AdjustShift (talk | contribs) →Hello: replied |
Ravichandar84 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 149: | Line 149: | ||
Good day to you! I have not edited any material on WP for some time. [[User: Ravichandar84]] is unnecessarily typing my name in edit summaries of the article [[Iyengar]]. You can see his edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyengar&diff=cur&oldid=307938526 here]. He is the only one who is editing the article currently but he is again accusing me of having a ip sock. I am not a sock and I never used any ip sock all through my edits on WP. I do not want to disclose my gender or ethnicity here in the U.S. I request you to protect my account and please advise Ravichandar84 not to accuse me of anything. I have no grudge against anybody, but Ravichandar (a man from India) is relentlessly, unethically, unprofessionally, and belligerantly accusing me. You are also an American, you (I guess) follow principles and ethics while interacting with all people on WP and some other media. Please protect my account and please prevent any admin, or somebody from taking any negative action against my account. This is just to keep you posted of the recent happenings. I will call it a day now! Awaiting your help and professional assistance. [[User:Svr014|Svr014]] ([[User talk:Svr014|talk]]) 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
Good day to you! I have not edited any material on WP for some time. [[User: Ravichandar84]] is unnecessarily typing my name in edit summaries of the article [[Iyengar]]. You can see his edits [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyengar&diff=cur&oldid=307938526 here]. He is the only one who is editing the article currently but he is again accusing me of having a ip sock. I am not a sock and I never used any ip sock all through my edits on WP. I do not want to disclose my gender or ethnicity here in the U.S. I request you to protect my account and please advise Ravichandar84 not to accuse me of anything. I have no grudge against anybody, but Ravichandar (a man from India) is relentlessly, unethically, unprofessionally, and belligerantly accusing me. You are also an American, you (I guess) follow principles and ethics while interacting with all people on WP and some other media. Please protect my account and please prevent any admin, or somebody from taking any negative action against my account. This is just to keep you posted of the recent happenings. I will call it a day now! Awaiting your help and professional assistance. [[User:Svr014|Svr014]] ([[User talk:Svr014|talk]]) 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
:: I'm sorry if it offends you, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyengar&diff=307938526&oldid=307938320 this edit by anon IP] appears strikingly similar to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title= |
:: I'm sorry if it offends you, but [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iyengar&diff=307938526&oldid=307938320 this edit by anon IP] appears strikingly similar to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vadakalai&diff=295852081&oldid=295608457 this edit which you've made]. And mind you, I've only used the term "probable IP-sock" and I'm not making any accusations. And your behaviour does seem suspicious, especially, if you make a claim in the talkpage of an article and contradict the same in the talkpage of another article. All that I do is to urge you to abide by Wikipedia's rules on sockpuppetry and civility. American ethics?? What do you mean? Do you mean to say that non-American Wikipedians are unethical cheats, liars and scoundrels? Please stop in engaging in incivility and abusing people based on their nationality.-<font style="color:white;background:black;" size="font-weight:normal" face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Ravichandar84|The Enforcer]]</font><sub><font color="red" face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User talk:Ravichandar84|Office of the secret service]]</font></sub> 15:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC) |
||
== DYK for John McClannahan Crockett == |
== DYK for John McClannahan Crockett == |
Revision as of 16:03, 23 August 2009
The 50 DYK Medal
The 50 DYK Medal | ||
Thank you for your excellent work and tireless devotion to DYK. Keep up the fine work and may the next 50 be as fine. Congratulations on fifty plus DYKs.Caspian blue 17:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC) |
Reply
I've been quite distracted and things I was planning to do were piling up the whole time. Sorry for not having responded for a few weeks. It looks like your article on Fritz Neumayer has made good progress meanwhile. Sciurinæ (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Sciurinæ. And nice to see you back on en.wikipedia. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
ANI notice re esclation of edit warring at Thomas Henry Barry
Hello, AdjustShift. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Paraguay Economy
Hello Adjustshift I hope this is formally right, I do it for the first time.
On 24 June you reverted a rather well founded and more up to date agriculture, lifestock and forestry back to your own much less up to date (basically copy&paste from Paraguay country profile. Library of Congress Federal Research Division (October 2005)) version. Absolutely uncomprehensable for me. Images you deleted, too. I re-reverted today. I also deleted your your phrase corruption keeps investors away or so. To judge by comments I see here you contribute a lot to wikipedia. Please be extra responsable when dealing with country pages, more so when it is a poor country doing its utmost to attract foreign investment. Greetings from Paraguay--Paisano flaco (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Paisano flaco, welcome to en.wikipedia. Glad to see someone from Paraguay! :-)
- You may have inserted things without any reliable source. I'll analyze that article after some time. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Your tools needed
I have accidently created a redirect Battle of of Lutter am Barenberge, whereas it should be Battle of Lutter am Barenberge. Can you please speedily delete the incorrect one per db-redirtypo, thank you. I promise to be more careful in the future. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've deleted the page. Sometimes we do commit blunders; there is nothing to worry about. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey
Hey Kresock, I'm missing you. Where are you these days? If you are still around, give me a ping on my talk page.
Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 06:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Albert Clinton Horton
{{User0|Giants27 14:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
| |||
Don't forget that the next Military history coordinator elections take place in September. You might like to start thinking about whether you are interested in standing. More information to follow in the next edition of The Bugle. In the meantime, enjoy the remainder of the holiday season and come back refreshed and raring to go! Roger Davies talk 02:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC) |
New featured articles:
New featured lists:
New featured pictures:
New A-Class articles: | ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Closure of communist genocide AfD
I'm a bit confused about the closure of [1] as no consensus (i.e. keep). There was another article where many similar arguments were presented in the AfD discussion: [2]. In that discussion, delete - keep = 4, while in the communist genocide discussion delete - keep = 6 (if I counted correctly.) Still, the former was closed as merge (i.e. delete), while the latter was closed as no consensus. I'm also curious about how you assessed the weights of the arguments at [3], since it seemed to me that many who voted "keep" presented little argumentation at all (giving only one-line "votes"), while most who voted "delete" presented lengthy argumentation. Offliner (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Offline, AFD is not a vote. While closing an AFD, an admin doesn't count votes; he or she will analyze the arguments of both sides. You voted delete, and you may have found the arguments of keep side weak, but they were not so weak that I could discount them. Martintg defended the article pretty well in that AFD. BTW, the result was not keep, it was no consensus. No consensus defaults to keep (in very few cases, it defaults to delete). AdjustShift (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I know that AfD is not a vote, that's why I asked how you assessed the various arguments in the discussion. Also, I did not say the result was keep, I said "no consensus, therefore keep." Thanks for answering, but I still find it curious that another, very similar discussion with equally good arguments on both sides is closed as delete, while another one is closed as no consensus. Offliner (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Offliner, when I closed the debate as "No consensus", it means that there was no obvious consensus to change the status of the article; it is not same as closing the debate as "keep". "No consensus, therefore keep" is not right. When I can't delete the article based on the debate, what should I do? I should leave the article as it is. "No consensus" doesn't mean that there is a consensus to keep the article. The article just managed to survive the deletion. If you feel that the article should have been deleted, try WP:DRV, or you can once again nominate the article for deletion after few months. If you want to re-nominate the article for deletion after few months, please present a stronger rationale. If you have any question, you can ask me. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you chose to wikilawyer about my choice of words. The AfD was closed as "no consensus", therefore it was kept. I never tried to say anything else than that. I'm still wondering about the difference in the two closures [4][5], and you didn't comment on that. I guess it's just a difference in the closing admins' subjective preference. Personally, I'm just going to forget all about this piece of WP:SYNTH rubbish article now. Offliner (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- You answered the question yourself: it's just a difference in the closing admins' subjective preference. I wasn't trying to wikilawyer about your choice of words. Anyway, if you feel that the article should have been deleted, try WP:DRV, or you can re-nominate the article for deletion after few months. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you chose to wikilawyer about my choice of words. The AfD was closed as "no consensus", therefore it was kept. I never tried to say anything else than that. I'm still wondering about the difference in the two closures [4][5], and you didn't comment on that. I guess it's just a difference in the closing admins' subjective preference. Personally, I'm just going to forget all about this piece of WP:SYNTH rubbish article now. Offliner (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Offliner, when I closed the debate as "No consensus", it means that there was no obvious consensus to change the status of the article; it is not same as closing the debate as "keep". "No consensus, therefore keep" is not right. When I can't delete the article based on the debate, what should I do? I should leave the article as it is. "No consensus" doesn't mean that there is a consensus to keep the article. The article just managed to survive the deletion. If you feel that the article should have been deleted, try WP:DRV, or you can once again nominate the article for deletion after few months. If you want to re-nominate the article for deletion after few months, please present a stronger rationale. If you have any question, you can ask me. Have a nice day! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I know that AfD is not a vote, that's why I asked how you assessed the various arguments in the discussion. Also, I did not say the result was keep, I said "no consensus, therefore keep." Thanks for answering, but I still find it curious that another, very similar discussion with equally good arguments on both sides is closed as delete, while another one is closed as no consensus. Offliner (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello, AdjustShift. I think you the way you closed the AfD given the arguments was correct. However here is why I believe the article is wrongfully kept: The article appeared to me as a blatant POV attack when I first noticed it at Newpages and many of the people wanting to keep the page have a history of having a certain bias/voting predictably in AfDs related to the subject, whereas most users wanting deletion were regular AfD participants who could be expected to be neutral. I'm not saying the bias was not present in both sides but it the POV attack appeared very blatant the way I saw it. If you look at the talk page of the article, this nastiness is present at once. Anyways I have tried to work with this article however I am scared off by this nastiness. I believe this incident has taught me what I should stay out of. Thanks for your time, Triplestop x3 03:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Most editors wanting deletion were regular AfD participants who could be expected to be neutral??? Nope, I don't think so. The other side can also make the same argument. If the article is a blatant POV attack, we should erase POV from the article and make it neutral. We don't delete an article just because it is in a POV state. When we work on a controversial article, it can be frustrating. Editors should work together, and try to ameliorate the article. AdjustShift (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Like I have stated before the article itself is a POV attack. But that is just my opinion and if other editors want it to stay then I guess it will stay. However given the nature of the subject it will be very difficult to work with the article. Triplestop x3 03:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- The article can be renamed, but working on that article will be pretty difficult. AdjustShift (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Like I have stated before the article itself is a POV attack. But that is just my opinion and if other editors want it to stay then I guess it will stay. However given the nature of the subject it will be very difficult to work with the article. Triplestop x3 03:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Your protection needed
Hi AdjustShift,
Good day to you! I have not edited any material on WP for some time. User: Ravichandar84 is unnecessarily typing my name in edit summaries of the article Iyengar. You can see his edits here. He is the only one who is editing the article currently but he is again accusing me of having a ip sock. I am not a sock and I never used any ip sock all through my edits on WP. I do not want to disclose my gender or ethnicity here in the U.S. I request you to protect my account and please advise Ravichandar84 not to accuse me of anything. I have no grudge against anybody, but Ravichandar (a man from India) is relentlessly, unethically, unprofessionally, and belligerantly accusing me. You are also an American, you (I guess) follow principles and ethics while interacting with all people on WP and some other media. Please protect my account and please prevent any admin, or somebody from taking any negative action against my account. This is just to keep you posted of the recent happenings. I will call it a day now! Awaiting your help and professional assistance. Svr014 (talk) 19:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if it offends you, but this edit by anon IP appears strikingly similar to this edit which you've made. And mind you, I've only used the term "probable IP-sock" and I'm not making any accusations. And your behaviour does seem suspicious, especially, if you make a claim in the talkpage of an article and contradict the same in the talkpage of another article. All that I do is to urge you to abide by Wikipedia's rules on sockpuppetry and civility. American ethics?? What do you mean? Do you mean to say that non-American Wikipedians are unethical cheats, liars and scoundrels? Please stop in engaging in incivility and abusing people based on their nationality.-The EnforcerOffice of the secret service 15:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for John McClannahan Crockett
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Anti-Americanism
Well, are you going to make an effort to explain your edits? Noloop (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please don't erase materials supported by reliable refs. AdjustShift (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Being "supported" by reliable refs isn't the sole criteria for inclusion. And, there is no "reliable source" for reporting a political opinion as a fact, which is what the material in question does. Please don't add material that vioaltes POV guidelines, violates WP:WEIGHT, violates guidelines re systemic bias, and most importantly, that has no consensus. I have given my reasoning and facts regarding this article for over a month in the Talk page; you have contributed nothing to the Talk page. Contributing to consensus means you use Talk. Noloop (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. The history of this article is complicated, and hard to review. The material you are adding back was added about a month ago and has been unstable ever since. It has never had consensus, and the account that added it never explained it on Talk. In fact, the account that added it (Gasta220) deleted its own Talk page and "vanished" a day alter. I would appreciate it if you'd revert your own edit, until the material has reached consensus on the Talk page. Noloop (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I many not have contributed to the talk page, but I've read the discussion at Talk:Anti-Americanism, and I've also read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Noloop. There is no question of me reverting the edits. AdjustShift (talk) 17:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you haven't contributed to the Talk page on an extremely controversial article, you haven't contributed to consensus. The RFC/U is about behavior, not the article, and is obviously only one side. Have you also read the RFC/U on WebHamster? The multiple AN/I's, etc? Noloop (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no consensus to erased those materials. I read Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Trolls of Anti Americanism. So you think that multiple WP editors are wrong, and only you are correct? AdjustShift (talk) 17:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- There doesn't need to be consensus to remove them, there needs to be consensus to add them, since the material in question isn't part of any stable version. As I said, it was added a month ago and has never achieved any consensus and was not explained by the account that added it. The AN/I is about behavior, not content. If you are interested in behavior, I trust you have also reviewed Webhamster's RFC/U and block history on this article, and SlaterSteven's block history. This conversation is very reminiscent of the conversation on the Talk page, however, where I say some text violates various policies, and am told "Yeah but it's referenced." Noloop (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC) Note: Abce2 also started an arbcom case, which you nshold probably look at if you're interested in the behaivors involved.
- How can you say that the material in question isn't part of any stable version? I'll post something at Talk:Anti-Americanism. AdjustShift (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I can say it because it's been challenged and removed repeatedly since it was added, and it was only added a month ago anyway. The article has certainly not been stable in the last month. Reverting to it is a violation of WP:BOLD, which states that material added without discussion and then reverted, should not be reverted back to. Noloop (talk) 18:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Noloop, when it's you against about 7 or 8 people, don't you think that you might be wrong?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Again.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
"Useless stubs created by User:Dr. Blofeld"
Hi AdjustShift
I don't think you comments at ANI concerning the conflict between Blofeld and Huldra were particularly helpful. It might have been the wrong venue or not, and of course nobody would get blocked over it, but calling the complaint of the one party absurd three times in a row, the actions of the other party praiseworthy, and marking the complaint as "resolved" at the same time, didn't defuse the situation, it escalated it. I saw two good-faithed and hardworking editors in a heated content dispute there. If they lock horns, we should try to calm the situation, not belittle one side.
Cheers, Amalthea 22:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- And I don't think your this comment is helpful either. Asking to block someone for creating stubs is absurd. According to our blocking policy, Blocks are intended to reduce the likelihood of future problems, by either removing, or encouraging change in, a source of disruption. They are not intended for use in retaliation, as punishment, or where there is no current conduct issue which is of concern. How can blocking someone for creating stubs is going to reduce the likelihood of future problems? Is creating stubs a crime or something that warranties block? No. Huldra's report was not appropriate. You can yourself analyze the contributions of Dr. Blofeld, and decide whether they are praiseworthy or not. You may have saw two good-faithed and hardworking editors in a heated content dispute there, but I saw someone making an inappropriate report. I didn't try to "belittle one side", I called an inappropriate report an inappropriate report. As an admin, I know what I'm taking about. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm? That's not my point. As I said, of course nobody was going to get blocked. Realizing that though, you, "as an admin", could have tried to defuse the situation. Instead, your handling of this issue was escalatory and played a part in driving a constructive editor away.
You should have realized that Huldra was angry, but a constructive editor and not a drama-monger, and consequently should have tried to deescalate, not dismiss with down-putting comments. To quote some policy back at you, "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others" and "if an administrator finds that he or she cannot [...] remain civil (even toward users exhibiting problematic behavior) while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should [...] refer it to another administrator to address, rather than potentially compound the problem by poor conduct of his or her own."
A curt reply and quick dismissal has its place with disruptive editors or some other patterns of problematic behavior, but not in this case. "As an admin", you should have tried to handle this more empathetically, and quite generally, no, you don't simply know what you're talking about because you're an admin.
Kind regards, Amalthea 08:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)- Instead, your handling of this issue was escalatory and played a part in driving a constructive editor away. How did I play a part in driving a constructive editor away? Please don't make such accusation. Below is the thread started by Huldra at WP:ANI:
- For the last couple of years, some of us have tried to clean up the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestine War. Now User:Dr. Blofeld has decied to make our task much harder, by creating tons of useless stubs. I have tries to talk to hem, but he just removes my comments on his user.page. Could somebody PLEASE block that guy!! Now!Please! [6]
- Huldra asked an admin to block an editor for creating stubs. I don't think we have ever blocked anyone for creating tons of stubs. It was an inappropriate report. My comment may have been rude, but it was accurate. You need a thick skin to participate on en.wikipedia. People have said rude things to me, but that doesn't mean I will walk out of en.wikipedia. People have said lots of this and that to me, but I tend to digest them. When you make an inappropriate report at ANI, an admin can dismiss it with a rude comment. You should be able to digest it. The policy may say something else, but sometimes admins can dismiss inappropriate reports. After the report at ANI was closed, Huldra wrote on his/her talkpage: If you can get Blofeld /anyone to delete all the 48-village- articles Blofeld has made the last 12 hours: then I'll be back.[7] So if those 48 stubs are deleted, Huldra will be back. My comments have nothing to do with driving Huldra away. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 15:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I seriously hope that you don't approve of needing a thick skin to edit Wikipedia?
I don't know whether a more mediatorial response would have changed Huldra eventual reaction. Judging by her reaction to the "resolved" tag, it's fair to say that the way it's been handled was a factor in her decision.
In the end, it's all about improving the encyclopedia. That sometimes calls for a hard hand and calling out bullshit, if there's a pattern of trouble-making. By default, it requires a constructive and well-meaning attitude, and admins in particular should lead by example. I don't see how in this particular instance, a rude or at least confrontational response by an admin ("absurd", "absurd", "resolved", "absurd") improved Wikipedia. Do you?
Amalthea 15:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)- Asking to block someone for creating stubs also has nothing to with improving Wikipedia. You are pointing out diffs, but ignoring why I called that report "absurd". Do you think asking admins to block someone for creating stubs is appropriate? AdjustShift (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I've said twice above, it was obviously not actionable as requested, but it's irrelevant: It shouldn't prompt you to respond in kind. Cheers, Amalthea 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I got your point. I posted this comment on Huldra's talk page earlier; hopefully she won't leave WP because of this dispute. AdjustShift (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw, and appreciated. Thanks for hearing me out on one of my pet peeves. :) Cheers, Amalthea 17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw, and appreciated. Thanks for hearing me out on one of my pet peeves. :) Cheers, Amalthea 17:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I got your point. I posted this comment on Huldra's talk page earlier; hopefully she won't leave WP because of this dispute. AdjustShift (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- As I've said twice above, it was obviously not actionable as requested, but it's irrelevant: It shouldn't prompt you to respond in kind. Cheers, Amalthea 16:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Asking to block someone for creating stubs also has nothing to with improving Wikipedia. You are pointing out diffs, but ignoring why I called that report "absurd". Do you think asking admins to block someone for creating stubs is appropriate? AdjustShift (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- I seriously hope that you don't approve of needing a thick skin to edit Wikipedia?
- Hmm? That's not my point. As I said, of course nobody was going to get blocked. Realizing that though, you, "as an admin", could have tried to defuse the situation. Instead, your handling of this issue was escalatory and played a part in driving a constructive editor away.
Thanks for your note, AdjustShift. I have answered all here: User talk:Huldra#The blue soup, Huldra (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've responded on your talk page.[8] AdjustShift (talk) 03:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the T-shirt
Thanks for the t-shirt, and for your participation in my RfA. I hope we'll get to colaborate in the future. best wishes! ·Maunus·ƛ· 12:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory
Hello! Your submission of IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for informing me; I'll see what the problem is. AdjustShift (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello
Hi! Do you think you could give me the authorization to upload pictures. Thank you! Ashfromthepast (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Hisashi Kobayashi
Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
DYK for IBM Tokyo Research Laboratory
Wikiproject: Did you know? 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Noel Coward
Thank you for alerting me to the appearance of this article on the front page. I am greatly obliged. Tim riley (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. AdjustShift (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello
Hello I'm very new to wikipedia, perhaps you could show me the ropes? Himalayan 14:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
- replied. AdjustShift (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)