from the Artemis Fowl Project. Your name is listed on our participants page, but we continue to be unsure of how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the Project's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the Project, please add your name to the active list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarize yourself with the current work. On behalf of the Project, if you do consider yourself to have left, I hope you will consider rejoining; if you have left, then you will have been gone for at least two months, so your name will be removed from the list, and the list will become a single list of only active editors. If you decide to return, please comment on the talk page. Happy editing, The Artemis Fowl Project Coordinators'. |
→ Please direct all enquiries to the WikiProject talk page.
→ This newsletter/release was delivered by ENewsBot · 06:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] New Semester, New Appeal
This semester I am teaching academic writing to a group of teachers at my school. This course starts on Monday Jan 28. I would like to know if you are still interesting in "mentoring". You can see the syllabus at Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/SyllabusIf so, please leave a message on my talk page and update the mentor's page Wikipedia:School_and_university_projects/ITESM_Campus_Toluca/Mentors, if . If not, please remove your name and information from that page. Thanks! Thelmadatter (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for your appropriate closure of the MfD for WP:PRX.
If, at some point, you look at the actual proposal, with a suspicion that the MfD, from the beginning, misrepresented what the proposal was, you might be able to confirm this. It's moot at the moment, because, clearly, "the community" -- i.e., the narrow segment of the community that is even aware of WP space and proposals and MfDs -- has resoundingly rejected the proposal, whether they read it or not. The Rejected proposal sitting there isn't going to cause disruption, any more than disruption was caused by the Rejected tag (there was no edit warring over it, in the end). Disruption was only caused by the intense effort to delete it, and all this shows the wisdom of User:Kim Bruning in his original closure of the MfD, as well as his subsequent closure of the DRV. The latter was clearly inappropriate, because of his blatant COI, though, in fact, he was quite correct in the action itself: it was the wrong remedy, there were several other much simpler ones, including simple reversion of his closure. His closure of the MfD itself, something that hasn't been mentioned anywere, was also similarly inappropriate: i.e., he was technically correct, and the closure as Keep, Rejected was, of course, confirmed by you, on the same grounds. However, he should not have taken that action, not because he's not an administrator -- that's a myth, that non-admins can't close MfDs -- but because he's the one who placed the Rejected tag in the first place, and is thus an involved editor. He is a very experienced Wikipedian, was an adminstrator, and could take back the bit at any time. One can see this depth of experience in his actions, easily, which were long on an understanding of the basic principles and not necessarily on what were considered at one time details of little importance, being easily undone if seriously wrong.
If it is not already clear to you why this generated such fuss, you might take a look at User:Abd/Rule 0. WP:PRX contained, not an actual Rule 0 violation, but the possibility of one taking place in the future, in such a way as to be not vulnerable to being shouted down. Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 20:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request for the text of a deleted article.
Hello. I've seen you deleted the article "Gameplay of Starcraft" and I've seen your name in the page "Wikipedia_administrators_who_will_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles". I'm interested in the content of this article. So, please, could I ask you to retrieve me its content and its external links? My e-mail is gu_belger@hotmail.com. Thank you very much!
[edit] Request for the text of a deleted article.
Hello. I've seen you deleted the article "Gameplay of Starcraft" and I've seen your name in the page "Wikipedia_administrators_who_will_provide_copies_of_deleted_articles". I'm interested in the content of this article. So, please, could I ask you to provide me its content (the last possible) and its external links? My e-mail is gu_belger@hotmail.com. Thank you very much!
[edit] Martin Walker deletion
Can I ask you to reconsider the "Martin Walker" deletion of Aug 2007? I have no connexion with the original article or MW, but was looking on WP for info on the Health Freedom Movement. MW is singled out twice in that article, referred to as "notable", and his historical bibliography heads the "further reading". Having found the original MW article in a Google cache at whale.to, I then queried the deletion of the MW biog on the only page that appeared relevant to me: HFM discussion. This was removed to my user page by MastCell, who has pointed me in the direction of the deletion review process - not easy for someone with scant WP experience.
I believe the original article significantly mis- (or under-)represented MW's professional importance in two fields, as a writer and as a graphic designer. His secondary occupation of graphic designer was given as his primary designator, but even that was underplayed, since there was no mention that his political poster art from the 70s and 80s is held in 2 British national collections, including the V&A. However, it is as a political and cultural writer that he has earned his main reputation, over the last 25 years. However, the article failed to give publication details of MW's books published by mainstream publishers, including Sidgwick & Jackson, Canary Press, and Fontana, leaving the impression that he was purely self-published. A brief search in the national British Library catalogue gave the following 5 books:
1. Poor man Beggar Man Thief: The story of New Horizon Youth Centre. Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1972.
2. State of Siege; Policing the Miners Strike. Canary Press, London. 1985.
3. A Turn of the Screw: The aftermath of the 1984-85 Miners’ Strike. Canary Press (1985)
4. Frightened for my Life; Deaths in British prisons. Geoff Coggan and Martin Walker. Fontana. (1982)
5. With Extreme Prejudice: Police Vigilantism in Manchester. Canary Press, London (1987)
MW's importance as a political writer can be gauged from this extract from an independent review of "With Extreme Prejudice" (1987) that appeared in the wellknown cultural journal The Edinburgh Review:
Walker’s method in this book (and his other ones) is to combine field research with searching philosophical critique of the tools at his and our disposal. Unlike many writers of the ‘left’, though, his concern is with citizens as human beings, not ciphers, which means his work is not only easy and exciting to read but also full of sudden insights into the way the arm of the state actually thinks…. It would be nice to go on and on quoting extracts from the book. More practically, every reader of ER should buy a copy, read it, then pass it around as many others as possible. It is quite honestly the most coherent and programmatic analysis of what goes on in this country today, why and what to do about it, ever. It should explode the myth that state research is an esoteric discipline undertaken by weird ultra leftists, fit only to be scribbled then xeroxed on scraps of paper; it also explodes the myth that whatever sort of government we elect, it will make a precious bit of difference. The State is, literally, well sewn up.
The circumstances surrounding MW's move to self-publishing with his best-known book "Dirty Medicine" (1993) are politically noteworthy in themselves, and explained fully in the many interviews that he has given. An independent critical review of DM from the Marxist journal Capital & Class (1996) is available here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3780/is_199610/ai_n8751139 Since that book, MW has written mainly on political aspects of the relations between health providers, government and the corporate pharmaceuticals sector.
The deleted article failed to give adequate references, independent reviews, or supporting evidence, so it is easy to see why it was deleted. IMO it is just as easy to see why a short but better article can be written, containing a brief bio, with a factual account of the two main phases of his publications, including a properly referenced bibliography. A short "Critical opinion" section, citing the two examples above, would be helpful to 'place' MW. And of course, some mention of national collections holding his design works from the earliest part of his career would round out the picture. Please let me have your opinion whether this can just go ahead, or whether a formal "deletion review" is called for. Thanks, Sam Weller (talk) 08:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the advice - I've pasted the above here for comments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_12#Martin_Walker
Sam Weller (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Singularity, Votes to recreate: 4 (including my proposal); votes against: 0. Where do we go from here? Sam Weller (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
You have explained no rationale for deleting FADVOCAT. You should not have deleted it if you really call WikiPedia an encyclopedia. Anyway I need FADVOCAT Page's Copy. My email address is jean.gabriel@curemd.com. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeangabriel (talk • contribs) 08:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion Review for Knights Templar and popular culture
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Knights Templar and popular culture. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Weber
Can you explain your reasoning for seeing no consensus here? There seems to be a clear consensus. I saw no evidence of notability which merited an article. Two editors disagreed and suggested sources. Six editors agreed with me in being unconvinced that the sources indicated that the subject was important enough for a bio. Seems fairly clear to me.--Docg 18:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- I greatly admire Wikipedians who have the grace to review and change their minds. Thanks.--Docg 18:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Al-kitab(Quran)
This article is not counterfork of Quran or islamic holy books because Quran or islamic holy books based people iterpritation and not based on translation of arabic text of Quran. wikipidea should promote truth about Quran. but it seems that wikipidea is a place where Quran cannot be explained as per its arabic text but can all be write here which doesnot verified by arabic text of Quran. please review the deletion to promote the truth of Quran. Farrukh38 (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] request to read debate for Al-kitab(Quran)
please read the debate and see that the truth must be verifiable with text of Quran. instead of getting reply of my post against itaqallah argument you have deleted article. in this debate all are trying to impose that i must agree with them but and not agree with the text of Quran. request to review deletion.because any claim about Quran must not be away from the messege of Quran as per its arabic text. all are trying to say that claims about Quran cannot be verified with arabic text of Quran which seems illogical because claims about the arabic text of Quran are not verifiable with the arabic text of Quran. Farrukh38 (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Template:NASA
Hi there! I was away for the weekend and just got back and to my surprise this template was redirected to Template:PD-USGov-NASA, now I know there was a discussion at wp:tfd but the thing is that template is very important to a huge number of space articles and its part of a list of third-party attribution templates which now has a huge image template ie: Template:PD-USGov-NASA right in the middle of it , see : Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles#Including_third-party_content also if you read here: Wikipedia:Public_domain_resources#Please_include_an_appropriate_template_for_the_reference_in_article it is explicitly asked of users to use reference templates in articles. What I'm trying to get at is: if templates such as these should no longer be used then that’s a decision that needs to be made for all of them and with the participation of a greater number of people. I have the impression that the people who participated in that discussion were not aware of the fact that this is just one of a number of other similar templates and that their use has been standard practice for quite some time… PS: in case you wanna know just how many articles were affected by this see here (scroll down to march 29) - Regards, Acer (talk) 14:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
- When you said those templates were you referring to all third-party attribution templates or only the nasa ones? If only the Nasa one then I don't really see the point in substituting since the argument used at wp:tfd was that the text was unnecessary and that a simple summary in the history would do it. By substituting we would be adding the same text back (which was the reason for the tfd in the first place) and in which case there really inst a difference between using the actual template or subst(the template having in fact the advantage that we can keep track of the articles that use it). If the concern was more with the confusion thing then perhaps renaming the template might be the easier option? Acer (talk) 18:45, 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 15:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: WikiProject Hawaii Newsletter
Yeah, that would be awesome! Thanks for volunteering to do that! I haven't started the next issue yet, but I will in April. Happy editing! –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 14:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
- Looking forward to your great work. We could also use an update about the Hawaiian Wikipedia. Please sign up over at the News Bureau and feel free to start adding to the May issue section, or get with Obento to start adding your material directly to the May issue. —Viriditas | Talk 09:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Category:Law enforcement agencies of New South Wales in Australia
You did a speedy delete on this based on the assertion that there was consensus to rename. However this discussion was only open for two days and we normally keep them open for five days. While I agree that this is likely to be the final consensus, the deletion following the moving of the articles are both out of process. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Ft
Template:Ft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — pete 14:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia Signpost tutorial series
Hi Singularity,
Thanks for offering to write articles for the Wikipedia Signpost tutorial series. Just letting you know that we have run out of tutorials to use in the Signpost, and so if you have time, it would be great if you could make a start with some of the topics that you have claimed, but not yet finished! Thanks! enochlau (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] My RfA...
EyeSerenetalk 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Alison Weir
Hi. I know we no longer have an article on Alison Weir (activist), but I'd like to re-create the dab page due to concerns expressed by the author over past confusions in real life resulting in threats to her security. No problem with the activist remaining as a redlink. Guy (Help!) 19:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, fixed. I'll remove the section above, since it's also at OTRS and you probably don't want to go there :-) Guy (Help!) 21:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] thank spam
 |
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky |
[edit] RfA thanks
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Hawaii Newsletter
It probably won't be ready 'cause I've been sick and nothing's been done, but could you tell me a few things about the Hawaiian Wikipedia? I noticed that you worked on it a lot (especially the main page). How can we expand the Hawaiian Wikipedia? How can we get more members? How will those like me who can't speak Hawaiian contribute to the Hawaiian Wikipedia more effectively? Thanks for taking your time to read this. Cheers! 24.25.255.242 (talk) 02:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- I wondered why you deliver the newsletter to my talk page? I didn't sign up for it nor am I hawaiian. Please stop this kind of spam. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Userfieing the Adeyto article to my user space
Hi Singularity, I actually do not know you at all and I just chose you from the admins list because your user name was cool enough. I am here to ask you to please userfie the Adeyto article to my user space. This article served Wikipedia for few years before suddenly being erased by an editor with the main reason that the pictures available on the article aren't free. For a fact, the pictures have been personally donated by Adeyto (the photographer/subject of those pictures) to Wikimedia Commons for public use. But the article is still deleted/stranded because the editor that erroneously erased it is reluctant to free the article so that everyone can see it was no hoax or spam. The article is already on today's Deletion-Review log and although it was once userified by another editor, he was forced to change his mind it seems. I don't think anyone can force me to change my mind so I want to offer my user space for further discussions about that article. If my request should be beyond your powers please let me know. Peace and thank youTsurugaoka (talk) 16:26, 30 April 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 17:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
