Plutonium27

Thank you for your modifications in that article. --Psycho Chicken 13:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

This looks so "right" now, I almost consider translating again in the other direction... ;-))--Psycho Chicken 08:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well remembered - it was so-called after Trevor Nunn, who took exception to what he saw as humiliating of the acting professing. Forsooth! GWP 21:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

No prob. It also seemed a bit fishy to me. Sometimes when looking at certain things (like this) I ask myself... how to find out if it's real, and how much of it is real. Anyway, thanks for removing the link - was a good thing to do. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 12:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

I'm curious as to how you came to discover that the hemicorporectomy blog (halfman.blog.com/) is indeed a fraud. It seemed pretty real to me, but with your being a nurse and all, I'd like to know how you reached the conclusions you did. Cheers, --MosheA 19:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick response. I trust your judgment; I was just curious as to how you ascertained that the blog was a fake. I'm well aware of these sick fuckers, as I am interested in psychiatry, and find the subject of BIID to particularly fascinating. Thanks again, and cheers. --MosheA 22:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

I added a comment on the discussion page there. Cheerio.--Psycho Chicken 13:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

TY for the clarification. To the european "ear" ... what should we call this -"Wiki-Eye"-, the NATO-remark comes a little unexpected and is just hanging in the air. Cheerio.--Psycho Chicken (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have altered the phrase "biblical truth" to that of "biblical thought" (and offered both "doctrine" and "teaching" as alternatives on the Talk page, wherein I gave reasons for this edit). I subsequently noticed that you recently reverted just such a change. Religious belief should not be stated as a "truth" - this is NPOV. I've left it to others to choose which of the alternatives (or, of course, any others which correspond in meaning) to use. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problem. I removed the entire phrase because the meaning is clear from the previous sentence. I think, though, that you've confused me with someone else because my last edit to "Jim Berg" was eleven months ago.--John Foxe (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		for AfD laughs TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

can't get the template to work properly, but thanks for this laugh :) TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome, oh and looking at your user page, you have excellent taste in cars! I drive a 99 Honda Civic TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey - I never thought of that, yup, that could well be the great idea he though of :) Grutness...wha? 23:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, it doesn't appear that he made anymore edits after that, so I think it will be ok for now. If he does it again, all you have to do is issue a standard warning (a list of templated warnings can be found here) like you would with any other editor. If they refuse to stop, you can report them to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, though I would probably recommend the former if they are refusing to stop adding material. If you do report them to the vandalism noticeboard, you should probably give a brief explanation of what has been going on in your report because that page is technically only for vandalism. (though in practice it has become the one-stop place to get rid of people who are being morons, but you didn't hear that from me.... ¬_¬ ) Or, if I'm on, (you can find out by looking at Special:Contributions/Thingg) you can just ask me and I'll take care of it. Thingg^⊕⊗ 17:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I did see your mesage, thanks. It seems the first act of our new admin was to chat in in #IRCadmins." Went straight there. Oh well some you you win.... Giano (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've put this article on my watchlist. Tracking this one is going to be difficult--this guy appears to be hopping across many computers. Blueboy96 20:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Plutonium27 Basically what happened here is I started writing article about tennis statistics. This tends to be Chidel's area so he got a little irked at someone else coming along and editing there. To prevent me from editing there he decided to try and delete scores of articles I have created so as to leave me firefighting. It worked and I have backed off editing too many tennis articles. He could edit in a less obtuse way - say by saying not sending 6 articles to AFD at the same time. However the user does seem to do some genuine work such as fixing my redirects and typos. Others are having trouble with him over Martina Navratilova and her nationality. I'm having trouble because he knows nothing about English privacy law yet acts as If he is a Law Lord! You can hardly accuse him of being a vandal though - so must we just put up with him? 12:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Want to know why some of the Obama in Hawaii info is already in the Early life article? It's because I put it there in preparation for the merge. I thought that an admin would not carefully merge it because it takes work to insert sentences as it's not one cut and paste block.

In terms of coatrack, the article has absolutely nothing to do with the birth controversy. The Hawaii article does not and should not cover this at all. I am no longer concerned that the article will be merged because I wrote down the addresses myself so if I go to Hawaii, I will have my own list of what to see (#1 is the Baskin Robbins, #2 is the grandma's apartment building, #3 is the school). While it would benefit others who wouldn't have to do their own searching if the article stayed, tough luck for them (if the article goes). User F203 (talk) 22:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I shall be pleased to address your queries at the article's relevant AfD page. Please move this to where it can be seen - and responded to - by all. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, I do not want it to be moved. I would rather you remove my comments. You may if you wish. I am sick of Obama fighting. User F203 (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

As you wish. The comment - and replies - will be archived directly. All the best Plutonium27 (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

hey, remember me? good medical call two years ago: http://blog.com/wp-signup.php?new=halfman that liar's blog was taken down. --MosheA (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC) (PS - You Jewish?)Reply

Dear Plutonium27:

I'm very hopeless on this place.I decided to leave here for a long time.Maybe english wikipedia isn't a good place to learn Enhlish,right?

• Thanks for all of your helps for these days.I'm about to leave out and never get back...--俠刀行 (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wow, sorry to see that you were treated so roughly over a legitimate question. If you saw BoP's talk page, you know I was wondering as well. I received an answer, which (coupled with other observations) didn't leave me satisfied. However, in the spirit of AGF, decided to just stay mum. Ironically, I agree with your detractors who argued that those service medals are over-valued by some. Ironic, because it's my belief that was the essence of your concern.--SPhilbrickT 20:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry I couldn't take this anymore. I have retired from wikipedia, and this might well be my last edit ever, so feel happy about it, but quite frankly you are wrong. You actually really looked stupid, ignorant and arrogant. It's sad to see how people scrutinize someone that badly, what ever happened to NO BIG DEAL?! Really think about how something sounds to someone before you type it! Mistakes happen, in fact the first time that I saw the awards I only saw the edit count, it happens. Maybe in your life wikipedia is the only thing that matters, and you want a perfect little world that everyone does what you like it, but that isn't how it is. See past mistakes and don't be an idiot! (Those of you who want to warn me for being uncivil save it, it doesn't matter) SparksBoy (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

You asked whatever happened to "NO BIG DEAL". Simple answer - it's not true. I haven't been around long enough to know whether it was ever true - for all I know it was. I do know that Jimbo said it, and some people think that if Jimbo said it, then it's a sin to disagree. I neither know nor care if he still thinks it is true, but it isn't true. I've watched, first-hand, while some new editor attempted to improve an article, but hadn't drunk the right koolaid, and was blocked. The issue is not whether the decision was justified or not, the issue is whether the power to block is NO BIG DEAL. Answer - don't be silly. It is power. And a power I want in trusted individuals. Editors who have demonstrated they are unlikely to abuse that power. Plutonium asked a question that I had as well. I think the discussion got a little out of hand, but the implication that it is an unreasonable question is ludicrous.--SPhilbrickT 14:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Minor followup - you expressed surprise that Sparky wrote in first person. I think there is a very simple explanation - I think Sparky was saying that when he looked at BoP as a candidate, and looked at various things, including his user page, he saw the edit count (whether from popups or the tools), so had a sense of edit count. He saw the award, but it didn't shape his thinking, as he already knew the edit count number. Not a big deal.--SPhilbrickT 14:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for removing and adjusting my weasle words in White Africans of European ancestry, it's much appreciated :D Bezuidenhout (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, Plutonium. I have been encouraged to run for RFA again, and seeing as you were one of the opposers in my first try, I wanted to ask if you think I've fixed the issues you raised, specifically about less-than stellar article contributions and my userpage; would you still oppose, and why? Since you were one of the opposers who offered a good amount of advice, I'm looking for an honest assessment as suggested in my recent editor review. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 01:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for note, I've restored the prod notice because I'm not happy about removal by anons or coi editors, but please remove again if you accept that the isp removal was appropriate. I'd not really looked at the other article since I didn't want to appear to be picking on him, but it looks nn/coi/spam. I've let the Longhouse article run since it seems to be reasonably notable, and Native appears to be prepared to work on it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

I won't argue about the kris lok-9 article being deleted, although it was considered "notable" enough to be featured on Malaysian TV numerous times and even in the History Channel's show Human Weapon. However, I wonder why a well-known style is considered non-notable while nobody's deleting Silat Kalimah Panglima Tangkas, Persatuan Gerak Badan, Manyang, Pukulan Cimande Pusaka, Pencak Silat Sharaf, Bukti Negara and all the other unknowns. In particular, those shamelessly promotional articles plugging styles created by certain Dutch Eurasions. Please look into it. Morinae (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Walleyed? Thanks for the chuckle.Sandcherry (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

hey why did you remove the boobs from my profile??? TheMissileSilo (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

[1] You must be English. :lol: Malleus Fatuorum 18:09, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not attack other editors as shown at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ArcAngel_2&diff=prev&oldid=372750679. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

He'd be in good company then, unlike you. Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not in good company, I'm a quiet loner.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You're an administrator, one of the unaccountable gang of teenage thugs who run this place. Malleus Fatuorum 18:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Only 120% wrong on the age. Your accuracy is improving.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you're not a teenager, then you ought to know better. Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm seriously tired of being attacked like in this post. You sure do think that I'm here as a idiotic, badge-chasing, admin eager immature teenager don't you? Your entitled to your opinion but from my point of view, the way that you communicate with me shows that I have 10x more maturity than you. I never go to people letting them know that they are or are going to be a "teenage irritant/laughing-stock" so why do so to me? Please assume some good faith and understand that I'm not here for the support symbols or questions marks at the top of my page, or the 16,000+ edit userbox nor some shiny buttons. I'm here to help. Otherwise I would have been long gone in November or January.--White Shadows ^{It's a wonderful life} 17:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You PROD2-ed this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Stop press - I see Dravecky, who PRODded it, has already AfD-ed it. Quick work. JohnCD (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Have left a further comment on the talk pages of the above article Gordoncph (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

After further study I have another comment in the talk pages on the above article and intend to rename the article. BTW, should you not always use English on talk pages? Gordoncph (talk) 20:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I saw from your userpage that you lived in the Soviet Union once. What is life like in a Communist state? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 19:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Goldblooded, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dont edit other users pages without permission , if you have something to tell me please notify me on my talk page , its not ok to just go and edit peoples private user pages. Goldblooded^{Return Fire} 15:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is about my recent userbox, I am not entirely sure what you mean by the definition of Whipping their hair means, it is a reference to Willow Smith's song Whip my hair.SUPER SONIC BABY 2 (talk) 13:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC) (visit my user page.)Reply

Am I not aloud to be on Wikipedia if I'm a child? --Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 22:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

To User:Surtsicna : Hi. I had cause to remove some little nonsense from this page several weeks ago: having just gone back to check it out, I saw you had to since remove a considerable pile of edits (from one editor) that had combined to make the most slobberingly bizarre article on a living person that I've seen in quite some time. Some edits were just absurd, some contained long-lost hints of factual accuracy that had since mutated into pop-culture wreckery and all surpassed the Cringeworthy Mark on the Ass-Kissing Scale and would be worthy of discreet preservation in some Wikipedia vault of horrors (like my sandbox...). Anyway, just to let you know I felt I had to put a warning and a few lines at User talk:Qais13 and will be keeping watch, as they seem to have added sundry similar samples of nutty nonsense to and about certain royals and Lady Gaga. All the best, Plutonium27 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC) )Reply

(Ah, I've just seen you've taken it to WP:AN. Good work) Plutonium27 (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Yes, I had already gone a step further by requesting an indefinite block for our friend. I wholeheartedly agree with you - that version of the article ought to be preserved somewhere, as well as a note warning the reader that a Wikipedia article looked like that for a month. It was, without a doubt, the scariest and most bizarre article I have ever read on Wikipedia. It might even surpass some of Conservapedia's articles... but then again, I am not so sure. Surtsicna (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

(Added my Support to block request at WP:AN. Let's hope this one wraps up fast. And you have got it exactly right, those edits really are at that don't-let-facts-stop-you, entire-fantasy-world Conservapedia level). Plutonium27 (talk) 16:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually get really, really upset when I read Conservapedia. I wouldn't be surprised if they linked "global warning propaganda" to homosexuality and blamed it both on the feminist Eskimos. As for the name, there is absolutely no need to apologise. I simply forgot about it being on my user page. Such memory failures happen a lot to me though it is usually my friends and family who get scared by them. Surtsicna (talk) 16:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

(Well done - Qais13 has been indef blocked (and Admin User:Floquenbeam admits his puzzlement at just wtf she is on about)! Let's hope that's the last of it, although I do intend to archive the really on-form sections. Eventually, I did discern something of an editing pattern: 1) chose random bits of (modern or historical) royal (or Lady Gaga) facts. 2) mix with last night's dreams and favourite bored-at-school pop-princess fantasies. 3) add to an article at will. That Qais13 is a teenage girl is something I'm prepared to bet my beer money on). I suspect she'd been browsing somewhere like [7] - generally an excellent source - and from there picked up appealing-looking historical royal fragments to lay the bullshit on.)

(Have to support what Kudpung says above. Tru, your English is ambiguous and confusing. Google Translate is not your friend - it often leads to unintended nuances and consequences. For example, you do not want to be using the word interrogating anywhere near an RfA. Also, the !vote/comment at RfA that is nothing more than "Here I am" is not constructive and does not ultimately reflect well on its editor. Plutonium27 (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC))Reply

For the record, I don't use Google Translate. And Kudpung underestimates my ability of speaking English. I take some time to visit Wikipedia but due to some things you wouldn't know, I cut it short. My use of "interrogating" is questioning Zagalejo. I may make an essay about speaking in English and respecting it due to 'this' "big" conflict. TruPepitoM (talk) 10:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

>Copied to and replied on relevant thread on User talk:TruPepitoM Plutonium27 (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Plutonium27. You have new messages at TruPepitoM's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for participating in my RfA. Although it was unsuccessful, it gave me a lot of insight into what I can do with my time on Wikipedia so that I can become a more well-rounded contributor and hopefully gain enough experience to pass another future RfA attempt.

In addition, there are two things I wanted to say:

1. First, I do not have a "prized cucurbitaceae"; it is actually a prized cannabaceae, and in fact it is a plantation rather than a single plant. Common misconception, but I will let it slide just this once. ;)
2. Thank you for the positive assessment of my writing skills. It actually was a motivating factor for me to become more engaged in content creation, such as I've done on this article. I love it so far, it's much better than the dramaboards of Wikipedia.

In any case, I really appreciate your participation and hope to see you around. Take care! =) Kurtis (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

In the recent RfA of Northamerica1000, you make a remark that I believe can be interpreted to suggest that the candidate and I are the same person. It scarcely needs to be said, but that is of course untrue. Neutrality^talk 20:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

I believe you did mean that question for me, so I answered it at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Banaticus#Questions for the candidate. :) Banaticus (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 20:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Good morning Plutonium27, I was browsing the internet just now and found the Wikipedia labour (labor) portal. I then discovered you were a London based contributor. I also live in London. A few years ago I created a Wikipedia page about a group I was a founder of nearly 30 years ago. I think it should be linked to the labour portal but it I wouldn't have a clue how to do this. It was a miracle that I managed to create a Wikipedia page at all! Could you help? The page I created is: Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners. As you know, next year is the 30th anniversary of the strike and there is already growing interest in what we achieved. A major movie is being planned and a play about it will premiere in October in Derry. My email address is michaeljackson215@me.comMichaeljackson215 (talk) 07:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Plutonium27, I noticed this edit you made about FayssalF's admin information and how you were unable to remove it/comment it out due to the protection. You're right that when someone has their admin tools removed due to inactivity, it's best to hide any indication that they're an admin as not to confuse others. Would you like me to make those edits for you? Acalamari 12:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, yes. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. Would you like me to restore your message on his talk page and then add a note after it saying that I've made the edits, or would you prefer it if merely wrote a note saying that I've removed them but mention that you highlighted it beforehand? Acalamari 16:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

+:::Whichever you think more suitable - it really is no big deal after all and I don't want to seem to harass the guy. Thanks again. All the best, Plutonium27 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry, you haven't come across as harassing, but out of respect for your concerns, I've just posted my own note and didn't restore yours; if anyone objects or FayssalF isn't happy with the userspace changes, they can blame me. :D Best wishes to you. Acalamari 17:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've reverted to the last version without the uncited spam, which leaves a rather sorry-looking stub. I'm not entirely convinced this ought to exist at all, since it's hardly the Waldorf-Astoria or Savoy and I can't imagine anyone will ever read it, but who am I to judge... Mogism (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

From the history, it's been proposed for deletion in the past and contested. Since someone obviously thinks it's worth keeping, I suppose it's not actually doing any harm - although since there's clearly nothing to be said about it ("Edwardian architecture" probably applies to half the hotels in Britain) I'm not quite sure why it was ever created in the first place. Their official web site must have won some kind of award for "worst web site", though. Mogism (talk) 19:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

I know: this is not an autobiography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dl1234567 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

I remembered that you were fond of the bobcat kittens photo, so I think you might also like this picture. --Pine^✉ 07:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Louise Germain, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry, I don't get your edit summaries. What's wrong with Nunc dimittis (Pärt)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

No indication of notability given in the relevant main article Nunc dimittis. Your refs given here lead nowhere btw. Plutonium27 (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for earlier joining the Organized Labour project. I've been a participant in the project since 2006 and am helping with a revival of it. As part this we are introducing a new membership system, which will help with communications among participants. This involves creating a membership file for each participant within your user space (you can see an example of my membership card here: User:Goldsztajn/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject Organized Labour). This system is already in operation within a number of wikiprojects (such as Women in Red and Medicine). You will not have to do anything, myself or someone else from the project will create the relevant file within your userspace. However, I am conscious that it is not polite to change an editor's userspace without notice. If I don't hear from you in the negative, I will go ahead with making the change after the 18th of January. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Many thanks for supporting the project, in solidarity, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello - my name is Susan Gerbic (Sgerbic) and I'm writing to you because at some point you joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism. This might have been months ago - or even years ago. With the best of intentions the project was created years ago, and sadly like many WikiProjects has started to go dormant. A group of us are attempting to revitalize the Skepticism project, already we have begun to clean up the main page and I've just redone the participant page. No one is in charge of this project, it is member directed, which might have been the reason it almost went dormant. We are attempting to bring back conversations on the talk page and have two subprojects as well, in the hopes that it might spark involvement and a way of getting to know each other better. One was created several years ago but is very well organized and a lot of progress was made, Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skeptical organisations in Europe. The other I created a couple weeks ago, it is very simple and has a silly name Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Skepticism Stub Sub-Project Project (SSSPP). This sub-project runs from March 1 to June 1, 2022. We are attempting to rewrite skepticism stubs and add them to this list. As you can see we have already made progress.

The reason I'm writing to you now is because we would love to have you come back to the project and become involved, either by working on one of the sub-projects, proposing your own (and managing it), or just hanging out on the talk page getting to know the other editors and maybe donate some of your wisdom to some of the conversations. As I said, no one is in charge, so if you have something in mind you would like to see done, please suggest it on the talk page and hopefully others will agree. Please add the project to your watchlist, update your personal user page showing you are a proud member of WikiProject Skepticism. And DIVE in, this is what the work list looks like [2] frightening at first glance, but we have already started chipping away at it.

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants page has gone though a giant change - you may want to update your information. And of course if this project no longer interests you, please remove your name from the participant list, we would hate to see you go, but completely understand.

Thank you for your time, I hope to edit with you in the future.Sgerbic (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello Plutonium27. In Special:Diff/1144393404 you removed cited text and its citation. Why? I have also begun a Talk:Murder of Catherine Cesnik#March 2023 thread. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Sakha Avia Flight 301, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Please review WP:Diffusion Mason (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply