This is an archive of past discussions with User:Titoxd. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Sweet. Yea, add it all in! Later, we can summarize it (like if similar effects are felt), but as long as it isn't duplicated your additions will be very welcome. :D Hurricanehink (talk) 03:27, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Great job. The only problem I see is the indirect damage. What's that? Also, stupid ignorant people that think Mexico is in Central America ;) What was IH thinking? Hurricanehink (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
You have tagged Soil as {{v0.5|class=A|category=Natsci}} (appreciated!). I am curious about the Natsci portion of the tag, but could not seem to find such a v0.5 or class A category. Is there a list of articles similarly tagged with category=Natsci or ? Cheers! -- Paleorthid17:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Here in Wikipedia there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go unappreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go unnoticed. As Esperanzians we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. This is where the Barnstar Brigade comes in. The object of this program is to seek out the people which deserve a Barnstar, and help them feel appreciated. With your help, we can recognize more dedicated editors!
What's New?
September elections are upon us! Anyone wishing to be a part of the Advisory Council may list themselves as a candidate from 18 September until 24 September, with the voting taking place from 25 September to 30 September. Those who wish to help with the election staff should also list themselves!
Appreciation Week, a program currently in development, now has its own subpage! Share your good ideas on how to make it awesome there!
The Esperanza front page has been redesigned! Many thanks to all who worked hard on it.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The September 2006 Council elections will open for nominations on 18 September 2006. The voting will run from 25 September 2006 until 30 September 2006. If you wish to be a candidate or a member of the elections staff, please list yourself!
The new Esperanza front page design has but put up - many thanks to all who worked on it!
TangoTango has written a script for a bot that will list new members of Esperanza, which will help those who welcome new Esperanzains greatly!
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Re: Small announcement
We will certainly miss you on the Council, Tito! Thanks for making the time I've gotten to work with you on it awesome, and I look forward to still seeing you around Esperanza and Wikipedia. All the best -- Natalya04:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll certainly second that. I'm sure we'll see you around quite a bit, and feel free to drop us a hint/scream at us if you see anything we could be doing better. Cheers, EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 05:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey Titoxd, thank you for supporting my recent RfA. It finished with an amazing final tally of 160/4/1. I really appreciate your support. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Titoxd, regarding this, I was wondering if you speak Spanish, as there is a pattern, which continues today. I've been trying to get this editor to discuss changes (even translating for him) and use edit summaries for a while: in case you don't speak Spanish, I wish we could find an admin who does. On a separate matter, you commented long ago on the peer review for Tourette syndrome; can you have a fresh look at the article whenever you have time (no hurry whatsoever)? Sandy22:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll add that article to my list to look at later today. No, I'm not worried about a warning for anything he's said to me - it doesn't really trouble me personally - I was just concerned that someone who speaks Spanish was aware of the tone. Back to you later on Katrina. Sandy12:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina
Should the lead have some mention of the devastation? Not sure how you feel about inline citations in the lead, but you might want to cite this in the lead: however, the warm waters of the Gulf of Mexico allowed it to rapidly intensify to the sixth strongest Atlantic hurricane in history.
Those conditions did not fulfill the criteria for keeping the same name and identity.[2] Change to: The criteria for keeping the same name and identity were not met. (More active voice vs. passive? A style choice for me, not important.)
Contradiction in the lead: The next day, the tropical depression strengthened to a tropical storm, receiving the name Katrina, and made landfall on southern Florida as a minimal hurricane. This implies it made landfall on the 24th, but the text says the 25th ?
The initial NHC forecasts - this is the first mention in the text of the initials, NHC. The reader can guess that it stands for National Hurricane Center, but that should be mentioned and or linked on its first occurrence.
eventually to hit the Florida Panhandle approximately three to four days in the future.[3] - three to four days later.
Immediately after the storm entered the Gulf of Mexico, the low wind shear, good upper-level outflow, and the warm sea surface temperatures of the Gulf Loop Current caused Katrina to start intensifying rapidly.
but led to an almost doubling in radius of the storm.[2] - but almost doubled the storm radius.
The center of Katrina was about 180 mi (290 km) away from the mouth of the Mississippi River, but tropical storm-force winds extended 230 statute miles (370 km) away from the center of the storm, and hurricane-force winds extended about 105 miles (170 km) away.[9]
Overnight on August 29, and into that morning, - into the next morning? August 30 ?
At landfall, hurricane-force winds extended outward 120 miles (190 km) from the center and the storm's central pressure was 920 mbar. (Similar in many places - isn't the "outward" implied, redundant?)
The other half of Katrina broke off in the eastern part of the Appalachians, primarily leading to a significant tornado outbreak in
I wasn't aware that the revert I did was actually correct, I just saw that the date was listed like that in previous versions, so I just assumed that was wrong. My bad. Anyway, thanks for reverting back to the correct version. Have a pleasant evening. Kyra~(talk)23:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the proper procedure is, but when I use ProQuest I just assume that the database is accurate and cite the article as if I had seen a hard copy. I feel this is justified especially for stuff in the Historical NYT database, since all the articles are scanned copies of what appeared in the newspaper. Probably the same can be assumed for other databases, but you could also just put a parenthetical note saying which database it came from. --Spangineeres(háblame)05:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed when you closed the above AfD, you did not remove the category template, "REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE
WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD". By deleting this when closing it pulls the discussion out of the category. I have
deleted it from this discussion, but if you could review any other closures you have done recently and
remove the tag from them it would be greatly appreicated. This is a fairly recent change. The guideline is
at WP:AFDC. I have been going through the listing in each of the categories CAT:AFD and
removing the tag from pages that are closed and adding the approriate category code for those in the
uncatagorised group. Thanks.--Gay Cdn(talk)(email)(Contr.)23:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global tropical cyclone activity. If you wish to change how you receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. The WikiProject has its own IRCchannel.
"TD's should be bolded, as they are the impetus of every storm, weak or strong."
Storm of the month
Hurricane Ioke at peak strength
Hurricane Ioke is the most intense hurricane on record in the Central Pacific. After forming on August 19 to the south of Hawaii, Ioke moved to the northwest and hit Johnston Atoll as a Category 2 hurricane. It strengthened further as it moved to the west, reaching Category 5 strength on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale three times, twice in the Central Pacific and once in the Western Pacific. After the storm entered the Western Pacific it directly hitWake Island. The storm finally became extratropical on September 7 but its extratropical remnants affected Alaska. Overall damage from Hurricane Ioke was light.
The east Pacific saw three hurricanes and a tropical storm develop. Hurricane John and Hurricane Lane were both major hurricanes which hit Mexico, whilst Hurricane Kristy and Tropical Storm Miriam stayed clear of land. In addition, two tropical depressions formed in the Central Pacific.
There were 4 typhoons in west Pacific during September. Typhoon Shanshan, Typhoon Yagi and Typhoon Xangsane formed in the west Pacific and Typhoon Ioke entered the basin from the east. Shanshan killed at least 9 people in Japan and Typhoon Xangsane, which is still active, killed at least 72 in the Philippines.
Two tropical cyclones formed in the North Indian Ocean during September. Severe Cyclonic Storm Mukda formed in the Arabian Sea but did not affect land and Tropical Cyclone 05B formed in the Bay of Bengal before making landfall in India. However, the deadliest tropical system of September was a depression in the Bay of Bengal that killed more than 170 people in Bangladesh.
Could you give the article another look? I just expanded it greatly, using newspaper reports, and I want to make sure it flows well, etc. I'd ask someone else, but you're the best copyeditor we got ;) Hurricanehink (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the needed copyedit. I got the ref (HPC), and to be safe I expanded all of them. As for the 5,000, that number is only the number of dead or injured, at least according to what the newspaper article said. Damn, I thought someone had got the ref for Hurdat. Oh well, I just did it. Thankss for your help in general for the article. I just can't wait until it's done (either passes or fails). Hurricanehink (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a tally of 91/1/4. I can't express how much it means to me to become an administrator. I'll work even more and harder to become useful for the community. If you need a helping hand, don't hesitate to contact me. NCursework15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Set nominations for Version 0.5
Hi Tito, I hope you're doing well. I'd like to close the set nomination discussions, so I'm asking for your votes on these if you have time. With Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Set Nominations/Genetic disorders I'm the only person who has commented/debated recently, and I noticed you commented back in the summer on this when the consensus was to hold till later. Can you cast your vote on this set? The other three sets seem to have at least 2-3 people in rough agreement, but if you have time your comments on those would be welcome as well. Thanks, Walkerma04:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter
Heh, that's pretty interesting, thanks. I would consider doing it, but due to my ADD I can't seem to predict which articles I'm going to do. Whenever I do, I get sidetracked and work on something else :) I did too many large projects earlier in the year that now I'd rather do good articles for low-impact storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently checking for sources, but for the balloon festival it may only be in French due to the fact the Citizen or the Sun may not keep everything, I'm putting it mention of the festival because it's one of the most important of its kind across North America and the world and during that
Sources should be there within the next hour --JForget20:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The articles have vanished, there's none to be found, so the Canada part will go, but will it keep in the infobox --JForget21:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
VP warning
Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Cabrini College. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. TheRanger16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hello. This is a note informing you of my intent to use one of your status templates on my user page. I found that your "busy" template fits my current editing status better than any other template I've found. Great idea, thanks! -- Nebular11014:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
My RfA thanks
Hi, Titoxd! Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 75/0/1! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Feel free to send me a message if you need any assistance. :)
Hi, thanks for the notification. Interiot posted his "wannabe kate" substitute counter, which has more features and (I believe) is accurate, so I've made my counter redirect to his now. Please use that instead. Cheers, Tangotango15:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Fabian pic
Would the picture from this newspaper be usable for the Fabian article? Sure, it's pretty low-res, but it's about the only damage pic I can find that would be useable. Would cropping the damaged house be fair use or PD as well, or unusable due to copyright (AP). Hope you can help :) Hurricanehink (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Edit Count and Edit Counters
Thank you for removing the section about Edit Counters in the Edit Count article. The two articles were fundamentally different and users creating edit tools were advertising them on the Edit Count article rather than the Edit Counters article. Let's hope the merge request and clean up of the articles stays. Thanks again. Mkdw22:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Edit_count is in the Wikipedia Encyclopedia as labelled on the top. The article is categorized as an article pertaining to Wikipedia and basically discusses the definition, purpose, and usages of Edit Counts with in the website of Wikipedia. Conversely, Wikipedia:WikiProject_edit_counters is a very loosely created article about Wikipedia's tools for edit counting and their development. It contains a lot of information from the Edit Count article but primarily should be about Edit Counters as a tool and how people are using those tools pertaining to Edit Counts. The articles require quite a bit of cleaning up but if you look closely enough, they are dissimilar topics of review and discussion. Webster's dictionary has a good section about the development of closely linked but disparate articles that is very applicable here and I would like to see the articles cleaned up and separated than merged. Just my opinion about references. Mkdw22:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I am missing something. If you're refering to namespaces. How does Wikipedia:Edit_count fit under User talk namespace? Namespaces 1, 3, 5, and 7 are all talk pages more specifically Namespace 3 as the User Talk. Now Wikipedia:Edit_count is under the Namespace 4 and can be found in its category [1]. I was talking more to the point that the article reads as an encyclopedic article, whether a part of Wikipedia or not, and the WikiProject Edit Counters relates to the development of Wikipedia Tools. I don't see how they are similar enough to warrent one being linked to the other without making it a generalization. An example would be Grapes and Grape Pickers. One relates to the other, but could, and would discuss them separately. Especially if there is a movement to keep Edit Counts away from the basis of adminship. I don't see the purpose of discussing that on the same page as where people are discussing technical notes or where people are reviewing. 22:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, and what I am reading are two very 'project pages' then, being merged when they have different discussions going on. If you read the Edit Count discussion, enough people for a six month old argument have said they are different subjects. The changes I am talking about are simply removing the first paragraph from WikiProject: Edit Counters as the second paragraph directly contradicts the purpose of the article. If people are indeed trying to do something together, then we shouldn't be mixed two groups of people trying to do two different things. I don't even see the relevence of discussing adminship in a place of tool development. Mkdw22:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
We've left the topic about whether they are articles or not. They're not and if you need me to say it, then I am. Let's move on. The topic sentence, which is acting as the secondary thesis statement to the whole project states:
"Our goal is to organize and coordinate the various efforts at creating edit counters and statistics tools. Our primary purpose is to give Wikipedians more tools at analyzing their own edits and others' edits; while editcountitis may be fatal, we primarily strive to offer another alternative and viewpoint at one's contributions"
To coordinate the various efforts at creating edit counters. I fail to see the pages responsibility or usage in its first thesis: Edit counts are a quick way of measuring a Wikipedian's experience in the Wikipedia community.
Edit Counts has its own topic, it talks about its use in adminship. Why not keep the articles separate? One about tools the other about how edit counts are used? Mkdw23:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Edit Counts had a good way of linking the two articles. "See main project at Wikipedia:WikiProject edit counters for more info and a list of available edit counters." Why not including a new section under WikiProject's mission statement briefly describing the usages of Edit Counters for adminship and the various controversies and then providing some related links and saying more information can be found etc. etc. ?? At the least restore the mission statement to the top of the page. It's awkward having it as the third paragraph and being displaced by an unrelated defintion. Mkdw
Are you willing and able to take back the admin coaching co-ordination? Life has got a lot busier for me, so I can longer give it the time needed. Petros47114:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Is there a way to make semi-auto edits on a list of articles that can be fed to a program or script of some sort? I am inquiring about this because I have recently stumbled across a whole mess of stub articles that have no references or sources, and it would definately save a whole lot of time if it were possible to include an unreferenced tag at the top of the article and have the edit be saved, though confirming it didn't break any layouts or anything beforehand, of course.. If not, the old-fashioned method still works, would just take longer. --Kyra~(talk)22:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Argh, fewer than the required 500 mainspace edits necessary for the registration to be approved. Guess it's more Alt+X'ing for fixing more pages. Anyway, I shall keep AWB in mind for the future. Many thanks for the suggestion. --Kyra~(talk)22:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Another attempt has been made to include information from the tropical cyclone article into tropical cyclogenesis. I reformatted the unusual formation section, fixed a reference, and moved it over. It makes tropical cyclogenesis a more complete article (I think). Thegreatdr21:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
whoa
Hey admin twin, we've been admins for a year today! Where the heck has all that time gone, it seems like it was yesterday. Hope you've found it good as I have, and continue to do so. the wub"?!"13:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I reported an already-blocked IP, 81.0.151.151, because no one noted on the users talk page that they were blocked. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
p.s. I got bold and added the notice myself. And now I know to check the logs before listing at AIV. Learning happens. Feel free to delete this if you need the room. --Kathryn NicDhàna22:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you are currently listed as a coach in the 'Pending' section of the coaching box.
If the coaching has started and is ongoing please move the entry to the 'active' section of the box'.
If the coaching has finished/never going to start please add your trainee to the archived requests section of the archive, and remove the entry from the coaching box.
You can fill in information about your former students, at the main archive.
If the coaching is ongoing please continue :) This might serve as a useful reminder to check with your trainee if they have any new questions!
If you are ready to be assigned a new trainee, or have any other questions, please let me know on my talk page.
Hey Tito, I can't figure out the coding for the {{infobox hurricane season}} and how to extend it. I'm nearing the completion of my pet project and I have a seasonal track map prepared (not uploaded yet though). However, there is no {{infobox typhoon season}} corresponding to {{infobox typhoon season nopic}} for me to swap over to - so I can't insert it into the article yet. As these templates are a bit confusing I was wondering if you could cook up a working template here? In the longer term, I think we ought to work towards having just the one infobox templates for individual TC seasons, in any basin - and use a lot of voodoo to make it the jobs of all the other ones.--Nilfanion (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
This is the monthly newsletter of WikiProject Tropical Cyclones. The Hurricane Herald aims to give a summary, both of the activities of the WikiProject and global tropical cyclone activity. If you wish to change how you receive this newsletter, or no longer wish to receive it, please add your username to the appropriate section on the mailing list. The WikiProject has its own IRCchannel.
"THIS IS THE LAST PUBLIC ADVISORY ISSUED ON THIS USER UNLESS REGENERATION OCCURS"
Storm of the month
Xangsane to the east of the Philippines
Typhoon Xangsane, known as Typhoon Milenyo in the Philippines was a destructive typhoon that affected the Philippines and Indochina. The storm caused severe flooding and landslides in the regions it affected and was responsible for at least 279 deaths and $747 million (USD) in damage, mostly in the Philippines and Vietnam. Xangsane formed to the east of the Philippines and rapidly intensified, striking Samar Island as a Category 4 typhoon. It weakened over the Philippines, but again reached Category 4 strength in the South China Sea. After its landfall in Vietnam, the typhoon dissipated, with its remnant crossing Indochina and entering the Bay of Bengal.
One hurricane, Hurricane Paul, formed in the eastern Pacific and hit Mexico. There were also two tropical storms, Norman and Olivia, and two tropical depressions in the basin.
In addition to Typhoon Xangsane, two further typhoons and two tropical storms developed in the west Pacific. Typhoon Soulik and Tropical Storms Bebinca and Rumbia both stayed clear of land, whilst Typhoon Cimaron hit the Philippines killing at least 19 people there, before it dissipated in the South China Sea.
The North Indian Ocean saw one storm, Cyclonic Storm Ogni form in the Bay of Bengal.
The 2006-2007 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season got underway, with Tropical Cyclone Xavier forming to the west of Fiji. There were two further tropical depressions in the South Pacific and a tropical disturbance in the South Indian Ocean.
Likewise the articles on meteorologists such as Lixion Avila are poor.
Member of the month
Cyclone barnstar
The October Member of the Month is Coredesat. Coredesat joined the WikiProject in March and has contributed to many diverse areas within the project. He has written two featured articles on Atlantic storms and a number of good articles on current typhoons. However, the article he is most proud of is a disambiguation page, a sorely neglected portion of the project.
The various agencies which report on tropical cyclones use a variety of different scales to measure the storms strength. The most familiar of these is the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale and this is the de facto standard in the project and should be used everywhere. However, as it is only official in the Atlantic and East Pacific, other local scales should be used when discussing storms in other regions and given primacy over the Saffir-Simpson Scale. The Saffir-Simpson scale is based on 1-minute averages, but other scales are generally based upon 10-minute averages, which are approximately 15% lower.
This table provides a useful-at-a-glance comparison of the various scales currently in use. Further complications arise due to the fact different agencies obtain different estimates for the same storm at the same time, so be careful to use the most appropriate source agency.
Commons vandal
That was fun... as for the rv you made to my userpage I had already gone to blockip, but FF broke the save or something. Oh well *9* blocks later I think thats the lot. Ta for the help.--Nilfanion (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Deletion of old usernames
Hey there, I saw that you were in discussion with the devs, here, about the deletion of old usernames policy. I am a bit taken aback by Brion's response, and was wondering if there is any recourse from here? This policy had amazing support behind it, and while I realize we are beholden to the devs, I find it a bit distasteful that it was rejected with barely any discussion or explanation for why. --Wolf530 (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Admin Coaching needs coaches!!! If you are an administrator, or even a generally experienced user, do consider signing up to be a coach.
Admin Coaching, now being coordinated by HighwayCello, is a program for people who want help learning some of the more subtle aspects of Wikipedia policy and culture. People are matched with experienced users who are willing to offer coaching. The program is designed for people who have figured out the basics of editing articles; they're not newcomers any more, but they might want some help in learning new roles. In this way, Esperanza would help keep hope alive for Wikipedia because we would always be grooming the next generation of admins.
What's New?
The Tutorial Drive is a new Esperanza program! In an effort to make complicated processes on Wikipedia easier for everyone, Esperanza working to create and compile a list of tutorials about processes here on Wikipedia. Consider writing one!
A discussion on how Esperanza relates to the encyclopedia has been started; please add your thoughts.
Many thanks to MiszaBot, courtesy of Misza13, for delivering the newsletter.
The list of proposed programs has been updated, with some proposals being archived.
There is now a new program: the Tutorial Drive! Consider writing a tutorial on something you are good at doing on Wikipedia.
The suggestion of adding a cohesive look to all the Esperanza pages is being considered; join the discussion if you are interested!
In order to make a useful interlanguage welcome template, those involved in translation projects will be asked what English Wikipedia policies are most important and confusing to editors coming from other language Wikipedias.
Shreshth91 informed everyone that he will be leaving the Esperanza council as life is rather busy; his spot will be filled by the runner up from the last election, HighwayCello.
Although having the newsletter appear on everyone's userpage is desired, this may not be ideal for everyone. If, in the future, you wish to receive a link to the newsletter, rather than the newsletter itself, you may add yourself to Wikipedia:Esperanza/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
Template:GA-Class Full-protection
I noticed you protected the template Template:GA-Class along with the other quality-scale indicators. I personally feel this is a mistake, since although it is a "high risk" template (included on hundreds of thousands of articles), it is also quite hidden from access. To know it exists you would have to know quite well how to dissect templates and inclusions, something that is above 99.9% of vandals (if not 100%). Can I ask that you revert the full protection to semi-protection? I am not an administrator and would like to tweak the background color that is used to indicated Good Articles. -- Renesis (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Is full-protection really the appropriate action to take for concerns about server load or the page being edited too many times? That would imply that a user who is not an administrator but doesn't wish to do Wikipedia any harm is either (A) not as smart as the average administrator, or (B) doesn't care about the good of Wikipedia as much as an administrator would. Neither are valid assumptions, and neither fits in with Wikipedia's policy of allowing editing by anyone. A position like that is quite offensive to those editors who truly want to improve Wikipedia, have spent countless hours contributing and have years of experience with how Wikipedia works, but are not administrators. A simple notice in the source would serve the same purpose for these editors. For your information, I simply want to change the shade of green slightly to not conflict as much with the background of the WPBiography template. I have no problem with consulting the Assessment team, but didn't feel it was necessary for such a small change. I did look into how the current colors were decided on before I decided to try to change the color as well. -- Renesis (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Tito, what you wrote at the Coffee Lounge MfD was really impressive, and really true. Well put! You should probably get a barnstar for that.... :) -- Natalya17:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
