User talk:MrBell

Welcome!

Hello, MrBell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! MastCell 16:24, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:4Bromo1anisolea.svg

Thanks for uploading Image:4Bromo1anisolea.svg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

New people bringing along new pages are always welcome!

--Stone 12:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hijacking of Userbox OneManOneWoman

Thanks for bringing the alteration of the User:UBX/onemanonewoman to my attention. A pornographic image was substituted for the previous two images

The userbox User:UBX/onemanonewoman was altered by User:Waraji, a new user ID created at 14:35, 7 November 2008, only a few hours before the userbox was altered at 21:27, 7 November 2008, perhaps for the specific purpose of hiding the identity of the individual. The userbox was altered by Waraji to substitute the previous non-sexual image with a pornographic image illustrating intercourse. Given that the purpose of the userbox is about marriage, and not sex, this was likely the action of someone not satisfied with the outcome of Proposition 8 in California. I removed the porn and reverted it to the male/female symbols. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:35, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed the evidence of sockpuppetry onto the IP Checkuser for validation. See User box vandal. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:35, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP Checkuser reports that the same individual had six accounts and all have been indefinitely blocked . -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Given that I was the one who reverted Waraji's changes to the user box mentioned, I checked the article history, and see NO reverts let alone any edits by you, MrBell. What interests me about Waraji's message here is that it's an extremely knowledgeable message for an individual who appears to have registered on Wikipedia only four days ago. The statement about engaging in an edit war is entirely inaccurate and the threats about blocking you strike me as intimidation. If this behavior continues, it would be appropriate to bring this to the attention of Wikipedia editors, as it strikes me as a personal attack. In any case, I suggest you not only ignore it but perhaps delete it. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs: Ketoprofen; Morphinone; Pulmonary agent; Bambi bucket; Doug Peacock; Fire on the Mountain (1999 book); Super Scooper; Ed Pulaski; Faculdade de Engenharia da Universidade do Porto; Papa John Creach; List of Book of Mormon groups; Humidex; Mormon (prophet); Pentazocine; Shack; Cold weather boot; Parenthesome; The Heads; Codeinone

Cleanup: New South Wales Rural Fire Service; Extreme sport; Storm chasing
Merge: Incapacitating agent; Centrosome; Flame retardant
Add Sources: Drug resistance; Oxycodone; Molly Mormon
Wikify: Hazelden; Omeprazole; The Welding Institute
Expand: Venezuelan War of Independence; Fetus; Bolívar's War

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 (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Talk Pages

Just for future references, editing a talk page is against the rules of Wikipedia, and my talk page rules. Even if the talk page has grammatical errors that I or someone else overlooked, you are not allowed to edit them. I honestly don't care, but some people would. Uch iha 23 23:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I wasn't aware of the rule regarding editing talk pages. Thank you for the kind manner in which you mentioned it to me - it was appropriate and appreciated. MrBell ^(talk) 17:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. I notice that you removed content from User talk:UBX/onemanonewoman. However, Wikipedia is not censored to remove content that might be considered objectionable. Please do not remove or censor information that is relevant to the article. You have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide images that you may find offensive. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:71.243.50.204 (contribs) 13:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your concern,[1] the reason for the removal of POV content[2] is well documented in Wikipedia policy. From Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought:

"Per our policy on original research, please do not use Wikipedia for any of the following:

3. Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts). Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge. It is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge...

4. Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article..."

Therefore, the "Discussion of chauvinistic nature of userbox" can therefore be removed because such discussions are "particular feelings," do not contribute to the improvement of the Wikipedia page, and can be considered disruptive.

Additionally, your edit history[3] and familiarity with Wikipedia guidelines suggest that you have considerable experience with Wikipedia but through another account. Please, refrain. MrBell ^(talk) 23:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to User talk:UBX/onemanonewoman. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed even if some believe it to be contentious. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. You also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you.

incidentally, discussion of the of chauvinistic nature of userbox has nothing to do with "original research".—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:76.24.148.230 (contribs) 12:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Wikipedia is not censored. However, if I were to add the same debated text[4] verbatim to other userboxes, I do not doubt it would be removed on the same grounds I have cited. The burden of proof rests with those who add the information. When in doubt, leave it out.[5] MrBell ^(talk) 20:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And phrases such as "pernicious and unecyclopedic" and "chauvinistic" are personal attacks against those who have the userbox and work hard, so until an admin explains to me otherwise, they're unacceptable on talk pages. MrBell ^(talk) 21:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a wp:checkuser for the two IP addresses used by this anonymous individual. He or she may be the same individual who was blocked after using several accounts as wp:sockpuppets. For details, see Checkuser requests. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested to know that the anonymous individual who vandalized your user page has been confirmed as Waraji. For details, see the CheckUser case.[6] -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work at staying civil

		Civility Award
		I hereby award you the Civility Award for holding your temper and tongue—well, fingers—despite deliberate, provocative actions by others, and digging in and doing the research to identify the policies supporting your civil responses. (And since I know you don't drink coffee, you'll have to imagine it's hot cocoa.) -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honored, and laughed a bit at the hot cocoa remark! MrBell ^(talk) 17:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a change to the lead of California Proposition 8 (2008)

I have placed the changes I suggest on the talk page under the "Lead" discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox OneManOneWoman speedily deleted

Don't drop in for a day or two and look what happens: the userbox that we both used was speedily deleted as being "discriminatory." How about that? -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of these userboxes was apparently previously the topic of a speedy deletion review[7] which was reversed. This most recent action seems very precipitous and may be subject to deletion review. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently others have already taken up the issue, perhaps you'd like to add your two cents. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. MrBell ^(talk) 16:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The speedy deletion of the userbox OneManOneWoman has been overturned. The userbox is once again the subject of a discussion for deletion. You may want to get your two cents in. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire

Hello MrBell! You have done some remarkable work on the Wildfire article over the past few weeks! To answer your first question - The Bristol architecture FA was promoted to FA status in October 2007. Standards for FAs (and across the board for other articles) have been getting more and more stringent when it comes to in-line references. There is a good chance that if the Bristol architecture went through the FAC process today, the lack of referencing in those few paragraphs that you mentioned would be challenged. However, the article is still a very good article, and is not lacking enough to be taken through the Featured Article Review (FAR) process. Hope this makes sense... To answer your second question - you could take it through a Peer Review again if you wished. However, a more common route would be to nominate it for Good Article status. You can find more information at WP:GAN, where you will find the criteria for a good article and instructions for how to nominate it. After GA, if you wish, you can nominate the article for Featured Article status, at the WP:FAC page. If you really want to, you can nominate the article for FAC right off the bat, but I wouldn't really suggest it - GAN can give you some good feedback, and, personally, FAC is something I like to work up to with an article - it can be a bit of a bear to go through at times :) It does, however, give you (or me at least) a very good feeling when you have an article promoted to GA or FA status. If you want to get some more feedback on improving the article before you take it to GAN or FAC, I would suggest posting on the talk pages of the involved Wikiprojects (the ones who have banners listed on the talk page). You may not get much of a response, but the more comments the better, really.

One further comment that I have would be that the article could still use more a globalized feel. Although there are a few examples from other areas of the world, there is still a very anglo-centric feel to the article. For example, I have heard in the past that China (and other areas of East Asia) have huge, and deadly, wildfires. I'm not saying that you need to make a list of every country in the world that has wildfires, but more information on how non-anglo countries work with wildfire (especially in the prevention and supression sections) would probably be helpful. You may still be working on the globalization part, in which case just ignore this comment :)

I hope this all is helpful. Please feel free to let me know if you have any further questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to say I have absolutely no idea on that question! Sorry... :( My suggestion would be to post a question directly to one of the question-answerers who appear active on the page to which you posted the question - just drop a note on their talk page about the issue, which will probably get a response faster than the question page. From a quick look through the last few questions on the page, it looks like "Andrew c" is a common poster, and there are probably other image gurus who frequent the page and would be willing to help if you dropped a note directly on their user talk page. Sorry to not be of more help with this... Dana boomer (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "Causes" section would probably be useful, as long as you were careful to keep it in prose form, rather than turning it into a list, as you mentioned. This may be more useful if you added some additional information about various aspects of the causes. For example, human carelessness and arson are more common near populated areas, drought can cause fires in areas that are not usually at risk, etc. Rather than just listing the various causes, give a little bit of information about them. Another thing, you may want to add a statement somewhere along the lines that most lightning that causes fires is "dry" lightning - lightning that comes with no rain. I live in the forests of the north-eastern US, and our lightning almost always comes with a LOT of rain - no fires there. Our fires are almost always caused by humans - intentional or not. Various things like this, when referenced, would help turn the causes section from a list into an actual section. Hope this helps... Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prop 8 reference on Rick Warren article

Hi MrBell. In the discussion on the Rick Warren article, editors have been having a hard time reaching consensus on how to refer to Prop 8. Some prefer to include the point that it restricts marriage to opposite-sex couples AND the point that it eliminates the right to marry for same-sex couples; others prefer to include thhe first point but exclude the second. To facilitate consensus I wrote a framework of seven points on which the editors appear to agree, and three points on which the editors appear to disagree. Today I checked the Prop 8 article to see how editors handled the matter there, and I see that the lead includes both points. As one of the editors who worked on that article, you may be able to help us figure out whether or not to include both points. Would you please contribute to that discussion? Thanks! Benccc (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply made [8]. MrBell ^(talk) 17:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your work on Wildfire, you deserve...

		The Citation Barnstar
		For selflessly taking months to add numerous citations to an article lacking in inline citations, wildfire. Congratulations! Thegreatdr (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I am honored. MrBell ^(talk) 15:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help editing a page

Hi,

I usually edit Wikipedia anonymously, but right now I'd like to update a picture and I can't, because I haven't modified 10 articles with my account yet. Even if I had the required 10 edits, I'm not sure I have the skills to do it.

The article is Pentazocine (a drug also known as Talwin) and I have drawn a new picture for it, in .svg format. I double-checked with my books and I'm sure there is no mistake in it.

I believe the current picture is very average at best and we would definitively benefit from a new one. Can you give me an email so I can send you the picture and you can upload it ?

If you wonder, I'm sending you a message because you edited the page not so long ago.

Thanks.

Olivier Besner Morin (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC) Olivier[reply]

I appreciate the invitation, but I wouldn't want to take credit for your work. It's easy to edit using your account (edit the sandbox if you're unsure). After your ten edits, just follow the link on the left hand column in the toolbox, titled "Upload file". It's very user friendly! MrBell ^(talk) 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire

Hi MrBell, I'm currently doing the GA review on Wildfire, it's my 76th review since last September, I've passed 65, failed nine and two (including this one) are ongoing. There is obviously a lot of good work that has gone into the article; and it will pass GA by the end of the review, as you have all the references and citations, etc; but in my opinion there is a bit more work to do on the prose first. The Ecology, Prevention, Detection, Modelling and Suppression sections are OK. The WP:lead is a bit short, but that can be fixed fairly readily. It's the Characteristics section that worries me at the moment - I don't think that it is working.

My proposal is that the start of Characteristics be beefed up. I would start this with:

"Wildfires start when an ignition source meets a combustible material (e.g. trees, shrub, peat, etc), subjected to sufficient heat, with an adequate supply of oxygen (see Fire triangle). However, even before the flames arrive, heat from the wildfire, known as a "front", can dry and pre-heat flammable material due to temperatures nearing 800 °C (1,470 °F).[11][12] Causing flash over. Then summarise some of the characteristics of wildfires (possibly) giving one of two examples; followed by your existing paragraph - "Wildfire behavior is often complex and variably dependent on factors such as fuel type, moisture content in the fuel, humidity, windspeed, topology,[7] geographic location, and ambient temperature.[8] While growth and behavior are unique to each fire due to many complex variables, the basic characteristics can be described as follows:[9][10]"

Is this going to be acceptable to you? Pyrotec (talk) 21:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to work on Wildfire; it is appreciated. I agree that the prose needs some work. I spent most of my time focused solely on gathering info and refs, and the prose has been worked on only recently. Below are just my comments and opinions, but feel free to edit whatever you feel is necessary (because I know that although I am a major contributor, this article does not "belong" to me...)

Regarding the characteristics section —

The sentence "However, even before the flames arrive, heat from the wildfire, known as a "front", can dry and pre-heat flammable material due to temperatures nearing 800 °C (1,470 °F).[11][12] Causing flash over."

What is your opinion regarding technical terms such as "front" or "flash over"? Wikipedia:Explain jargon states that such terms "should contain more explanation at a more basic level than would be available in the typical academic paper or textbook. On the other hand, an article that defines every term, or every symbol, may be so cluttered that no one can read it." It has become increasingly difficult to explain terms so that younger students can still understand the text, but at the same time remain technical enough to interest the college-educated.
Regarding Use-mention distinction, I have seen both italics and quotation marks (or sometimes the single quotation marks described in the use-mention article - see here and here). Are quotation marks your preference?
In my opinion, it would be nice to define "front" a little more thoroughly, as the sentence makes it sound like "heat from the wildfire" is "known as a front." Also, I would imagine there is a lot more information out there regarding the characteristics of a front. Would it be beneficial to include a more thorough description of front dynamics (perhaps have its own subsection after Fuel Type)?
Should "flash over" be defined with another sentence (something like: high temps exceeding flash point leading to combustion)? Should there be a more detailed description of its dynamics?

What do you mean by "summarise some of the characteristics of wildfires (possibly) giving one of two examples"? Which characteristics? Fuel type, weather, causes, and extremes?
Should I assume you have eliminated the paragraph "A high moisture content usually prevents ignition and slows propagation,[7]..."? Could that information be used elsewhere? MrBell ^(talk) 16:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments & questions. I will reply to some of them here and others on Talk:Wildfire/GA1.

Unexplained and/or ambiguous use of Jargon can cause problems - we have already meet "non-structure".
I tend to favour "this is a quote from somewhere" and 'front', where front is 'label' for something.
Stepping back a bit. This is an article on firefighting, does that mean we have no interest in wildfires that are not fought and/or don't threaten people/property? One one side there is an interesting section on ecology which says that wildfires are a natural part of the ecosystem; the rest of the article is about prevention, detection, suppression and modelling, which is fire fighting. So should we "re-define" wildfire as a wild fire that threats people and/or property and which we have chosen to fight?
I was thinking along the lines of (and this is made up by me) - Wildfires differ from other fires in that they take place out of doors in areas of woodland, bush, scrub, peat, etc, that act as a source of fuel. Buildings are not usually involved, unless the fire spreads to adjacent communities and threatens these structures. Some of the defining characteristics of wildfires are the wide area of burnt land (500 to 2,000 km2), the velocity of the burning fount, which can vary between x feet per minute up to X,000 feet per minute, the ability of the burning front to unexpectedly change direction and to jump across fire breaks. The intense heat and smoke can lead to disorientation and loss of appreciation of the direction of the fire. These factors make fires particularly dangerous: in the Mann Gulch fire, for example, 13 fire fighters lost their lives when they became confused and lost their communication links; and in the Australian fire of 2008 whole communities of property were lost when they became engulfed by wildfire.
No, my suggestion was to move (or copy) the rest of the information in Physical properties elsewhere to provide a better description of what wildfire is.

Pyrotec (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your third bullet point "This is an article on firefighting..." (I assume you refer to the lead sentence) — I admit I've thought about that for quite some time and still am confused about how to exactly define 'wildfire'. I agree that it's an unwanted/uncontrolled/unplanned (even though arsonists plan it) fire in the wild that threatens natural resources and sometimes private and public property. But that's too long, right? As for "which we have chosen to fight" — what if it's allowed to burn and run it's natural course (the awkward US term: 'wildland fire use')?
I like your summary sentence for the characteristics section. Give me a day to work it through and add appropriate refs. MrBell ^(talk) 20:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to the third bullet it must be more than "an unwanted/uncontrolled/unplanned fire in the wild that threatens natural resources and sometimes private and public property". If its small it might go out on its own, someone might put it out, or left to burn itself out. It has to be all that, plus its big, out of control and unpredictable. The article mentions upto 7 mph in forests and 14 mph in grass. Sorry I'm not picking on you, I'm getting stuck on finding a way out of my "writers block".Pyrotec (talk) 20:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about picking on me — you have been very civil and helpful, and I appreciate your input. As for big and small fires — I agree, though I wouldn't want to include a definition that could be misconstrued as a small campfire or a college campus bonfire. But in the end it's all semantics of the process of a encyclopedia — the cause of all writers block, right? MrBell ^(talk) 20:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats!

MrBell - congrats on the GA for Wildfire! Very nice work! I had it watchlisted in case anything odd popped up with the review, but it looks like you got it through easily. Nice to see an important article getting some TLC... Dana boomer (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate all the input you provided - without it, I would have been lost! MrBell ^(talk) 15:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding categories

Just so you know, you add people to a category such as Category:American conservationists by typing [[Category:American conservationists]] on the article, not [[Category:American people by occupation|Conservationists]] or [[:Category:Conservationists|American]]. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I was wondering how to do that. Question: what is your opinion of this section in the Wilderness article? Is there a better way to display this information than as the extended see also list that is now present? Should I just move all the names to [[Category:American conservationists]] (or Australian, etc.) and display a link to that Category on the Wilderness page? MrBell ^(talk) 15:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would actually be better to create an actual list at the title List of conservationists; titles like that shouldn't be redirects to categories, but should actually stand alone as real lists. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wildland firefighting template

Care to take a look at tell me what you think of my changes to this? This box could grow very very large very very easily. For example even the personnel list is non-exhaustive with other firefighters and management. I also would like to keep the template different as much as possible from the general firefighting template though there has to be some overlap. Beantwo (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit. It's starting to make more sense, though I agree that it could get too big, especially if every local agency starts clamoring to get their name on the list. MrBell ^(talk) 20:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellowstone fires of 1988

I'm concerned that removing a large section from the Yellowstone fires of 1988 article may impact it's standing as a featured article, so I oppose the merge, but have no problem with using material I assembled while writing the article over to the History of wildfire suppression article but believe that the second article should be reworded in the copied section I see there. I also agree with the tag at the History of wildfire suppression article that it fails to provide a world view...so that needs adjusting or that article needs to be retitled to History of U.S. wildfire suppression.--MONGO 07:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

California Proposition 8 (2008)

Hi there, you have been one of a number of regular editors at the above article. I was its Good Article reviewer a few months back. In response to a recent proposal to split the article, I suggested it be edited down to a more manageable size and better readability rather than focussing on the split. I suggested the article was not particularly readable in its current form, and suffered from recentism amongst other things. I have just undertaken an edit attempting to implement my suggestion, in the hope that others might have a look and decide it is now in better shape. I hope you will agree. I am happy to discuss on the talk page obviously. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; excellent work! MrBell ^(talk) 16:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may actually want to use...

...{{subst:uw-npov1}} on User:brucejenner's page, instead of the vandalism tag, as it was POV-pushing rather then graffiti.----occono (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good point, thanks! MrBell ^(talk) 19:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. ----occono (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universities COTM

I noticed that you are affiliated with California State Polytechnic, Pomona. Are you aware that the university's article is a nominee for WikiProject Universities' Collaboration of the Month? If you'd like to see a concentrated effort on improving the article, head over to the COTM page and cast your vote. -Mabeenot (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fire

Hi MrBell, Thanks for your note. Yes I'm happy to work on it. I've just got two GANs and two GARs to finish before I spend any serious time on it. Do you have a master plan, yet, for the article? Pyrotec (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wildfire review

Hey mate, haven't heard from you on the Wildfire prose review in a while. Are you just taking a break or are you done for good? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I must have missed your comments on the talk page. I'll work on them today and tomorrow. Also, I'm having a tough time finding more stats about the causes of fires. Any suggestions? MrBell ^(talk) 17:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, mate. Let's discuss the statistics on the talk page. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motto

Hi. My English is not good. I need your help with this article. There's a problem with the motto of this University. Its motto in Spanish is La Técnica al Servicio de la Patria and I want to translate it in English. The motto has changed many times, some of them are The Technique to the Service of the Fatherland, Technique at the Fatherland's Service, Technology at the Service of the Motherland, Knowledge for the Service of Country. I think that the most suitable is the first one but I need your opinion because you are a native speaker of English , aren't you? . Could you help me please? Thanks.--Aaha (talk) 21:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution does not have to conflict with christianity?

You have a userbox that states that you believe that evolution does not have to conflict with christianity. Can you explain why you believe that? Legolover26 (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates

Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 06:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]