User talk:Kozuch

Link spam

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To Nlu: Links I am adding are not commercial. They are related to the site topic and are non-profit

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kozuch (talk • contribs) .

It doesn't matter if the link is commercial or not. As explained in Wikipedia:External links, linked material should add to the article. People come to Wikipedia to find out about a subject. What I'm seeing are some short pages with a bunch of links. They even cite Wikipedia as a source! So you're just regurgitating the same material back at us. Futhermore, you seem to be the admin of the site, and adding links to your own site is generally frowned upon. This is called linkspamming.

Finally, removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism. Consider yourself warned on both issues. --Imroy 22:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. Imroy 22:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding spam to Wikipedia. No only are you linking to your own site, but your own site is merely a copy of the Wikipedia article with added advertising. You are very obviously not adding anything to Wikipedia by these links. — Saxifrage ✎ 04:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Bitweaver

This article has been deleted 4 times (the last time was yesterday), so I'd encourage you to add {{db-owner}} to it to allow speedy deletion, otherwise it will have to go to AFD again. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 15:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I ask you to stop violating Wikipedia policy and stop deleting an article that is in compliance with all rules. Kozuch

Repeated spamming

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. Nehwyn 16:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about???

Sorry, that was not very clear indeed. I was referring to the warnings your already received, as listed above. Nehwyn 20:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I ask you to remove the "Repeated spamming" sign because you do not know what is going on at all. There has been a serious problem with article creation, the article "Bitweaver" about Bitweaver CMS (www.bitweaver.org) has been deleted 5 times without a proper reason. This is violating Wikipedia policies and so is your unprofessional behaviour.

I have protected Bitweaver from recreation because it has been deleted and recreated multiple times. Eventually, administrators get tired of constantly deleting it. Please don't recreate it unless you have a really good reason. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Kozuch, I am afraid I have to decline your request. Spamming articles will be removed; if you repost them (as you have done repeatedly), they will be removed again and again. That is what is going on. Moreover, if you delete a warning from your talk page (again, as you have done already) that would be considered Wikipedia:Vandalism under Wikipedia regulations. Sorry about the situation... but please do not feel discouraged to contribute to Wikipedia in other ways. :) Nehwyn 21:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:AMD PIC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AMD PIC.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Eduwise.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Eduwise.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 18:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tags

HI you dated a couple of these in the future! Rich Farmbrough, 18:35 29 September 2007 (GMT).

It was a last day of the month or so...--Kozuch (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Expert-subject at Free Software

I'm an expert on free software. Could you please explain how attention from an expert on the subject is needed? --mms (talk) 21:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Info on expert help for free software article?

Hi. I have a good ten years of involvement in the free software community/movement, so your "expert help needed" tag on the free software article caught my eye, but I can't find info on the talk page about what parts of the article need help. Can you say on the Talk page what help is needed? That way others will know what to do, and will know when the tag can be removed. If you don't say what problem needs to be fixed, no one will know why the notice should stay. --Gronky (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I meant especially profiling the "free software" vs. "open source software" issue, which is discussed on the talk page several times, but not cleary described in either of the articles.--Kozuch (talk) 23:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The most detailed coverage of that topic is in the article Alternative terms for free software, but this issue is given the 2nd paragaph in the free software article, so I'm not sure where we could add a more detailed discussion. We should try to avoid having one description of the issue on the free software page and another on the open-source software page and another on some other page (that's why the "alternative terms..." article was created). --Gronky (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Linux

Thank you for your patience while I finished implementing the new Template:Linux. I'm done my part now, so please feel free to go ahead and edit away! - Ahunt (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Free and Open Source Software Template

Thanks for suggesting this on the Template:Linux talk page. As I mentioned there, I think it is a good idea to have a new and separate template for FLOSS, while keeping the Linux template intact. To that end I have started a new proposed FLOSS template at User:Ahunt/Sandbox. Please do have a look at it and feel free to edit it to make it more like you had in mind. I don't have a complete idea what should be on it and thus have just put some examples there. If we can get it up to a basic level of completeness then we can go "live" with it and put it on some pages. That will encourage others to edit it and make it better yet (hopefully). - Ahunt (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement and for your edits on the proposed template. I don't have a problem having it go live right away - that will give more editors a change to have a kick at it. I have some doubts about the idea of listing applications listed on it, as there are tens of thousands of them. But let's go live and and see how it evolves. Perhaps you can help me spread it around on the pages it should go onto? - Ahunt (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay it is there at Template:FLOSS Feel free to jump on in! - Ahunt (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. That is what I have been doing, with the exception of applications, which are joined to the template through the application list. I was thinking that it is helpful to have the nav template on the applications pages, many of the articles are short and have no other navigation help on them, particularly to the mater list. - Ahunt (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note again - I missed what you had done when I went through the template history. No sweat, in time the template will get better! No more input, the better - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

"OMG, are you paid by M$ for this??? STOP your POV activities ASAP!"

I'm a bit confused. Are we having some kind of disagreement that I'm unaware of?

Thanks, WalterGR (talk | contributions) 13:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You removed sourced critical content with no proper reason and no discussion at all - this is unfortunatelly a template of your behaviour here on Wikipedia.--Kozuch (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am proud of and stand by my edit history. I'd be happy to re-evaluate my behavior if you provide specific examples this "template". Alternately, feel free to do so on the appropriate administrator noticeboard. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 14:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

So am I of mine, but I just do not like removing well-sourced and valuable content especially if it is critic or on controversial topic. Other case of your behaviour is talked here.--Kozuch (talk) 15:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Silverlight

Please do not accuse other editors just because their ideologies do not match with yours and unless you have some concrete evidence to back your accusations up. Always assume good faith and respect others. Comment all you like on the edits, but not on the editor. That will keep away from you a lot of unpleasantness in any content dispute you might get involved in. --soum ^talk 13:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

For the barnstar! - Ahunt (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Longmeng

Another editor has added the {{prod}} template to the article Longmeng, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 01:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Propriety

Actyually Office Open XML belongs to Ecma International. It does not belong to Microsoft but to an independant standards organization and therefore is by defnition not a propriety format Microsoft has provided the basis and the technology but does not own the format in any way. It might own patent rights on the technology (which it has licensed trough a FREE RAND OSP license) but that does not make it propriety. IBM and Sun own patents for ODF. That does not make ODF a propriety format does it.

Your current edit look like petty edits to make ODF look better than OOXML. I suggest however you stay on factual ground. hAl (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for explanation, I must have misunderstood the matter. However, its true I am a fan of ODF :).--Kozuch (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Longmeng

An editor has nominated Longmeng, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longmeng and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Web Browsers

[1] I am not sure if you still need to know how the template looked like, but if you do I can provide you with the deleted revision. If you do not, well, just so you know almost any admin would provide you with the text of any deleted stuff. --soum ^talk 16:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

History of laptops

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of History of laptops, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.buyalaptop.info/History%20of%20Laptops. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Using AWB

Hi. Please be careful with using AWB. This is a violation of the rules. Please keep in mind that rules of use state: Avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits such as only adding or removing some white space. Friendly, -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A Library-stub template was removed in this particular edit too - does that qualify as insignificant or inconsequential too?--Kozuch (talk) 09:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Check that later writes: "moving a stub tag, converting some HTML to Unicode, removing underscores from links (unless they are bad links), or something equally trivial. This is because it wastes resources and clogs up watch lists." -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont want to play with words, but the tag was RE-moved, not moved... Sure, I am new to AWB and I still have to find my way around. I will try do do my best.--Kozuch (talk) 12:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I just checked! You were right and I was wrong. My apologies. I would remove the tag as well. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

AWB on Austria

Hi,

Could you re-run AWB on Austria? I reverted a sockpuppet and I figured it'd be easier for you to sick AWB on the article than a point by point edit on the current version. Sorry about the inconvenience. WLU (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

AWB

Hi! Please be more careful when using it. Herat is a city in Afghanistan and shouldn't be always changed to 'heart' :) Alæxis_¿question? 05:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, I missed that one.--Kozuch (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Blue Hat and Blue Hat Conf are different

Why did you merge the Blue Hat and Blue Hat Conference together into one paragraph? They are two different things and mashing the two definitions into one paragraph is IMHO confusing. - Operknockity (talk) 02:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, the article is still very little info though. Please dont use links in headings.--Kozuch (talk) 08:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't know about the heading links style rule...duly noted. - Operknockity (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Macintosh history split

Hi! You proposed splitting the history section in [Macintosh]], but didn't offer any reasons why. I've started a talk page section and I invite you to contribute there (if we discuss it here no one else will see it).--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 23:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AWB on Fanny Imlay

When running AWB on Fanny Imlay, you/it removed a "<p>" code inside a block quotation, which then made the quotation look like one paragraph instead of two. I fixed this, but then you/it changed it back. I'm not quite sure why. I have now fixed it again. The quotation has been copied exactly from the original source. If you could fix this bug in the software, I would appreciate it! Awadewit (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Featured article template

Hi -- I notice you've been moving the featured article template to above the categories. I was under the impression that the featured article template was supposed to be the last thing in the article. Can you tell me what the reason for the change is? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 19:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the AWB default setting, so I assume it is correct.--Kozuch (talk) 19:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

AWB on Joseph Priestley

AwB broke links at Joseph Priestley - see the diff. Some code must be broken. Awadewit (talk) 21:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanx for reporting, I will forward this.--Kozuch (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This bug was fixed already :).--Kozuch (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Free speech zone worldwide perspective

What would you like to have done to expand or balance the FPZ article, when the zones are a U.S. peculiarity? I don't speak Russian or Esperanto, the languages behind the interwiki links, but those articles seem to deal exclusively with the American concept as well. We could always go bug a suitably international wikiproject and ask them if they know any foreign equivalents. --Kizor 10:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, if you have an idea on how the article needs repairs or how to do them, please voice that idea. If you're procrastinating on an answer, please answer with the word "Banana." --Kizor 17:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I go "banana" now - the article is about US stuff and should remain so probably.--Kozuch (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hi,

Your edit summaries on Web browser really don't help people to understand what it is that you're doing to the article. Rather than just copying in some piece of syntax being moved, could you try using a rationale or a brief overview of your changes? This is a big help when examining how an article has changed over a series of edits. Thanks! Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Unicorn (company)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Unicorn (company), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Unicorn (company) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Unicorn (company), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Windows tax

Hi. Regarding:

> "Please do not remove well sourced material":

If you read the edit summary of my revertion, then you know the reason why I removed it. To elaborate: the fact that you had added, at the top of the article, information that was already present in considerably more detail in the appropriate section lower down (the "Licensing agreements" subsection of "Business Practices") suggested that you did not realise that the information was already present in the article. Perhaps you assumed that "product criticism" included license agreement criticism, and so thought that if such criticism was not present there then it was not in the article at all. As such, I removed your addition to avoid pointless duplication.

Actually, that's not the case for the whole of your addition -- there is indeed one part of your addition that isn't already in the article: the claim that there are some parts of the world where it is not possible to buy computers without Windows. So why did I delete that part rather than moving it to the appropriate section? Because that is the one part of your addition which isn't sourced.

As such, I have now left the statements about Microsoft / Windows tax, as they are well sourced, only removing the "due to the Windows market dominance among personal computer operating systems" as unnecessarily restating the context halfway through a point; and added a citation neeed tag to the claim about the unavailability of WIndows-free computers.

I hope this clears up any confusion about my edits. Thanks, -- simxp (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Common Agricultural Policy

Hi. I noticed you added a tag to this article suggesting the intro needed improving. Unfortunately you did not explain on talk why you felt this was needed. Perhaps you could explain what you feel is wrong with the intro? Sandpiper (talk) 08:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Ten articles in one day at Peer Review

Please do not nominate more than two articles per day at Peer Review - see this discussion Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_Guideline:_a_daily_limit_on_the_number_of_PR_requests_per_editor. There are a limited number of reviewers, and nominating ten articles all on one broad subject (Computing) strains the system unreasonably. My suggestion is that you pick the two you most want feedback on and withdraw the other eight. After you see the comments on the first two, fix those issues in the other articles, then nominate two more, and repeat this until done. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to postpone any nominations.--Kozuch (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no mechanism to "postpone" nominations. Since you made the nominations, you should decide which are the highest priority please. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Software Bugs.

I note your agressively pro-Microsoft stance (as indicated in several comments further up this page) - but truly, the change you made to List of software bugs was ridiculous. The business practice of releasing open source software cannot remotely be called a "Software Bug" whether you agree with that practice or not. Hence, I have reverted your change in its entirety. Please don't do things like that again. It's highly POV and it was wildly off-topic for that list article. SteveBaker (talk) 18:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:List of software bugs#Free software. By the way, I actually try to do more for FOSS rather than for MS.--Kozuch (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

William Hillcourt

Is there an issue with the use of {{lifetime}} to create the DEFAULTSORT and birth and date cats? --— Gadget850 (Ed)talk 12:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The diff might be a bug in AWB, I am not sure now.--Kozuch (talk) 19:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

New peer review policy

Please see Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy which places the following limits on peer review requests: "Nominations are limited to one per editor per day and four total requests per editor. Articles must be free of major cleanup banners and 14 days must have passed since the previous peer review, FAC, GAN, or A-class review. For more information on these limits see here." This was discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits.

Since you have 5 PR requests currently open (and have made no replies to any of the ten you opened recently that I am aware of), I have archived your PR latest request for Internet. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Eenglish

Please note that "english" is not capitalized in pool and billiard related articles when used to mean sidespin. Thanks--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

AWB reference format fixes

In [2] a period after a ref is moved before the ref, duplicating the period already there. This sort of edit is not trivial to do properly. Is this part of AWB or did you create the regexes yourself? Gimmetrow 02:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I use a reglex set defined here. It works most of the time, but surely could be still iproved.--Kozuch (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Those have clear deficiencies with common things like this.. I have a javascript which does a somewhat better job, but any real language is complex. Gimmetrow 09:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I tried to add a "double dot removal" rule behind the ref reglexes - to remove all ".." unless it is a "..." (which is used in citing). It worked fine unless messing some URLs - I need to improve that first. Also, some folks use ".." in quotes rather than "...".--Kozuch (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikify?

You placed the {{wikify}} tag a the head of Polyamory. I have no idea what specific aspect of the article you feel is in need of improvement based on this tag. Will you please provide comments at its talk page describing what shortcomings you perceive in the current article (or even just fix them)? A very generic tag with no explanation is more of a hinderance than a help. LotLE×talk 00:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Seemed quite obvious to me though.--Kozuch (talk) 10:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Peak oil

You are placing ref tags on sections that have many references and point to heavily referenced articles. Perhaps it would be more helpful if you would tag as the statements which you believe need citations. NJGW (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Commons

Thanks for that commons tag on the OOXML article. It alerted me that there are images available. I just added one to the article. Cheers. --Lester 22:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. There are two images in the Standardization of Office Open XML article already though.--Kozuch (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Inveneo

A tag has been placed on Inveneo, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Mayalld (talk) 14:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

History of Bahrain

Thanks for you contribution on History of Bahrain. Could please take a look again at some sections of these article. It seems that it needs a careful grammar check.--Larno Man (talk) 21:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Apertium

Hey man, thanks for adding a link to Apertium to the machine translation page! I'm a developer so I couldn't do it for conflict of interest :) - Francis Tyers · 19:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Preview request

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Mainframe Computer, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. This is in addition to the many other articles you placed ref needed tags onto and did so with multiple edits. A single edit is better for those monitoring articles for vandalism and inaccurate changes. --TreyGeek (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I try to do my best :D. Cant you distinguish me as an established editor when monitoring last changes???--Kozuch (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Credible author

Hello. A credible authors' reference is being "overrided" by edit-warring. I recently tried to add to the telescope article but this editor seems to think that his opinion overrides a VERY credible author in Mr. Richard Powers. I've been blocked before for edit-warring recently, so I don't want this to be another incident on my record.

Anyway, the other editor seemed to have asked his friend-type editors to form a consensus, so I will do the same. The Islamic connection here is, Al-Haytham. He is FUNDAMENTAL to the telescope and the FATHER of optics. By definition, the summary can include him since the radio and electro-magnetic telescopes are derogatory to the average person looking at the article; I wanted to add it to the history section since it looked cleaner. Can you help your fellow InternetHero?? InternetHero (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Robot

Hi. You recently added the copyedit tag to the Robot article. This is a very long article, so it's not clear if the tag applies to the whole article, or to one section of it. Please could you clarify on the Talk:Robot page. Thanks. Rocketmagnet (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

TUSC token 61a7c8fbc229e78bfe7f3f213b0789e3

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Roma

My apologies on that edit. I was copy-editing a variety of stuff so I didn't list it all. Your edit was valid, however, it was in the wrong place. It suddenyl came up that the Roma made an appearance in the magazine. It should have been in a different section not "Central and Eastern Europe." Perhaps in a "Roma in popular culture section". I will post something in the discussion in this regard. You should contribute there. Lihaas (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

US Army Corps of Engineers

I am confused as to why you added the {{refimprove}} tag to this article. The references include the following:

• USACE's public website
• USACE's intranet
• An independent written publication
• Army Engineer Association magazine
• US Civil War center professional bulletin
• An organization opposed to USACE
• An educational institution
• A senator's website
• Local news media
• An independent FOIA request
• State of New York report

That is a pretty wide range of references. Granted, some of the references are from the organization itself; however, when describing an organization, its missions, its history, and its goals, that would not be unreasonable.

I have removed the tag for now. I've also included this discussion on the Talk:United States Army Corps of Engineers. Please respond there so that others can join in the discussion if desired. Don'tKnowItAtAll (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia}} template and the Wikimedia Foundation article

Just to note: Wikipedia is one of the several projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. Articles relating to Wikipedia are relevant to the article on Wikimedia Foundation. That is why the {{Wikipedia}} template is relevant to the article on Wikimedia Foundation. The template is intended strictly to aid in navigation related to articles dealing with Wikipedia. There is no reason why it should be removed. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 13:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why more citations?

You added the {{refimprove}} tag to Cut,_copy,_and_paste. I'm relatively new to editing so it would help me learn to find out how you decided that. Thanks --Sultec (talk) 05:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wayan Vota

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wayan Vota, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ffm 23:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Nettop

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to assign Nettop (computer) a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Nettop. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history that is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows a page to be moved to a new title together with its edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "move" tab at the top of the page [as you did when relocating the disambiguation page to Nettop (disambiguation)]. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. —David Levy 00:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Banners on Long Term Evolution

Try to get involve in improving articles and not just simply fixing banners. Whom do you think can do all that for you? . And yes! banners do not solve but discouraging our daily efforts on improving articles to satisfy poeple like you. If you see the need for more sources then find them and fix, or let us discuss. We all good in criticizing and its so simple to copy and paste banners. We just don't get it. Am sorry if this sounds annoying to you. GoLLoXp (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)