User talk:Bggoldie~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello, Bggoldie~enwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --HappyCamper 21:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

yes, it only supports en.wp for the moment. sorry. kate.

Arab article

Hey, you know deleting it is not really my call. I'm not an administrator. Even if I was, I wouldn't delete it. It has potential but the reason for my delete vote was that I simply didn't feel that it was notable. That's all.

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 00:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

To be brutally honest with you, probably not. The section has mostly delete votes on it.

Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde 00:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Al-Zubair ibn Abd al-Muttalib

Thanks for the message on my talk page. When I first voted Delete there was no info in the article. You were right to point out that its being expanded. Since you are working on it I'll change my vote of course. Take care. --JJay 03:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Same goes for me. I removed my weak, maybe at some point it will be expanded to reflect his place in history. Good work. gren グレン 03:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Same as above. -Haon 13:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

As above, but I did not get your message until today. Glad to see that the article has been kept following expansion. Good work Goldie. --Me or a Robin 09:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

October 2005 Nalchik attack

Bk0

Your latest post to the talk page makes it clear what the dispute is about, so I see no problem in leaving the totallydisputed tag. Thank you for listing your problems with the article. I've posted my responses to them, hopefully we (along with the rest of Wikipedia) can get the article into decent shape. I agree that it is not of very high quality currently. My only concern is to see it as informative and neutral as possible. --Bk0 03:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Прокурор / Prosecutor

The status of Prosecutor General of Russia is very similar to Prosecutor General of Ukraine it is a quasy-independent power separate from both the Executive and from the Judiciary. I am actually surprised I cannot find a description of the office in wikipedia. I would do some research and will probably write an article in the next few days. abakharev 07:02, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV and Macedonia

To begin, I'd say that if I knew the way to resolve the dispute in a way that was neutral and satisfied all involved parties, I'd be at the UN instead of editing Wikipedia in my spare time. Most WP:NPOV disputes, in my opinion, can be resolved through very strict application of WP:CITE and WP:NOR. In this case, however, it seems a little unweildly to have a full discussion of the naming problem in every one of literally hundreds of articles. I would say that there is another Wikipedia guideline that can help us here, however, and that is to always remember the reader. Assume that each article is written for a reader who knows absolutely nothing at all about the region. For that reader, we need to elegantly differentiate between Macedonia the geographical region, Macedonia the collection of prefectures in Greece, and Macedonia the former province of Yugoslavia which is now its own state. I'd suggest that using "Former Yugoslavian Republic of" is both accurate and widely used to distinguish the latter. Surely the POV of that country's citizenry is not that they were never part of Yugoslavia! In the Greece article, there is no need to slap in "Former Yugoslavian" before mentioning the Republic of Macedonia, because it appears as part of a list of bordering countries, and, from that context, is clearly a seperate, distinct political entity. In the Macedonia (Greece) article, however, the goal needs to be to not confuse the reader into thinking that there is some Republic that West Macedonia, Central Macedonia, East Macedonia and Thrace belong to. Jkelly 17:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

re: Blocked IP

I've unblocked that IP. (It was used earlier in the day to engage in systematic vandalism.) I'm sorry for any inconvenience. —Wayward ^Talk 08:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The "Some other user" from the "Talk:Macedonian language" theme (I followed the lin provided by you toward here).

You said: "it is not that simple and cannot happen overnight". Good phylosophy for the people is a phylosophy that there is no value in their lives except the individual one (meaning: ignore "THE-BIG-ISSUE" polititians (nationalists etc), put them away, discredit them, laugh in their faces (nevertheless, of course, develope a serious state army simbolicaly just for show - to ensure the sense of safety, and so that other states don't think that they could pass their defense should they have some silly teritorial issues); people (as individuals) should just seek for their individual interests; and generaly making peace with everyone else, saying that they as a majority do not agree with those who upset the situation - because: what else is there important except peace and ability for everyone to achieve things for themselves (dying for any cause is absolutely silly (what more: there is always better solution; war is stupid - my theory is that wars are organised by the ones who benefit somehow from the tragedy of both sides (how else to explain giving weapons to people and charging them invainly to their deaths?!?)))... Only interest of an individual is for him/her to lead a normal life... you get what I mean...). Having that in mind there is no reason why things couldn't happen overnight (you just need to show people things that would assure them in the phylosophy of individual wellbeing above everything else (that way people couldn't be regruted by all sorts of ill-intentioned organisations)). Of course it is also important to let people feel the unity and believe in it inocently (thorough sport usualy).

I think that the good solution is what is good for the people in present and future, nevermind historical "facts" that are bad for the unity (word 'fact' under quote marks - because noone actually knows the whole truth (that must be pointed-out, so people would think more rationaly) e.g. Josip Broz was proposing brotherhood and unity, yet he fragmented state and republics more than it was ever in the history (things simply doesn't add-up there (plus the whole Milosevic's regime is practicaly set by the Croat-based comunists) - so what's the truth (also having Tito's national political past in mind (WW1 and so on)))). I say historical fairy-tails should be bent into shape (explained in suitable ways) so that unitiy superimoses (not the other way around (whatever the ACTUAL truth is!), because people benefit from it economicaly, culturaly etc). It is always good to unite if there are language similarities (of course: respect of the bounderies must be secured inside the new state, but those should be provincial or alike (to disable separatism), everything should be looked-upon thorouh economic interest of municipals - that level (openly) with respect to a state budget for common benefits - disableing nationalist purposes for division), stating that the change of borders is not even theoreticaly possible - so the one who speaks of such speaks absolute nonsense and shouldn't be taken seriously what ever he blabbers about thatwise (it doesn't matter what polititians say, only thing that matters is what it PRODUCES (so the one whose seriously persistant story is analised down to divisioning should be branded with "enemy of the state" title with no reprecautions on it's own (just to put it in front of title 'dr' for example))). Everything that state does should be with a calm friendly face displayed (what all complex mechanisms are actually there is another story). My point: it can be done "overnight", you just need to learn people to think for them selves individualy, and to wathc everything thorough economics and culture... (and it shouldn't be hard since everyone already has an interest of self-well-being...). The future interest is important not the remanents of the past.

You said: "Cannot agree that Slavic tribes were not capable to name and were only adopting names from the others."

Who said contrary? I'm not discussing namegiving capabilities, I'm just saying that national names are often aquired after settleing the theritory, although the "new people" have nothing to do with aboriginals (particulary Bulgarians, Macadonians etc in this case).

You said: "The ancient state of Macedon is different from the state of Ancient Athens"

Actualy I didn't intend to be specific in thet text; when I said Greek and Macadonian - I thought of the whole culture in general which is even today mostly recognised in the term Bisantine/Ancient Greeks etc. It's their typical type of (ancient) culture - it derived from ancient Greece and spread all around... So even ancient Macadonian culture is a legacy og ancient Greece however you look at it (that type of reasoning).

You've said: "Sorry, but I cannot agree with you about Bulgarian origin from some "Turkish name/tribe"."

Not Turkish; turkic. We are not talking about Turkey and it's history, but about some group of people (tribes etc) similar to the one of the Turks which fused with Slavs today known as Bulgarians...

You said: "People of Macedonia do have the right of self-determination."

That's an absolute truth, but isn't there a greater interest. Besides, by uniting they don't lose their identity at all - so what do we talk about here. Term 'Balkanian' is neutral for both, and it's truth that both Macadonians and Bulgarians are Balkanians (only now it would be in national terms).

"The name Slavia is already overloaded with (bad) memories, as it is the same but without the "Yugo-" part."

It's not even near. By emphasizing the word Slav you give more ideas about the fact that there are the same people in question. The errors of those before were that they didn't realy unite nations but group them (uniting would be proclaming one (single) nation and preserving culural heritage of all the nations that consistitute the new one in that new one, alowing everyone to say what they are but making point that it's not national any more but only teritorial, shaking thi foundations of people's believe about their previous nationality by mentioninf dacts about aquisition of even those national names from someone else (Macadonia, Bulgars, Servia, Bosnia, Dalmatia, Croats etc etc)).

Nevertheless those are all just random solutions; as I've said, the real, permanent solution would be to find an ancient common name for those two groups of nations - something real and completely correct about what no-one could argue. All for economic benefit of people as individuals (by ensuring the common wealth in resources and better ussage of them, greater safety even in shear numbers, making politics boring for the people so they don't talk about it and think about their own wellbeing instead (improving science, culture, industry etc), living a better life).

"Are you in turn ready to start speaking Croatian and to accept it as language in this fictious Slavia?"

This "Slavia" idea is not quite serious (I say once again). No one talked about what you're saying here. In the case we were talking about here (on the other hand) all would be talking only Slavian and Balkanian (only with different dialects and sub-dialects (today's national and regional names)).

"And finally about Albanians - there are many good people among them."

Of course. People are people, but we weren't talking about that either. I mentioned Albanians as some name for an abstract entity that is always connected to the crisis both in Macadonia and Serbia today. They are the ones making problems. (Tito potentiated quantity above quality of life on Kosovo when Albanians are in question (that makes social tensions because people are poor and not so educated if they stay there). The issue was obviously pre-planed. 1974. greater rights were gevien to Albanians and then they missused it by fireing people from their jobs, stealing their property, not processing it in courts; which later, when naive Milosevic came to revision the given trust, was missused to make a silly paralell to the inter-republic relationships (dirty game played by Croat polititians - all a plan that obviosly had begun with Josip Broz Tito, to make Croatia independent and avoid to suffer consequeces for erradicating Serbian population in Croatia and Herzegovina during WW2)). Later Croats shake hands and celebrate Albanian-Croatian friendhip (in public!!?!).

And about "Again I have to remind you that this page is about Macedonian language and is not meant to cover Yugoslavia and Kosovo. Yes, they are related to Macedonia's political past & future but not so much to the language itself."

...OF COURSE it's not about language! IT IS only about politics. Why else should there be an argument about the language...

Bulgarian adminship

Hi. That was five months ago, so I can't remember who had complained. The issue was his inappropriate deletions and other actions, so how many people complained was irrelevant since I checked for myself that he'd been doing that. If there had been any consensus on the wiki for him to regain adminship, he could have done so, but chose not to. Please understand that lack of adminship doesn't prevent someone editing. I agree you don't want to waste editors there, but nothing is stopping this user from editing. Angela. 14:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

reiterated at Angela's talk page. -- Goldie (tell me) 15:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't protect those pages. The user concerned did this himself. Any admin on the wiki is able to unprotect them. I'm not an admin there, so I can't do that myself. Have you looked at bg:Special:Log to see what this user had done? I'm sure it will make the situation very clear. It was the community who requested action, and as a steward, I carried out that request, since no one on the wiki is able to de-admin another user. The wiki has a bureaucrat, who can re-admin the user if the community agrees, and it has many admins who can unprotect pages. I don't see any need for steward involvement in this currently. Have you spoken to any current users on the wiki about this? Angela. 18:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Angela. --5ko 08:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Здравей The Engineer съм, виждам, че става дума за мен, но не разбирам английски, би ли ми превел. Също така имам евентуален отговор към Анжела (евентуално също за превеждане), който навремето не дадох пак по причина, че не съм сигурен какво ми е написала. Предварително благодаря. --Nbvcnbvc 17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Да, става дума за теб и искам да разбера какво точно е станало, за да придобия представа какви хора има на БГ-Уики (в частност общия ни любимец). Исках да ти пиша преди време на личната страница и бях изненадан. Вече имам теория, но ще съм ти много благодарен ако можеш да устискаш още малко. След като разбера версията на другите ще се надявам да се запозная и с твоята. Ако засега не ми я кажеш ще избегнем потенциални обвинения за предубеденост (макар че спрямо "другарчето" ни не крия че съм предубеден). Също така ти обещавам да преведа цялата дискусия и отново те моля за отсрочка.

Виждам, че преди време яката си напалил моторетката и вероятно е имало защо. Ако събереш сили - пиши пак в нашето Уики и стискай зъби като ти пипат запетайките и кавичките, все пак за да се гласува трябват редакции и все от някъде трябва да дойдат. Поздрави, Goldie (tell me) 18:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Мерси за подкрепата, редакции имам доста и когато имам възможност ще гласувам. Станах враг на колегите админи в момента в който предложих да бъдат преизбирани през определено време. За гласуването можех да го проваля естествено, но помолих тези които бяха на моя страна да не гласуват и се самоубих фактически. Истината е проста: няколко от първите админи въпреки добрата си актьорска игра, всъщност закрилят троловете ни и ги използват като гонители на неудобните им редактори. Трябваше ми доста време докато проумея това и доста лични разговори, но колкото и невероятно и конспираторски да изглежда, се оказва доста близо до истината. След като се махнах изглежда, вече нямаше кой да пречи и рязко спадна броя на постоянните редактори и надявам се всеки вижда кой за какво е виновен. :( на 22 място паднахме :(.--Nbvcnbvc 19:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

пп Когато свирнеш, поствам, моята версия на събитията, вече съм я подготвил.--Nbvcnbvc 19:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem

I'm glad to help even though my additions are minor. Thanks. Best wishes. --Mohammed Khalil 10:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

my RfA

Hi, Bggoldie

We have edited together the article October 2005 Nalchik attack maybe you would like to look on my Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev? abakharev 00:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Alex. It is way too late as 24 minutes after your post the voting was closed. To be honest, I would have abstained anyway as I am not that active on English Wiki and have not worked enough with you to have any opinion. Sorry for being unable to help. -- Goldie (tell me) 02:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it was my fault. First I thought the requirement is 2/3+1 vote that I was quite comfortable with so I did not advertised the RfA in time as much as I could, the second I have mixed-up the summer saving time (I am in the south hemisphere) and thought I have a couple of hours left. :-(. I do not see myself fighting some bias on Wikipedia. It is just so happen that I know a few areas better that an average Wiki-editor and some things worse. There is no point in writing about the areas I know worse. I thought that Russian-related topics might be of better interest to an average user than say numerical methods or plastic rheology. abakharev 03:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ant colony

I saw that you participated in the discussion regarding the verfiability of some of the content in Ant colony. I've provided a source for each claim in the paragraph that was removed. Who'd have thought it was true? ;) Let me know if there's any more problems. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 13:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Що да сливаме БНТ с Канал 1?

Засега двете статии са малки, но имат потенциал за отделно развитие. Виж примерно румънците, имат си за Televiziunea Română, имат си и за каналите (три статии за канали, за всички без един), притежавани от компанията. Поне аз мисля, че не е нужно, пък ти си кажи доводите. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 15:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Защото те си имат три, а ние сме го закъсали и си продадохме втория :-/ В настоящото състояние, където една телевизия = един канал, не виждам нужда от две статии преди да се разрастнат. Предполагам, че дори и да се напише нещо за бившата Втора програма (после Ефир 2) няма да е много, че да бъде повече от секция. Примера може да не е удачен заради размера на статията, но BTV (Bulgaria) не е разделена на две статии. Разбира се може и да не съм прав. -- Goldie (tell me) 07:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Resistor images

Hi, I uploaded the three Resistor symbols to Wikimedia Commons and tagged the existing images with Template:NowCommonsThis. I haven't used Wikimedia Commons before; did I do it correctly? I hope you find them useful. EdC 23:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Спиритуализъм

Hi, Bggoldie! Could you tell me what's written in this article? Thanks!

Hi, Arges. It contains a tiny subset of what you can find at Spiritualism. -- Goldie (tell me) 10:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Map of Australia.png

I have uploaded that image to commons, at the same title. :) - Mark 18:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Schumacher

Thanks for fixing the link to Ford. I should have been more careful. Vikram 19:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Shallow what?

You wrote "shallow place in a river" on my talk page, what does that mean? Scifiintel 04:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Look my last pages in contribs, or at least the comment in the section above. -- Goldie (tell me) 15:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

???

hi :)

what did you mean by "ford, I-ford, B-ford & whatever-ford" in your edits on Australian Survivor?

thats the name of the company who made the car, so i provided the link to the wikipedia page (Ford) and then italicised the name of the car (Explorer). there is no page for Ford Explorer either so the link only was for Ford itself.

i went back and changed the links and if i have misunderstood what you meant then i apologise in advance.

^_^ :)

About the Ford linking

Hey :),

I think after your first few initial edits (when I just had links to 'Ford' instead of the actual models) the links didnt work with the italics () bit inside the square brackets that you added. So that's why I did the double ups.

I dunno. I might go retest that theory later on another article I'll be working on (or you might get to do it first somewhere else) but let us know and I'll go through an fix em all up for you so you won't have to go do it? :)

O.I.L.

Replied to your note. Thanks! --Mr. Billion 17:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Image

Hello and thanks for your message. I have uploaded that picture to Commonz under the same filename. -- Darwinek 16:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Michael Shields

I've made some edits to the article on MS. Do you think it's OK now regarding NPOV? I'm thinking of adding some references though. Have you seen the campaign they're waging on the Liverpool Echo? It's disgraceful. --D.Prok. 07:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Goldie,

искам да ти напиша по-приватно за случая - май имаш ел.поща? Можеш да ми напишеш до prok77 на abv.bg (нали разбираш какво трябва да се сложи вместо това "на")

Иначе с тукашната "откритост" дори не мога да кажа със сигурност дали чета твои думи или пък "редактирани" от някого - както и ти не можеш да го знаеш за мен освен да проверяваш всички "редактирания" и ай-пита на "редакторите" - но това е доста неловко нали.

За сега искам да ти кажа следното:

Ти написа:

1) "Beyond the very vocal Liverpool fans and one or two MPs the rest of UK establishment is rather silent."

Зачети тука:

Blair: I'm backing Shields

Michael's eyes tell me he is innocent

И най-последното:

Reds fans' £16,000 help for Michael

И същото на български:

Феновете на Ливърпул събраха необходимите 16 000 лири за преместването му

Не те ли разтревожват тези съобщения?

За да се съберат 16 хил. лири в продължение на един мач трябва да има доста голяма подкрепа за този бандит нали?

И тези съобщения не са изключение - може да намериш много такива в в."Ливърпул Еко"

Мога да ти посоча още няколко адреси в уеба под лозунга "Освободете Майкъл Шийлдс! Той е невинен!" - току-виж ще впишат името му заедно с Нелсън Мандела и други жертви на политически репресии. Там се слага, меко казано, много едностранна информация за случая. Но не искам да им правя реклама тукa - по-добре да ги изпратя по ел. поща.

2) "In part it is trying to harm my country so I cannot accept it"

Ти видя ли това:

"Българите явно са идиоти, които нямат представа какво е това правосъдие" - Claire and Jack (Doncaster, 19/4/2006)

"Колко отвратително! (...) защо (...) правителството ни поддържа тези варварски българи?" - Michelle (Liverpool, 30/4/2006)

"Съдебната система в България е като нещо от неандерталската ера" - Rob (London/Manchester, 18/4/2006)

"На българите им трябва "Законник за мухльовци"!!!" - Judith (Bristol, 20/4/2006)

Това са едва няколко мнения "в подкрепа на Майкъл Шийлдс" в Ливърпулския вестник "Liverpool Echo". Общо са над 2 хил. в момента, като започват от януари - т.е. ок. 15 мнения/ден.

Те могат да се четат от цял свят. Там има мнения чак от китайци! И поне привидно - от българи. Разбира се, "за" Шийлдс и "против" България.

Но опитай да сложиш друго мнение - няма как: имат "модерация"!

Според тяхната модерация, свободно можеш да псуваш България и българите (за да се подкрепи духа на Шийлдс ли?), но не бива да слагаш сведения по случая дето липсват в статиите им - както веднъж се опитах аз.

Всичко това доста ме тревожи - не искам да стане голяма неправда.

С оглед на такъв климат там, лично аз няма да се учудя, ако го пуснат на свобода веднага след като пристигне в Британия.

Затова малко не те доразбирам: щом казваш, че се грижиш за страната си, защо само критикуваш други (включително и тези, дето искат да помогнат), вместо да направиш нещо по-продуктивно по случая?

Ако всичко това ти е интересно, напиши ми по ел.поща, мога да ти изпратя повече инфо за случая.

Иначе доста подробно се пише тука:

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12] (това последното е един и същ документ, но има грешка в скриптовете, дето не позволява да се "прелистват" страниците - затова давам отделно адресите на всичките 8 страници на този документ)

PS. Ако не ти е приятно да сме на "ти", може да си казваме "вие" - просто поради анонимността и неизвестността в уеб-форуми често се казва "ти". Извинете, ако бях груб.

--D.Prok. 07:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Варненско езеро

Здрасти, за много години и на теб :) "Varna lake" звучи някак неправилно, виж например в Category:Lakes by country, че всички са "Lake ____", включително Lake Ohrid, Lake Geneva, Lake Constance (Боденско), Lake Ladoga (Ладожко) и пр. Отначало и аз не бях уверен, че така е верният начин, но после свикнах. Поздрави, Todor→Bozhinov 10:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Не съм убеден все още, за всички просто не си прав - виж Category:Lakes of the Republic of Macedonia (Dojran Lake), виж Category:Lakes of Russia (Chebarkul Lake и др., вкл. разнобоя Lake Kubenskoye / Kulundinskoye Lake), виж Category:Lakes of Germany (Mecklenburg Lakes и всичките <... See>). Ако пък отидем в Category:Lakes of England - лейк/лох ..., без коментар!

В посочените от теб примери само Охридското е като Варненското, но съм склонен да го отдам на сходна заблуда. Bodensee е или Боденско езеро (прил.), или езеро Констанц (същ.), Ладога е същата работа (виж bg:Ладожко езеро), а за Женевското не можеш да отречеш формата Lac Leman - там трябва да е Lake of Geneva (Lac de Genève), ама не очаквам англоговорящите да разбират много от езици. -- Goldie (tell me) 10:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

А, форми не на английски като -see или френските нямат никаква работа тук, а и форми в множествено число като Mecklenburg Lakes също — ясно е, че Lakes Mecklenburg няма как да бъде. Освен това на Dojran Lake и тия руските по-малките не бих им имал много доверие — все пак са ги писали местни хора най-вероятно. Но да, явно и "____ Lake" все пак е ползвано, но далеч по-рядко — виж и List of lakes. Todor→Bozhinov 12:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

То това е ясно, ама защо мислиш ти посочих категория за английските? ;) -- Goldie (tell me) 13:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Praktica luxmedia 5008

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Praktica luxmedia 5008, 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) 05:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Redirect of 5M DSC

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on 5M DSC, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because 5M DSC is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 5M DSC, 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) 02:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Bggoldie. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Bggoldie~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

22:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

11:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)