User talk:Basar/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

SATs

I notice you reverted my edit of the Katie Holmes article. SATs is incorrect; SAT (singular) is the correct form. 209.236.231.253 01:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I just noticed you redid it. My apologies, and thank you. 209.236.231.253 01:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed; I was reverting the edit before yours. Basar 01:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Bearing capacity

I'm not sure that the Terzaghi equations should be included in the Bearing capacity article, as Hansen and Meyerhof are much more commonly used by practicing engineers. I rewrote the sentence about allowable bearing capacity in soil mechanics to be a little more general; while a F.S. of 3 is common, it's not universal; there's a common rough method which has a F.S. > 2.57, but not necessarily 3. Also, the F.S. of 3 is for dead plus live loads; we typically allow an increase of 33% (reduction of F.S. of 25%) for wind and seismic (or other transient) loads. But meanwhile, thanks for picking up the ball on the geotech articles; I'd reached a point where I was too close to them to contemplate significant improvements, and was sticking to vandal reverts and minor edits. Argyriou (talk) 23:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Liquid limit
Cohesion (chemistry)
Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Horncastle
Geomechanics
Plastic limit (soils)
Clay minerals
Casagrande Device
Caliente Range
Sebastidae
Volcanic plug
Brown Peak (Kern County, California)
Matterhorn Peak
Structural design
Praise song
Ashby by Partney
Anand, Gujarat
Montgomery Peak
Salinan
Acholiland
Cleanup
International Churches of Christ
Value engineering
Remy Ma
Merge
Building automation
Sea Org
Evangelism
Add Sources
Construction
Harmony, California
Industrial ecology
Wikify
Benigembla
Akram Pahalwan
Ranbaxy Laboratories
Expand
Touchscreen
Basement
Notable birding-related books of the 20th Century

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


pile

The only reason that i changed the catagory type for the pile page is because the brauder term Civil Engineering seems to make more sense and for the pile page it covers more than just geotechinical engineering thanks Pdigrl 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Neat

I'm mainly in geophysics now, but retain my geotechnical roots. I've done articles on slope stability, and am now happy to get the nasty 'civil' purged! --Zeizmic 02:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wave equation analysis Page

May i ask you why you made some some of the edits to the Wave equation analysis page? i know that they were not large edits but they take out important bits of information, and make it gramaticly correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pdigrl (talkcontribs) 06:56, January 22, 2007.

List of California birds

Congrats, on getting this list featured, always good to see more bird lists featured. I didn't see the nomination until it was too late, but in case you are considering anymore bird lists, I know the history of the text introducing the families. List of North American birds was the first FL. (It was selected, I believe, in part because its failed FA nom inspired the creation FL) At the time of its elevation the families did not have the intro text. When I nominated List of Oklahoma birds one commenter, who was unfamiliar with birds wanted some sort of intro for each group. I cribbed together the descriptions from the Wikipedia articles on each family. Some of them are just a direct quote of the first several sentences of each article. The families not present in Oklahoma were written later either for other lists like Florida, or were written for the NA list. Dsmdgold 16:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Queen Elizabeth's Grammar School, Horncastle
Anand, Gujarat
Thixotropy
Fremont Peak State Park
Cathedral Lakes
Avila Beach, California
P-y method
Caliente Range
Tolima Department
Volcanic plug
Grapevine Mountains
Mission Peak Regional Preserve
Ashby by Partney
Chatsworth Peak
Structural design
Cohesion (chemistry)
Downhill creep
New World quail
Soil test
Cleanup
Research Council
Bob Avakian
Californio
Merge
Spud mud
Acceptance test
Origin of the name California
Add Sources
Harmony, California
Drainage
Gley soil
Wikify
Portola Redwoods State Park
Sea lice
Kenneth Feingold
Expand
Santa Clara River Valley
Orange Curtain
Indian Plate

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Branta bernicla2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Branta bernicla2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.


On the commons you linked the wrong image. However, the set you linked is free. gren グレン 09:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I fixed the link. Basar 16:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

grading

I've replied at Talk:Unified Soil Classification System. Αργυριου (talk) 00:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Retaining walls

Responded on my page. Cheers. MadMaxDog 10:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Santana

-Johan Santana: Off-hand, how many pitchers, let alone AL pitchers, can you think of that have hit a triple? I apologize for not being the best at writing this stuff, but doesn't that seem to warrant noting? I thought it was quite the feat for a pitcher.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mtcupps (talkcontribs) 01:34, June 25, 2007.

Thank you for the tip...however

I have never been advised as such by anyone else, including admin. I have a personal style that may not be for everyone. As for the Sacramento page I would worry a little more about the article itself. I had to remove an ad link for a dance studio and then taged it for speedy removal. If editors spent as much time on the Articles as they do critisizing others, we would have much more accurate articles with far less spam. But thank you for taking the time to contact me. Have some cookies.

Cookies!

--Amadscientist 21:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No you weren't wrong. I just don't have alot of time while I am trying to edit and contribute....and to be honest I've had problems with a few editors in the recent past get very harsh and uncivil with me over wikipedia policy...where they were in the wrong. I do try to add summeries when I have time and can think of the appropriet words. I really should have added "More information" at the very least....but it was late and I was on meds and falling asleep at the keyboard.--Amadscientist 22:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Time to delete History section

From what I understand if a section is given it's own page we leave the main article notification for a period then remove it and add to "See Also". Don't you think the page looks odd with a section that isn't even in the article at the top of the page? Perhaps it is time to removes that section as it is empty now. Redirects don't really constitute a section. What do you think? Could use the clean up.--Amadscientist 20:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course, I did not realize that. Thank you for pointing that out. This surely shows my lack of experiance on Wiki. Got it.--Amadscientist 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

CalPoly

You must be at SLO.

The battle you have engaged is a bit old, others having taken your position, while yet others oppose. Please see the note on the talk page for the disambiguation page, which I left there but a few minutes ago. William R. Buckley 05:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I bring to your attention another salvo in the popular vs. official naming war; adjustment by an anonymous editor. William R. Buckley 16:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

You might have the best plan - leave the small change, rather than revert. I think my point is that many other editors have engaged this bicker (sp?). Your (IIRC) edit was to point out that either school is known as CalPoly. Some editors find this unacceptable. Yet, even the schools have vascillated. Frankly, for such issues, I think that the disambiguation page is a right suitable place to include discussion. Anyway, at least you are apprised. Ciao! William R. Buckley 16:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Content

I saw your post on the baseball project. I like the template and think it can definitely help with those articles. On a related topic, I have been reading wiki for a loooong time. I am just now editing. You can see my first real contributions here and here. I will say that I find the baseball related content on here to be pretty horrendous. There are tons and tons and tons and tons of bad articles. My biggest complaint is that information is being templated out the "wahzoo" and these templates and lists and see also sections are getting out of hand. I see articles like Frank Robinson and my mind goes nuts. I am so hesitant to talk on that baseball project page after the recent spat that broke out there that was about everything but content. Do you have any suggestions? Long levi 07:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, welcome to the editing community. You did a really good job on your first two articles, especially handling the referencing and template syntaxes. I'm not sure what to do about fixing the baseball section of Wikipedia. Those arguments on the project page were rather over the top. The editor who came in and tried to act like a mediator and call for a straw poll did the right thing, so hopefully a consensus is reached and they can edit more important and more enjoyable things. Perhaps baseball, or sports in general, are a little special in that there are so many different ways to looks at records and positions that they lend themselves to an exorbitant amount of templates and lists that other parts of the encyclopedia do not. One way to handle it is to take a deletionist attitude and remove all but the most important things. I do not particularly favor that philosophy and would rather see standards brought forth which promote consistency and coherency between articles, so that editors know exactly what is needed and what is supposed to be included. That may, or may not, help reduce unnecessary templates and see also entries. Like on Frank Robinson, those larger managerial templates are probably redundant with the managerial succession box. Using that show/hide feature also helps. It would be nice if there was more content attention and discussion, but I'm not sure what can be done about that. The more you edit, the more comfortable and confident you'll become when faced with things like project pages and arguments. By the way, I think the last line you put in that image you uploaded should stop the bot, but saying how you got the image might be helpful too. Cheers. Basar 07:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I hope you don't mind, I copied the text from your post here so the conversation is easier to follow for you. There was an editor who was not the mediator, and I like the attempt to bring order, but they did a pretty poor job. That straw poll was pretty misleading. But i digress. I am frightened from even talking on any of those pages. The people on there just can't get along. I think one problem that wikipedians have in general is that they believe that more content is tantamount to better content. The List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters is a prefect example. It is ridiculously long (to the point that it is not useful). There is a discussion going on where someone defended it by saying it is neat to follow the daily updates. I don't know that wiki is intended for that. I'm all ears. Long levi 03:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure, we can keep it on this page if you would like. I must have misunderstood what was happening when I skimmed it; the straw poll seemed like a good idea. You may know more about this stuff than I since I had never seen WP:L or WP:LAUNDRY. I think you are right that Wikipedia is not intended for such quickly changing information. Doing so takes a lot of effort on the part of the user and it clogs the page history. If the user who is updating the page leaves, then we just have a bunch of outdated content. Having information that dates less quickly, or not at all, is certainly preferable given the option. Deciding what content should be included in the encyclopedia is hard to define in general terms and also in some specific situations. It is also difficult deleting a person's work if they spent a lot of time adding it to the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is also not paper, so it doesn't have the typical confines of a classical encyclopedia. Too much information can make it difficult to find the information you really care about, and some kinds of information are best left to other wiki projects or other sources entirely (perhaps continually updated stats in the middle of a season is best left to espn and mlb who have automatically updating systems). I think you would find that your arguments are more thoughtful and well researched than most people on these pages, especially baseball pages, if you decided to engage in the conversations you care about. After all, it is a wiki guideline to be bold. People have talked about content inclusion philosophies; there are inclusionists as well as deletionists and some people of other philosophies. I don't think there is an easy answer. Basar 05:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh we can keep this discussion wherever, I just thought it would be easier on you. The straw poll was definitely a good idea, but it was also worded very poorly. According to WP:STRAW, that means it should not be considered. I'm not sure if i'm an inclusioinist or a deletionist. I certainly don't have a problem with good information being included, but all of these templates duplicate information. I don't think this benefits the article. Look at this recent change to Koufax. So now we have 3 stat sites? all of which say essentially the same thing? I agree with you 100% on all of these "updating" stats. People do it because they like contributing, I understand that. But it still doesn't mean that it's an effective way to contribute. I took some time looking at two articles that were mentioned heavily: Brad Ausmus and Jason Marquis. They are in horrible shape. I want to be bold and start "fixing" things...but I am scared that I'll be attacked. I created List of major baseball leagues because i think that people confuse the term "Major League Baseball" (ie - the league) and major league baseball (the level of competition). More work needs to be done to straighten out professional baseball and Major League Baseball. Professional baseball (at least in the USA), starts in the minors as they are paid professionals. I don't want people's opinions to be ignored, but I also feel like there were a lot of reasonable points made that were glossed over because of "hurt feelings". Long levi 08:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright, well let's see how everyone plays. I've requested a page move and content reduction for this article.

Impending help

Well, what I thought was going to happen, has. It looks like User:Baseball Bugs, User:Epeefleche and User:Irishguy are trying to drag me into a fight over content. I've left the Hank Aaron article for now. A level head might be beneficial to the situation as they are starting to follow me around.  Long Levi  06:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I just noticed that and was looking over that article. I think you are right to just walk away from the argument. After all, it is just one link. If those editors are the kind that will be gone in a few months, perhaps the issue could be re-addressed. I think we can still try to bring Aaron to good article status; I may help out with some small things. Basar 07:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I have not tried to start any fights with Long levi. I've paid him one compliment and raised one fair question (as someone else did too) about the usefulness of a new page he created (see Talk:List of major baseball leagues). Anything he knows beyond that can only come from him following us around. So it's fair to assume that he already knows we're building a sockpuppet case against him. Baseball Bugs 07:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. It is indeed a serious accusation, and a checkuser is indeed part of the process. Baseball Bugs 12:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
He's been blocked indefinitely, following a checkuser. Baseball Bugs 22:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. We went by the book, and wiki-justice was swift. :) Baseball Bugs 22:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk: SLO

Looks like I accidentally edited teh archive page. Thanks for catcing it! XSG 06:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk: Jeff Claassen

After spending months researching valid information to contribute a worthy article to wikipedia, about an award winning artist whom I have admired for years- my article was tagged for "speedy deletion" by user you, and removed within hours of posting. I feel that this was extremely rash and unnecessary. The subject's "notability" was cited, however the artist has achieved notoriety in film, television and print (two references were linked in the article), as well as a large following throughout the US and overseas. He has changed the attitude toward contemporary art in the San Luis Obispo area and has opened the door for many younger up and coming artists from Portland, San Diego, and Los Angeles, by providing a showcase for them in his gallery. The public is interested in this person. I know of many people who have searched his name in wikipedia, hoping to learn more about him, to no avail. It was this lack of information which lead me to write the piece myself. I feel that the subject was unfairly tagged and the article, unjustly deleted because of one editor on a power-trip. Free speech, indeed...

User talk:jeffismygyro Jeffismygyro 15:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You do not satisfy the notablity requirements for a "creative professional". -- Basar (talk · contribs) 19:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You do not satisfy the neutrality requirements of an "editor". The article was essentially removed because of your limited knowledge of contemporary art. It's a completely one-sided argument, as you've deleted the article without giving me a fair opportunity to amend it. Bravo.

Perhaps you should take it up with User:Carlossuarez46, who is the admin who agreed with Basar that the article should be deleted. Argyriou (talk) 21:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: {{Baseballstats}}

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate all the aork that's gone into your template, and I think it'll be a great tool if implemented properly. I don't want you to get the wrong impression. And trust me, I'm teaching myself how to use #if and #switch while putting together a template to standardize background colors in infoboxes, so I know the effort that's gone into it. I'm afraid that if we don't roll out your template like how I stated, there will be some backlash. You don't know how those Yankee fans can get... ;) Cheers, Caknuck 04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 05:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Geophysical engineering

An article that you have been involved in editing, Geophysical engineering, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geophysical engineering. Thank you. (yes, I know you haven't worked on it, but this is the best template I could find.) Argyriou (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bird Lists

I think that templating the family descriptions is a great idea. Among other things it would help get rid of my numerous typos all in one fell swoop. I'm afraid that the only support I can offer is moral, as I don't understand templates. I like the idea of including the worldwide stats for species numbers. I had actually considered abandoning that part of the description because of the difficulty involved in keeping the lists current as species were discovered, split and lumped. Can the template be multi-level in some way. The state lists had a "X species world-wide, Y species in North America and Z species in the state" format. Would keeping that require multiple templates per family (Anatidae:North America, Anatidae:Europe, etc) or could it be done with a single template? Dsmdgold 04:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you should bring it up a WP:BIRD if you haven't already. (I was really filling gaps and don't have a big investment in those articles) Yomanganitalk 00:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Robert E. Kennedy (Cal Poly)

Copyright.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Robert E. Kennedy (Cal Poly), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.lib.calpoly.edu/about/library/rek_bio.html. 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 19:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Houston, Texas

Sorry, didn't realize that you moved the ref up. Thanks! Postoak 05:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fibre Reinforced Concrete - Unacceptable Links

Basar, Thank you for your comments relating to my attempts to add links to the FRC article. I fully appreciate your thoughts about Wikipedia not simply being a directory of links or being used for advertising. The link that I attached was to our website which is entirely about fibre reinforcement but I do understand your concern that this could be construed as advertising. However, this is no different to the current Link 1) which is on the same page. I refer to the link to http://www.adfil.co.uk/docs/templates/news.asp?monthid=6&yearid=2004. Whilst the information on this page does refer to Fibres in Tunnel construction it is also advertising that particular company. If you have rules then it must be the same for all and I would therefore respectfully request that this link is also deleted.

In relation to my Image:PP Fibres & Explosive Spalling.pdf would this be acceptable if the advert (Which was in the same Magazine) was removed?

I look forward to receiving your comments.

Regards

Trevor —Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorWatkinson (talkcontribs) 21:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Carolina Birds

Thanks for helping out there, terrific job. Nick mallory 06:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Parodies of Harry Potter

As a Project editor involved in our little restructuring drive, you may be interested in commenting on the Parodies of Harry Potter article, which was recently formed in a controversial five-way merge with four individual articles and one list. The discussion may be viewed here. Happy-melon 20:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable civil engineers

Why get rid of the link to WP:Notable? That made sense. - Denimadept 21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure linking to the Wikipedia namespace is "kosher" in articles. Correct me if I'm wrong. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 21:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea, but I wouldn't have thought it to be a problem. - Denimadept 12:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar

It's always good to know my work is appreciated! WaltonOne 13:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Category engineering is way too big

Wikipedia considers engineering a problem category because it is way too big. You look through it and see what you can remove. For example, Building materials was in it. so was every single building project in the world. What do you thing should be removed so it won't be way too big like it is now? I welcome suggestions. Regards, --Mattisse 23:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Look at [[Category:Wikipedia categories in need of attention]] and see what you think. I will leave Engineering alone as I do not care whether it is too big or not. I was just being altruistic, which is always a mistake! --Mattisse 23:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Because I do not think all Building projects, or all European building projects and other general categories should go under Engineering. That is why the Category is so enormous. It dwarfs all the other categories that are too large. Engineer was on all Audio broadcasting articles, every article under Acoustics, almost every article on Physics, all the articles on Tools etc. Even little boats were in Engineering. It is actually comical. I don't think engineers, or who every categorizes their articles, understand Categories and how they work. It is dysfunctional. Engineering articles end up in off-the-wall categories. Try it. But I will lay off Engineering. --Mattisse 23:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories

I will give you an example from Psychology because that is what I know. There is an article and a Category in Psychology called Mood disorders. The article and Category are in Category:Psychology. If I take an article like Depressive disorder, all I need to do is put it in Mood disorders. From there it automatically goes into Psychology or the relevant sub categories in Psychology. If additionally I add Category:Psychology to Depressive disorder then it will also end up in the general uncategorized articles in Category:Psychology, bulking up the uncategorized pages for no good reason. When you have hundreds of articles uncategorized in Engineering, and really, too too many sub categories, no one is going to look through all that. It harms Wikipedia, which is why Category:Engineering is considered a problem category.

I have removed many whole categories from Engineering, like all the Aviation awards were under Engineering, all the Physics awards etc. etc. Everything that had anything to do with Mathematics or Physics or Optics was under Engineering. Those are just examples. Do you think that every article that has anything to do with Bridges should also be under Engineering? --Mattisse 00:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong diff

You must have sent the wrong diff [1] as that was not my edit. But in any event, I will do no more. Regards, --Mattisse 00:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I check the history on Matrix stiffness method. I have not edited that article at all, for the record. Regards, --Mattisse 00:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Project page redesign

I'm going to ask the Final Fantasy and Square-Enix people if we can do that with our project pages. If they agree, and you do it for us, I'll give you a barnstar :) Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 16:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help you out, but I'm sure there are people there who can do it too as it isn't very difficult. – Basar (talk · contribs) 04:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey Basar, I removed that formatting thing because, in Safari, there was no scrolling thing – it just kept going while that green line interrupted it in the middle. I just now tried opening the page in Firefox, and I see the difference. Could we ask the WP:VPT why it won't work in Safari? --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 17:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just curious if you can see the scrolling here: {{Scroll box}}. If you can't, then I think it is just a feature that Safari hasn't implemented yet, and I doubt there would be anything we can do about it. – Basar (talk · contribs) 04:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
(sorry for the delayed response) Yes, I can see the scroll box there. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 01:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I modified it slightly, let me know if it works. – Basar (talk · contribs) 02:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding posting my own images

Thanks for taking the lead on so many geotech topics. I also asked this of Αργυριου (talk) and please also forgive this request if you don't think it appropriate. I don't know how to do it, but would like to contribute the pictures I've taken of different CPT rigs both in Europe and the U.S. and donate them to the public domain on the CPT page. They are uploaded at my website http://www.mngeoservices.com/image. I don't want (or need) to advertise here (which is why I posted this on your talk page rather than CPT talk), so feel free to remove this request if you like. The pictures are of trucks from a number of different companies, so once again, no advertising motive. Can you help me out? Thanks in advance, Drillerguy 14:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh it's completely appropriate, and your pictures would be much appreciated. I created a category on the commons for CPT, so just create an account on the commons [2], follow the upload file link on the left hand side, follow the instructions, and put the images in the [[Category:Cone penetration testing]]. Once that is done, the pictures can be put onto the CPT article or any other article on any wikiproject. Cheers! – Basar (talk · contribs) 16:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Knockturn Alley

Hi Basar, Was there a discussion to redirect this page that I missed? faithless (speak) 22:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind. :P faithless (speak) 22:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I have to rescind my nevermind. I thought I'd be able to find the discussion, but no luck. Could you point me towards it? Thanks! :) faithless (speak) 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, when we first started the discussions, we had Happy-melon make a list of articles that he/she thought everyone would agree on merging. A few people approved of the list, no one objected, so the list was added to the merge template. – Basar (talk · contribs) 23:05, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Places in Harry Potter

Hey, yeah, I realized that, I'll move it back. Sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Batboy (talkcontribs) 23:12, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Buckaroo

Points go to you. You were correct. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter template

Is there a reason the links I fixed in the template were reverted as well? At the moment, there is a separate characters template, so it does not make sense to but a random selection of characters into this template (Why are only a portion of them from the other template included?) Also, what is the reason for removing the many links you removed when re-doing the template? For example, Harry Potter Trading Card Game, Spells, etc? --musicpvm 22:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize you fixed any links since I just looked at your edit summary [add: and mis-read, sorry]. The reason for link switching is, for the most part, due to a re-organization effort under way at WP:HP/N. Right now everything is in a state of flux, so it isn't perfect. I decided to start the change now because the old ones were getting a little out of date, and we would be soon finished with our re-organization effort, within a week or two. I also felt the new template was a little better organized and would start to concentrate attention to articles we are definitely keeping. The trading card game removal was an editorial decision by me in the way I organized the template. I felt that the major Harry Potter works (book and films, I don't know about the games) should be included as well as the analysis and impact of those works. I think a discussion on inclusion criteria would be appropriate. If you familiarize yourself with the situation at WP:HP/N and still want to change it, feel free, but I wouldn't recommend putting much effort into it because it will date quickly. – Basar (talk · contribs) 22:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply and the link to WP:HP/N. I wasn't aware of all the discussions at that page; I'll look them over. --musicpvm 00:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Clay

Hi. I have reverted your change as your edit is about clay from a very specific. As I noted in my change clay is not a soil. Soil may contain clays, but clay is not a soil. Please do not change this. It may be useful to add extra an extra section from another perspective but it is incorrect to state that cay is simply a soil. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.127.176 (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it back but removed the term soil as you are probably correct since that word is not used in the journal article I used to write it. Using reliable sources to backup claims is generally a good idea. – Basar (talk · contribs) 22:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Using reliable sources to backup claims is generally a good idea. So is experience, and a wide understanding of other disciplines :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.127.176 (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like any of your changes were supported by the two sources you provided. Those sources talked about clay minerals and the classification of different kinds of clay minerals. If you read Guggenheim and Martin (1995), you will see that the term clay is distinct from the term clay minerals. – Basar (talk · contribs) 01:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please add to the article and not remove from the article. That defintion I have replaced is not mine. It is one that has developed over time from the contributions of a number of editors. It recognises that clay is a group of minerals, surely this is something you must know. Your college course appears to be teaching you a very specific meaning of clay, but it is one that does not have the sole place here. If yu have something of value then include it, but do not remove others of value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.127.176 (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

What are your specific concerns about the definition I have provided? – Basar (talk · contribs) 02:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If your only concern is that it should say "clay is a group of minerals", you have to ask yourself, are you wrong or is the International Association for the Study of Clays and the Clay Mineral Society's joint report on the definition of clay presented in a peer reviewed academic journal called "Clays and Clay Minerals" wrong. – Basar (talk · contribs) 02:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I have no concerns about your defintions. I have very big concerns that you are removing contributions of value and replacing with a text from a very narrow perspective. I think your understanding is more in keeping with The Wenworth scale and Unified Soil Classification System. Please be assured I am not looking for a battle here, but you are wrong to insist on removing the description of clay as being a group of minerals. The article can include understandings from different disciplines.
It is also worth noting that:
  • To be consistent with your selected understanding you are going to remove a lot of text from the article which many otehrs have contributed, and has stayed there by agreement for a long time.
  • That material that no one would describe as clay, say quartz, exists at particle sizes which fit within the range of your defintion, and therefore would be classed by this as clay. Obviously quartz is not clay - as others have said "size isn't everthing!"
And no I am not saying your quoted source is wrong. I am saying that it is from one perspective. Use it to add to the article but is is not the only understanding.
What is this other perspective you are referring to? Why should I believe what you have to say when you are an anonymous internet user, do you have a reliable source? The definition I have provided does not use size alone to define clay; it is one of several parts to the definition. I replaced unsourced material with sourced material—that is a good thing; you have also removed other people's contributions. You say you do not have a problem with my source but want to be broader, well you have overwritten my source and writing and have replaced it with contradictory language without a source. Lastly, the "International Association for the Study of Clays" and the "Clay Mineral Society" do not sound like narrow, one-sided sources to me. They sound like the most general and authoritative source that we could possibly find. – Basar (talk · contribs) 03:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I am simply asking that you use your sources to add to the article. Pleae do not remove useful text. Yes I have removed some text. This was an attempt to replace agreed text and form a bed for further input. I have noted that you should use you sources to add to the article. And please do not start slinging around such as "why should I believe what you have to say when you are an anonymous internet user" as I could easily counter with suggestions that as a college student you have very limited knowledge or experience of clay. No I have yet to register, I happened across this article whilst surfing. To date it does confirm the common criticism of Wikipedia. I may register, and this may then better allow me to bring my years of experience and qualifications to bear. I noted earlier that I was not interested in a battle. I only want to make the article of use, and using a single persepective will not do this. Again please add to the article.
How about you answer my questions instead of attacking me personally. – Basar (talk · contribs) 05:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Please re-read what I wrote. I was not attacking your personnally. It was you who started being antagonistic by writing "why should I believe what you have to say when you are an anonymous internet user". My response was to illustrate how your discussion technique could easily be counter productive. I started the dialogue, and have been consistently been polite throughout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.65.237 (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
That is not antagonistic, that is the reason Wikipedia requires verification. Everyone is essentially anonymous, including me. Discrediting what I have to say because I am a college student instead of the validity of my arguments is a personal attack. You have still not answered my questions. – Basar (talk · contribs) 05:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I was not discrediting you. If you re-read what I have written you will see I have encouraged you to add to the article. A review of the discussion will also reveal that none of my comments have been a personal attack on you. One response was to illustrate how antagonistic techniques would be counter productive. I ask you not to make unfounded accusations about personal attacks. I also ask you to engage in constructive & mature dialogue, and add to the article rather than removing valuable text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.65.237 (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(break) Veiling your criticism around a hypothetical does not expunge it. You have in several instances inferred that your opinion is superior to mine because of your experience and because of my age. This is not acceptable. Furthermore, you are asking me to engage in a constructive dialog, which I have. It is you who have yet to provide any substantive argument about the definition of clay. You have still not stated what this other perspective is you refer to, nor have you provided any verification. Verification is the way that Wikipedia works. You have also repeatedly asked me to only add to the article rather than remove entires. This is also not the way Wikipedia works. Any editor may challenge and remove any material if it is unreferenced per WP:V. Many editors come here and do not understand the culture and norms Wikipedia has, and since that is understandable, I try to help these editors adjust, but you are being rather difficult. I am not going to continue this conversation after this message if you cannot show at least some effort to follow the official policies of Wikipedia that I have tried to explain to you. – Basar (talk · contribs) 06:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


It is your choice to interpret my comments such as speculating on hiding meanings, but it is just that: speculation. However I have twice noted these were not belittling you, and more thn once I have encouraged you to add to the article. I am rather tired of your repeated and unfounded accusations. Please let it go and move on.
Do you realise how arrogant this statement sounds: "I try to help these editors adjust, but you are being rather difficult."
Also please do not lecture about what is acceptable, especially when it is unfounded. Where are these several instances me claiming my opinion is superior? Again this is speculation. Please keep to facts.
Verification? References were given, but you criticised them despite them supporting the text you removed. The removed text did not plagiarise the references but if they were read and understood it would be clear they were legitimate support. I had also noted I did not dispute what you had included, if the other valuable text was not removed, but a more recognised technique is to use references and not simply copy them verbatim.
Perhaps it is good that you will not continue this conversation. Not because I apparently "cannot show at least some effort to follow the official policies" but as it appears you engage in debate based on speculation, conjecture and misinterpretation rather than facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.65.237 (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

FL Main page proposal

You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination this year. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual main page will resemble either an excerpted list format or an abbreviated text format. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 19:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Stats Template

Hey, let me know when you return from your wikibreak -- I have a question about the Baseballstats template. Thanks! --DNL 13:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Featured List of the Day Experiment

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talkcontribs) 19:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

League of Copyeditors roll call

CopyeditorIcon3.png Greetings from the League of Copyeditors. Your name is listed on our members page, but we are unsure how many of the people listed there are still active contributors to the League's activities. If you are still interested in participating in the work of the League, please follow the instructions at the members page to add your name to the active members list. Once you have done that, you might want to familiarise yourself with the new requests system, which has replaced the old /proofreading subpage. As the old system is now deprecated, the main efforts of the League should be to clear the substantial backlog which still exists there.
The League's services are in as high demand as ever, as evinced by the increasing backlog on our requests pages, both old and new. While FA and GA reviewers regularly praise the League's contributions to reviewed articles, we remain perennially understaffed. Fulfilling requests to polish the prose of Wikipedia's highest-profile articles is a way that editors can make a very noticeable difference to the appearance of the encyclopedia. On behalf of the League, 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. Merry Christmas and happy editing, The League of Copyeditors.

MelonBot (STOP!) 18:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Invisible Children DVD.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Invisible Children DVD.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Invisible Children.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Invisible Children.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds April 2008 Newsletter

The April 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProjet Birds May 2008 Newsletter

The May 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds June 2008 Newsletter

The June 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:LOTD/WP:LOTM

Congratulations List of California birds has been selected as a July WP:LOTD. It will appear in the WP:LOTD template for one day as an LOTD. If you have any preference on a days during July let me know before June 24th. If you have any other lists that you feel should be nominated next month please ad them at User:TonyTheTiger/List of the Day/Nominees/200808.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2008 Birds Project Newsletter Link

The February 2018 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. --Addbot (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sanpaz

Hey Basar, sorry to see that you are not hanging around anymore in Wikipedia. I kind of read the discussion you were having in the Soils page. I hope you are just taking a break and not leaving for good. I'll see you around Sanpaz (talk) 00:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter articles and Notability

Hey there!! I come to invite you to join a discussion still regarding HP articles and notability, as you were one of the most active editors when the big mergers took place (for example all the Hogwarts teachers or the Weasley family members). I came with this proposal to merge Neville and Luna into the Dumbledore's Army article because, like some other important characters we merged in the past (McGonagall, the Weasley twins, Lupin, Moody, Umbridge), these two have not met notability, or at least their articles are way too poor, especially if compared to other important (and indeed notable) characters like the trio, Snape or Voldemort. These pages remain as short, plot appearances only articles, with lots of in-universe and overdetailed scenes and dialogues.

I made This draft to give you an idea of how this article would look like with the changes. Cheers! --LøЯd ۞pεth 22:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Calpoly seal2.gif)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Calpoly seal2.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds October newsletter

The October 2008 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Birds November newsletter

The February 2018 issue of the Bird WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

File:37185900e570af0bf9a064fb61503769.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:37185900e570af0bf9a064fb61503769.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please 16:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Redaktor Wikipedia 600px.png

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Littlewhinging.jpg

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Littlewhinging.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media 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 this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hammersoft (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Green Heron

Butorides virescens2.jpg
An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, File:Butorides virescens2.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Julia\talk 21:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Basar,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Butorides virescens2.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 12, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-05-12. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)