This is an archive of past discussions on NJA's talk page from the beginning of July 2008, through the end of December 2008. Do not edit or add to this page.
If you wish to leave a new comment, please do so by clicking here.
< 03 (Jan - Jun 2008) | 04 (Jul - Dec 2008) | > 05 (Jan - Jun 2009)
I noticed that you have listed yourself as a Wikipedian in London, so I thought you might like to come to one of our monthly social meetups. The next one is going to be on Sunday 10 August, which might well be rather short notice, but if you can't come this time, we try to have one every second Sunday of the month.
If you haven't been before, these meetups are mainly casual social events for Wikipedia enthusiasts in which we chat about Wikipedia and any other topics we fancy. It's a great way to meet some very keen Wikipedians, but we'd also love for you to come along if you're interested in finding out more about Wikipedia, other Wikimedia projects, or other collaborative wiki projects too.
The location is a pub that is quite quiet and family friendly on a Sunday lunchtime, so hopefully younger Wikipedians will also feel welcome and safe. Alcohol consumption is certainly not required!
Although the meetups are popular, many UK-based editors still don't know about them. It would be great to welcome some fresh faces, so I hope you can come along.
There are currently 4,675 Good Articles listed at WP:GA.
The backlog at Good Article Nominations is 141 unreviewed articles. Out of 186 total nominations, 28 are on hold, 14 are under review, and 3 are seeking a second opinion. Please go to WP:GAN and review an article or three as soon as you have a chance!
The categories with the largest backlogs are: Theatre, film, and drama (28 articles), Sports and recreation (27 articles), Music (22 articles), Transport (18 articles), and War and military (13 articles).
There are currently 4 articles up for re-review at Good Article Reassessment. Congratulations! There really is no "backlog" here! :-)
GA Sweeps is Recruiting Reviewers
We are once again recruiting new sweeps participants. Candidates should be very strong and comfortable in reviewing GA and familiar with the GA processes and criteria. If you are interested, please contact OhanaUnited for details.
GAN Reviewer of the Month
ThinkBlue (talk·contribs) is the GAN Reviewer of the Month for July, based on the assessments made by Dr. Cash on the number and thoroughness of the reviews made by individual reviewers each week. ThinkBlue had a whopping 49 reviews during the month of July! ThinkBlue was also one of our two reviewers of the month from June, and has been editing Wikipedia since December 1, 2006, and is interested in articles dealing with Friends, Will and Grace, CSI:Miami, Monday Night Raw, Coldplay.
Congratulations to Giggy (talk·contribs) on being May's GAN Reviewer of the Month!
Other outstanding reviewers during the month of July include:
This WikiProject, and the Good Article program as a whole, would not be where it is today without each and every one of its members! Thank you to all!
GA Sweeps Process
The GA Sweeps process has recently reached its first year anniversary. If you are unaware of what GA Sweeps is, it is a process put in place to help ensure the integrity of the ever-growing number of GAs, by determining if the articles still meet the GA criteria. Experienced reviewers check each article, improving articles as they review them, and delisting those that no longer meet the criteria. Reviewers work on a specific category of GAs, and there are still many categories that need to be swept. In order to properly keep track of reviews, a set date was used to determine what articles needed to be reviewed (since any future GAs would be passed according to the most recent GA criteria).
The number of GAs that were to be reviewed totals 2,808. Since the beginning of Sweeps, the progress has reviewed 981 by the end of July 2008 (or exempted them). For a table and chart breakdown of the current progress, see here.
With more than twenty editors reviewing the articles, progress is currently a third of the way done. At this rate, it will take another two years to complete the Sweeps, and active involvement is imperative to completing on time. We are always looking for new reviewers, and if you are interested in helping in speeding up the Sweeps process and improving your reviewing skills, please contact OhanaUnited.
Did You Know...
... that the goal of GA Sweeps is to reviewed all articles listed before 26 August2007?
... that the entire category of, "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" has been swept?
... that of all subcategories, "Recordings, compositions and performances" in the Music category has the most articles (240 articles in total)?
Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Thanks for uploading Image:Mail3.0.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a recent edit to the page MacBook, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.
For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.
In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I simply made a note about Wikipedia guidelines on the talk page of anyone involved in the minor edit wars over English spellings. No harm done or intended. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I intervened to counter the behavior that the template warns about, and I even linked to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English on Darkshark0159's talk page (and you posted the warning template there, directly below my note, before you posted it on my talk page). Why was it necessary to inform me of a guideline that I clearly was familiar with and attempting to enforce? —David Levy18:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I too was given the same message. I think that User Nja247 is being over zealous with tagging users talk pages. I would ask him to explain why a page about an American company must be written in the Bristish style. Perhaps he needs to reread the manual of style.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never endorsed or changed to one style over another. I alerted everyone involved of Wikipedia guidelines and wasn't paying attention to who was right or wrong since that would be taking a point of view, something I didn't take. I don't think a friendly notice, like the one I gave to everyone involved was over the top. As long as it's settled then I don't wish to hear anything else about it. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quickly alerted everyone involved of Wikipedia guidelines and wasn't paying attention to who was right or wrong since that's POV. You of all people should appreciate that a friendly notice, like the one I gave to everyone involved was sensible. I don't have time to check who's an admin or on "the right said". I hope we can get past this since it's not an issue I care to discuss any further. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Jojhutton's complaint, you noted that you don't like "taking a point of view," and I now understand that you posted the template indiscriminately, but you need to realize that that it's a warning message that conveys a determination of inappropriate conduct. It's intended to be posted to the talk page someone who has engaged in the behavior described (something very quickly and easily determined), not the talk pages of "everyone" whose name appears in an edit history. There's a major distinction between taking someone's side (which is what I assume you meant by "taking a point of view") and simply paying attention to what has occurred. No offense, but if you can't be bothered to do the latter (or even to notice that someone already has noted the relevant guideline on the talk page belonging to one of the other users, directly above where you duplicated the link), you probably shouldn't be templating people. —David Levy00:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MacBook
Sorry I don't understand "That space needs to be there as they appear as one paragraph regardless of the browser." Don't all articles with the otheruses template look like that? Isn't that why the otheruses statement is italicised? For example Apple. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your request for rollback
After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback may be removed at any time.
If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! —αἰτίας•discussion•20:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and/or the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for your participating in the account creation process. -·Add§hore·Talk/Cont07:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reset the request and marked it as "dropped". No worries about it, I was just curious if you made it so that I could suggest that you monitor the account to make sure that it is not a vandal only creation. No worries, everything has been taken care of. See you around ACC! Thank you for your time, MatthewYeager02:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your RfA
Nja, I know that right now, you have a 7/2 edge in your RfA, but I strongly suggest that you withdraw it. You don't have any where close to the active edits that people expect to see in potential candidates. You barely meed the 3K minimum that most ask for, but your recent inactivity is going to kill you. Please consider withdrawing.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon17:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the message, however I am quite dismayed that, despite what the guidelines say, there's so much concern over 'minimum edits'. It is upsetting that my work in this year alone is more important than the many hours, days even that I put in whilst actively reviewing and building up articles to make sure they met the Good article guidelines. My job there was to do a review, but in many cases I got dirty and actually worked with the other editors to get the article up to spec. Further while my first two articles were not necessarily good additions to Wikipedia, the articles I've created since then, and the countless articles I spent time on is being overlooked simply because occasionally I drop off for a month or so.
Admins are allowed holidays too, and I also have to revise for and take exams. I shouldn't have to justify my time away, and it isn't a requirement that someone be a career admin to become one. I've made my case as to why I think I'd make a good admin. I didn't join [Wikipedia] with the aim to be overly impressive just to become an admin. Over time I learned more about Wikipedia, its policies, and how things work. I am at a point where I believe having the tools would allow me to make an more effective impact and help where help is clearly needed.
If this process is based on short-sightedness then that is truly a shame, and is not fair. Regardless, I appreciate your thoughts and look forward to working with you whether as an editor or as an admin in the future. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Arguments to Avoid is an essay, not a guideline. It is a list of arguments that one or more individuals have come up with to avoid, but it doesn't necessarily represent what others think/feel. Nor does it represent what the current trends are. The current expectations are that while a lot of edits doesn't help, too few edits can hurt. Most people have the expectation that candidates have ca 3000-5000 manual edits in the past year. This number can be variable depending on the person AND the candidate (a candidate with a solid history might be able to get away with fewer, but 3K edits is generally deemed a minimum. This isn't because the number of edits are important, but rather there has to be enough to see how the candidate thinks/reacts/interprets policy. With fewer than 350 edits in the past five months---many of which are automated---it is impossible to see how you do so. As for it being fair, we'll just have to disagree there. I do hope you reconsider, because continuing the RfA can get ugly---even for people who have 10,000 edits and a continuous edit history.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon18:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying that for me. I too agree 10,000 edits could easily be worthless. I have made what I hope to be meaningful contributions, which is leaps and bounds better than 10,000 ridiculous edits. If others do not agree that I've made a meaningful contributions to Wikipedia -- then that's their opinion to have. Regardless thanks for your feedback, although I think the attention given to the quantity of recent edits overlooks the quality of edits long-term. Also there's surely nothing wrong with letting the automated tools do the dirty work? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is nothing wrong with letting tools do the dirty work, IF there is enough to show that the person behind the tools knows how to use them/communicate. A person with 10,000 edits, but every one of them was via Huggle/Twinkle would almost definitely fail because we can't see how they think or communicate with others. As an admin candidate, people want to see how you think, communicate with others, respond to criticism/conflict. To me those are the most important facets when looking at a candidate---everything else is secondary. Before I grant somebody the ability to block, protect, delete, etc, I want to know that they have the proper temperament and understanding of CURRENT wikipolicy. This cannot be guaged in 600 edits (especially when 200 are via tools.) With 400 manual edits in the past year, I doubt if you've had many (if any) contentious discussions where you had to show your calm headedness and thought process. Where you've had to deal with a person who thought you were an utter moron or you thought that way about them. Where you've seen what you thought was an injustice. Without those experiences (on wikipedia where we can evaluate them) it is hard for anybody to support because we don't know how you would handle them if they came up. Now, let's say that you have been in those types of situations in the past year. With fewer then manual 400 edits, it would be hard to tell if you were in those situations because you are a lightning rod for conflict, or if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or if you were fully vindicated in taking a confrontational stance. You simply don't have the recent edit history to make these types of assessments. Who are you today? We can't tell.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon19:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely capable to handle the situations you mentioned. I've got through a fair share of edit wars, I always tell users why I've done things on their talk pages; and I never mind discussing their thoughts with them. You may have to dig a bit further however. Part of my reviewing process meant I had to do just that and work with them and guide them on policy. Again thanks for your thoughts. Oh, I forgot to ask if you're a Buckeyes fan? Nja247 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that last question came out of left field... but considering that I spent the first six months of my life at Ohio State, they are one of my teams. I prefer Oklahoma where my wife went. But for Big 10, the Buckeyes all the way.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon19:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Balloonman is doing something here that I and others have asked for as a way to improve the RfA process. If some of the guys who have a LOT of experience at RfA can say "Ahem, you might want to look at similar RfAs, they didn't do very well, would you consider withdrawing?", then a lot of good things happen: it saves the time of reviewers, it makes RfAs less contentious, it gives the candidate some other similar RfAs to study so they can figure out what they might need to be able to pass, and it may shorten the time that they should wait before coming back. Of course, this only works if the "old" guys are perceived as doing this in the best interest of the candidate. My feeling FWIW is that Balloonman has your interests at heart here, Nja, and I agree with him, but I hope you don't feel badgered. I have categories for admins in my own head (maybe shared by no one else), and you'd be what I think of as a "content admin"; I'd want a content admin to know the content policies and content-related guidelines. I think a problem here is that there isn't any community-wide process that gives people a "thumbs-up" other than the RfA process, which is a shame; if you were running for "certified Good-Article reviewer" or something, the criteria would be different. But we're stuck with what we've got. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nod, Nja is an unsual candidate... IMHO, we can't WP:NOTNOW him because he has too much experience. I don't believe in speedy closes for respected and established candidates, which as contradictory as this sounds, Nja is. I'd rather see a voluntary withdraw.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon20:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I like what I see, Nja. You're right that a bot is needed to convert between citation formats. You might want to see the recent thread at WT:MOS. Write a bot that automates part of the process, and you'll be loved forever. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still do not agree with the opposition and will wait and see what happens at this stage. As noted above the idea of concentrating only on my recent history is not conclusive of my overall contributions to Wikipedia as a whole. If I go off the grid occasionally it's because I have exams which take months on occasion, and being an admin is not a career goal, nor is that a requirement to be one.
I've carefully considered what it takes to be an admin and I wouldn't have wasted everyone's time if I didn't think I was ready. I currently do administrative tasks, think before I act, and enjoy engaging others with their questions and directing them to appropriate policy so that they become better editors. I've done that well before I considered being an admin and I'll continue to do so regardless. I'm requesting the tools because I believe they'd be helpful to me and the community as a lot of the work I've been doing recently ends up on backlogged boards, which I can help alleviate.
It is true I could have 'thought about it more' and started going bananas to jack-up my edit count, but that is articifical, and something I do not support. Regardless I respect your input and will consider a withdrawal if warranted. Cheers. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why recent history is important is because it shows what you currently think/understand. I only look at the past year because anything older than that is "anceint history." It also gives people the chance to redeem themselves. As for taking time off "for exams"---yes, we realize that happens. Which is why in my expectations I ask for contributions in 5 of the past 6 months... but your inactivity is more than just "exams." Your inactivity basically spans an 8 month period. Which means that *I* treat you as a person who left the project for 8 months and just returned. As far as I am concerned (for RfA purposes) this means you need to re-establish yourself. As far as we know, you could have spent the last 8 months in some mental facility, yes I know that's an extreme example, but with essentially a recent 8 month break, we don't know who you are now. Again, this isn't anything personal, it is more a matter of simple facts.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon13:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not consider myself as having been on an 8 month break at all, but as you said that's your opinion, which of course you're entitled to have. Admittedly in the spring I'm busy with exams, and this summer for medical reasons I was away, but I always contribute when I can, especially during the winter months, but I'm rarely completely unavailable. I still feel it to be reckless to concentrate on a specific time frame, as someone who planned ahead to be a career admin will surely ensure they've been active for the months leading up to their RfA. I've believe that I have shown I can build articles and contribute, do daily admin tasks, and work well with other users and guide them as needed.
I only added my name as I felt I'm ready and have a true need. This is thorough process and I don't wish to waste people's time. There are areas of interest I can clearly help with (which NEED help), and I always ensure what I do is reasonable and justified, which is something that was a learning process. I did not always do things perfectly, but I've learnt how to do things properly through experience (interaction with others, reviewing policy, etc). We could obviously gone on forever back and forth, thus I propose we leave it up to consensus for the time being. I hope that you have a good weekend. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The WhiteBiatch
Thanks, although as they're blocked indef I'm sure the page will eventually be deleted anyway, and it won't make much difference. And users, even vandals, are allowed to blank their talk pages. Daniel Case (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Q at your RfA
By-the-by, the answer I was really hoping to hear was along the lines of "It's not a valid A1 because there was enough information to establish context". I am probably towards the inclusionist end of the scale, but that's a matter of taste. It seems unlikely you're going to be made an admin now, but it's worth being aware that the more knowledgeable you show yourself to be, the more people might feel comfortable trusting you with admin buttons. With a strong track record of demonstrating you know what's going on, demonstrating it at RfA is a must. Better luck next time, but it never hurts to study. Cheers, WilyD23:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, i see what you are saying, and I appreciate you request for it's deletion, since it does not meet the expectations of wikipedian content. I request some time to edit this article, and make it better. I have contacted the managers/people who run this website, for information, that is critical to this article. Meenwhile, i will try to make this article meet wikipedia's standard as best as i can.
Hello, NJA. You have new messages at Flewis's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I went ahead and closed your RfA per your email to me and your removal of the RfA announcement tag on your page. I also posted a note about my coaching philosophy on your coaching page. I am honored that you approached me about being your coach when I was a leading voice in your opposition.---BalloonmanPoppaBalloon14:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ipblockexempt
Nja247, I'm following up on the temporary add to this usergroup. Have you been able to determine which IP address/range it is that is hardblocked that you are getting affected by? Thank you, — xaosfluxTalk11:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to email in and tell them it's no longer an issue. The IP is no longer hardblocked, just soft which of course is no longer an issue for me. Thanks again for temp help! Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
Ah, ok, sorry I didn't see it, i'll try to be more careful next time as i've only recently started to patrol special:log/newusers, sorry, but thanks for telling me about the user name buisness, i'll look at their contributions next time, again, sorry. – Jerryteps11:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UAA policies and practices
It depends on the severity of the name. The bot is set up to flag some right away and to wait until others edit. Really, a lot of it depends on whether the editor seems to be editing productively or not. Daniel Case (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Date formatting
Nja247 – in response to your comments on WT:MOSNUM, here’s a summary of the arguments against autoformatting.
Autoformatting was introduced as a means to allow users to see dates in their preferred format, and thereby put an end to the date warring that had been going on. But the cure turned out to be worse that the disease, for several reasons
It only works for users who are signed in and have set their date formatting preference – and this is a tiny proportion of Wikipedia’s users
Because of that, editors see dates in an article in a consistent format, and don’t realise that everyone else (the vast majority of our readership) sees whatever jumble of formats has grown up there as the article developed
The mechanism used to mark up a date for autoformatting has the side effect of creating links to the ‘’month, day’’ combination and the ‘’year’’. But if anyone actually clicks on one of these links, they will find themselves in an article that is just a ragbag of facts related only by date, and that have nothing to do with the article the reader came through from
The syntax for autoformatting is unintuitive and is often misunderstood, resulting in many wrongly marked up dates: and the fact that the <year> has to be linked separately has misled many editors into believing that all years should be linked, and this has led to the vast overlinking of bare years that we see throughout Wikipedia. And in turn this misunderstanding has spawned a widespread belief that all units of times should be linked – hence the large scale valueless linking of decades, centuries, and even individual month and day names.
For all these reasons, a long discussion concluded that autoformatting was not doing the job it was intended for, and was actively harming the project by generating very large number of valueless links which are diluting the useful links in each article, and therefore the MoS was changed to recommend against using autoformatting.
And yes, it matters that people shouldn’t write ambiguous dates like 3/11, but nobody is suggesting changing the recommended date style – either 3 November 2008 or November 3, 2008. 3/11 is not acceptable and none of the proposals would change that. Now that you know the thinking behind the change, I hope you'll join the process of ridding Wikipedia of the mess that autoformatting has created. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I left two questions on this AFD page. Please drop by and answer them, so other editors (and me) can make a more informed decision. - Mgm|(talk)19:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your message
I just checked my e-mail associated with my Wikipedia account and saw your message from Nov 18 there. Sorry for not replying earlier: I only check that e-mail account once every couple of weeks and only got your message now. Anyway, I see that you have already figured out where and how to get admin-coaching and that you are doing admin-coaching with Balloonman, which is a great choice. Good luck there and good luck with your next RfA. Once again, sorry for not responding sooner. Nsk92 (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read the stuff you gave me. May I ask what is the problem with article I put in Treatment. There is no advertising it is a References like it said to do “if you add information to an article, be sure to include your references, as unreferenced facts are subject to removal” —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifechris42 (talk • contribs) 09:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the source of the citation which asserts that 5 million Americans are without insurance because of medical underwriting. There is no study cited. It is merely the assertion of the journalist. Please find a better citation for the assertion that 5 million are without insurance due to medical underwriting, or, fairness dictates that the assertion should be removed.
Sorry for the random message but I was wondering; would you be interested in coming to the London meetup on Sunday 14th December? The numbers are higher than that page would suggest (for various reasons, some people do not want their location posted) and we have a very good lawyer:layperson ratio :). Ironholds (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Userboxes/My Time
Hi Nja247. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll probably have it integrated into the userbox as a 3rd optional parameter that when set, results in 24 hour time; otherwise in the usual 12 hour time.
Hi Nja, I commented on your oppose in Seth's RfA. I'd hoped to provide insight into my opinion on this particular RfA. I understand if my comments do not "ring true" for you (and I truly understand your concerns); but, I was hoping that perhaps you would at least take a look. Kindest, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
){kind=link}