Wrad

I have a question about your GA review here. Did you want me to create a section in the article about the use of Harry Potter in education, or to use more scholarly sources? Malinaccier (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just more scholarly sources. Basically a section on academic literary criticism of the novel. Wrad (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey Wrad, sorry to ruin your day of joy, but I dont suppose you could point your editing guns towards The Lucy poems . Sorry for the unsolited request, but you know how it is. Dont worry if you are bogged down in other stuff, this is a no harm in asking post. Best. Ceoil (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Are you also the user Uurad from ANG? — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 14:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah. Wrad (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well where ya been man? We could still use some additional contributors! — ᚹᚩᛞᛖᚾᚻᛖᛚᛗ (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey man, why you never took this one over the line..I thought you did a great job after I overcame my irritation at someone pinching my favourite colour (hehehe). We need to get one of these over the line so to confuse Raul voer which section to put it in on the FA page....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Haha. I'm really not sure where to start. Wrad (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Could you please vote whether you consider this information notable? Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 13:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey Wrad, I was wondering if you could review the Spokane, Washington article for the editors. After you read the article, I believe all you need to do is apply the A-Class criteria to the article and put whether you believe it is worthy of being A-class. Also, in addition to that, it would be helpful if you could include some points for improvement. If you are up to review it, notify me here or on my Talk so I can stop looking for reviewers. Thanks! Anon134 (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Though this project is inactive, you can help with : Graham Moore (racing driver) (random unreferenced BLP of the day for 23 Nov 2024 - provided by User:AnomieBOT/RandomPage via WP:RANDUNREF).

well, any input would be good - green is a good comparison. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

PS: I figured you'd be happy to have a tinker and had access to some easy sources etc - I know you didn't participate in voting etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Three weeks ago, you helped answer my question on the Reference Desk about why the LDS Church builds more temples. Could you help with another LDS question? As I go through National Register of Historic Places lists for the western USA, I'm constantly running across various LDS tabernacles. However, I'm confused: what makes a tabernacle a tabernacle? In what way is it unique? The relevant section of tabernacle says that it's a local gathering place and a worship center, but I'm unclear, for example, why locals couldn't gather at the meeting house for their ward. Thanks for your help! Nyttend (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey there. I've been doing interviews for the Signpost's WikiProject Report, and I've been trying to come up with a project that's sort of outside-the-box. I came up with WikiProject Color. Would you be interested in doing an interview? I realize that you haven't been active with the project lately, but you're the only editor to have made any kind of substantial progress with an article about a color. If you're not interested, don't worry about it. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Awesome. I've set up an interview page here. After you answer each question, I'll usually post 1 or 2 more until we've got at least a good solid page of interviewage. Don't worry too much about formatting; I can touch it up and alter the layout before it goes out for publishing, which should happen on Sunday April 12. If you don't fully understand a question or don't really want to answer it for whatever reason, just leave a note here, my talk page, the interview page, or the interview's talk page, and I'll try to accomodate you. Alrighty, let's get to it! Thanks! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I really like your resolve in improving year articles, your hard-slogging approach is a breath of fresh air. I share your concerns that some people would consider deleting year articles, but I think you've really proved a point with 1346. It shows a clear distinction between these and "date" articles (e.g. May 10), because year articles have some common reference points. Linking things by date, not year, is inherently a more trivial approach. However, I would like to see more work done on the year articles before we consider wide ranging links. Although, I think that as they improve in quality then they will instantly become more "relevant links". The problem may be completely bypassed here. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why do we need a special rule just for years? Why can't it be treated just like any other link? That's all I'm asking for. Wrad (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm taking the consequentialist approach that, with Option #1, they will be treated like other links, just that they will have a guideline to aid transition. I think that the introduction of the links through autoformatting (e.g. all linked) messed things up in the first place: try to see it like a slow progression to a "date democracy" while we're coming out of an "all link regime" (if the analogy helps). Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm a biologist, and have some training in chemistry. Poke me if you need help on a colour article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I've stumbled upon your recent interview at the signpost, and I was wondering if it'd be possible to make a category for known colours that aren't properly displayable on computer screens, like the International Klein Blue. I don't have much knowledge in the field but it's fascinating. I've seen a painting done with IKB in Cologne a few years ago and it was really stunning, and that's where this fascination stems from. Just random thoughts. Cheers and keep up the great work! --Ouro (blah blah) 17:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestion, and I look forward to collaborating / pilfering from those articles. :-) I am however on a long wikibreak at the moment, but I hope to come back to it maybe at the end of June. By that time, I should have gathered some more sources and we should be able to put in enough work to move it into mainspace. --Grimhelm (talk) 15:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject Poetry invites all members to participate in the current article improvement drive! Our goal is to improve the quality of important poetry-related articles. There is no set deadline and participation is purely voluntary. The current focus is: Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Suggestions for future collaborative efforts are welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry. Thank you for your support!

--Midnightdreary (talk) 14:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which succeeded with 56 in support, 12 in opposition and 3 neutral votes. I am truly honored by the trust that the community has placed in me. Whether you supported me, opposed me, or if you only posted questions or commented om my RfA, I thank you for your input and I will be looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas :). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). All the Best, Mifter (talk)

Mifter (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Frankenstein has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring (and reliably sourced) contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Discussion is here.Peter Damian (talk) 19:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

A RfC has been opened to discuss the issue of alignment of the lead image on the Joseph Priestley article. Because you have previously commented or been involved with this issue, your input is requested. Please stop by Talk:Joseph Priestley#RfC on lead image alignment and leave any feedback you may have. Thank you. Madcoverboy (talk) 03:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm interested in the Homeschooling project. Of the first three editors on the list of participants, you are the only one currently active, so I direct my questions to you. Please correct me if I should be addressing someone else.

I have recently worked on a stub-rated article in the Homeschooling Project, "Thomas Jefferson Education." It no longer refers to the book, but to the philosophy/methodology. I have some other tasks on it to complete before I'm satisfied that it's of high quality (which I've outlined on its talk page). What does one do to get it upgraded from stub? Also, I'd like to encourage some other homeschool friends to participate as editors. Whom should they contact regarding "featured" homeschooling articles to improve? Ibinthinkin (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you created Homeland Officers' Organization, but listed no sources for the information contained in the article. According to Wikipedia's content policies, all information must be verifiable from reliable sources. Therefore, it's necessary to cite your sources so other editors can check that the information included in the article is correct and matches the sources used. Information not previously published in such sources is prohibited as original research, since other editors can't verify it. Unsourced information may be challenged and removed at any time, and articles that can't be verified are likely to be deleted. Guidance on how to cite your sources is available, and if you need any further help, feel free to leave a message on my talk page.

I have reviewed Jean Keene for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since you are a main contributor of the article (determined based on this tool), I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wrad,

I think I've seen you mention you're involved in some kind of Middle-Eastern or Arabic studies? This is a bit peripheral, but you wouldn't happen to be able to suggest a good source for the various rulers of Tunis in the latter half of the 15th century (1442–96)? Particularly something which might tell us whether any of them married politically to a woman from Europe, or, similarly, whether there were any political alliances between Tunis and Europe in this period.

Any suggestions would be most appreciated. --Xover (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

There's an article you might like, Hafsid dynasty. I kind of doubt that there were many alliances with Europe at the time. Wrad (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

[1] this seems to indicate indirect trade routes with Spain and Portugal through other parts of North Africa. Wrad (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, Hafsid dynasty and a (google)book on the de Medici trade dynasty (which, incidentally, mentioned that English cloth was among the commodities traded), was about as far as I got. As you noticed, the individual rulers in the list on Hafsid dynasty were redlinks, so not much help there (apart from narrowing it down to Uthman or Muhammad III, or possibly Abd al-Aziz II). Anyways, thanks for the help; and I'd appreciate it if you'd keep an eye out and let me know if you should happen to stumble on something relevant. --Xover (talk) 23:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

.

 Template:Macbethchar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. On all the pages where it was being used it was sitting right next to Template:Macbeth, which also includes all the characters, so I removed this from those articles and put the template up for deletion. Please do twap me about the head if I made a boo-boo anywhere. :-) --Xover (talk) 15:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wrad. As mentioned elsewhere, I'm very sorry to see you leave the Shakespeare WikiProject. I've sung your praises elsewhere so I won't repeat them here, but know that I'll miss your participation in the project a lot!

That being as it may, let me also get a counterpoint off my chest. From where I'm sitting, you too are contributing to the conflicts that frustrate you so by letting past interactions on difficult and controversial topics color your interpretation of, and response to, Smatprt's comments. Maybe his tone was a little condescending on the Hamlet talk page, and perhaps he tends to get the bit between his teeth and argue harder and longer for his point of view than is constructive. But having worked with him quite a bit recently I've found that he's quite willing to be constructive and agree to disagree if he's just met with a little humility and respect (which, I've found, most editors, myself included, appreciate). In interacting with him you seem to let what he actually writes be colored by your past conflicts—which, I hasten to add, is perfectly understandable—but consider this: he's also dragging around the baggage of your past conflicts and letting his interactions with you be colored by those. Try to consider how what you write will be read if viewed through the lens of past conflicts, and whether your frustrations may not be the very same as those of your counterpart. Worse, by being fairly alone here in representing a minority view—one which tends to be dismissed out of hand and ridiculed by most editors—it would require almost super-human restraint for him to not fight tooth and nail for every inch of ground. When you had your big spats in the past he was quite new come to Wikipedia, and has learned about its mores and culture since then, but you (and others, by all means) keep holding that history over his head and just assume he's being unreasonable and disruptive even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Also keep in mind that some of those spats (and more recent ones) have been fueled by deliberate and malicious manipulation by a bunch of sockpuppets with the stated goal of sowing dissent and escalate minor disagreements into major conflicts. We were all victims of that manipulation.
Even though I'll dearly miss your contributions to the project I won't lay a guilt trip on you to come back: you really should try to find articles to work on that give you pleasure, and avoid the ones that you feel only frustrate you. But keep in mind that I'm quite certain you'd find Smatprt the first to compliment you on your contributions, and that you have yourself said you have a bit of a powder keg temper and tend to overreact to perceived slights. In other words, I hope you will reconsider; if not right away, then at least once your frustrations have abated somewhat.
Oh, and my making the argument above is not intended to imply that your frustrations are not valid! As mentioned elsewhere, I myself find these constant conflicts terribly frustrating; I just want to point out that there are things you can do to help prevent those conflicts (and hence your frustration) from occurring. Not everyone have compatible styles and personalities, and we can't all always be the bestest of buddies; but my personal experience is that if all parties are willing to make the effort, one can usually manage to get along well enough to get the job done.
Oh, and finally: if any of what I've written above, or elsewhere, makes you feel I've accused you or unfairly criticised you, in any way, then please do let me know! I'm sticking my big nose in here only because I think you and Smatprt misconstrue each other, and that if you both deliberately tried you'd both end up with far less frustration. I in no way mean to imply that anyone is at “fault” or have acted wrongly; I only see a potential for things to be better for everyone (i.e. a win–win situation), and want to make the case for trying. If I've failed to communicate that clearly, or through ineptitude have implied something else, I'll appreciate an opportunity to apologize and correct myself. --Xover (talk) 10:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am aware that I sometimes lose it around him. But good grief! I tried this time! All I did was tell him to relax and he accused me of being condescending and an embarrassment to the project! What exactly did I do to deserve that? When the socks were trying to bait me to get rid of him because of our disagreements, I never took it. I always took Smatprt's side. I really, really tried to bite my tongue on this, but he kept lashing out on me and I just couldn't take it anymore. Wrad (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wrad. I wanted to apologize to you for our last exchange. I admit that I just snapped and I am sorry for that. And I wanted to assure you that I never called you "incompetent" or "an embarrassment". You are far, far, far to good an editor for anyone to ever say such a thing. I said the article (synopsis) had become an embarrassment. Not you. It just really bugged the hell out of me that all those corrections went unanswered for over a month. I was not a regular editor there so I never saw them until I happened on it by chance. Instead of making the corrections, I saw that the anon was simply attacked, causing him to attack back. It brought up memories of what happened to me when I first started editing and it just set me off. And I am sorry it was you who caught the brunt of it. And you are right - you are not one of the editors who regularly insults me simply because of my authorship interests. But the constant insults, personal attacks, and downright meanness have left me quite angry. I have seen every other authorship editor bullied off the main pages and I vowed not to let those tactics work on me. As a result, I have fought fire with fire. I will step back and examine my behavior and try to do better. Thanks for listening and again, my sincere apologies. Smatprt (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Smatprt. I didn't want to deal with those complaints because I was pretty sure they were from JeffJo and I didn't want to deal with that. Wrad (talk) 17:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've noticed you've been involved in editing Big 12 related articles. I'm trying to gauge the interested in created a Big 12 WikiProject and wondered if you'd like to be involved. There are already pages for WikiProject Big Ten and WikiProject ACC. A Big 12 project would cover the schools themselves and anything to do with conference sports including: events, rivalries, teams, seasons, championships and lore. There is already quite a bit of activity here on Wikipedia regarding the Big 12, and I think a project could help coordinate and unify are efforts. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Big 12, if you are interested and add your name to the list. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

		WikiProject Vancouver
		You have been invited to participate in Operation Schadenfreude to restore the article Vancouver back to featured article status.

- Dear FA Team member, we could use your help if you're available. Mkdw^talk 06:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Superman catching plane.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I saw you replaced a sentence I removed about the first doctorate degree west of the Mississippi being Nebraska. It wasn't sourced when I removed it. [2] is the first source I could find claiming Saint Louis University awarded a Phd In 1880. The Nebraska sources says that degree was awarded in 1898. Thanks. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure we'll figure this out. Seems like all the schools are just bragging. Wrad (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, I don't care that much, I just removed it because it was unreferenced and contradicted something I had read in the past. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)Reply

MSM is poised for a second FAC run. The last Peer Review suggested that the article undergo "a copyedit to smooth over a few rough / awkward places." Would you be interested in doing the deed? —Eustress ^talk 18:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Wrad (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		For sharing your expertise with promptness and precision! —Eustress talk 22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Not sure if you still collect these things, but I really appreciate your help! Let me know if I can return the favor. —Eustress ^talk 22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you can come offer your thoughts on this discussion, I would appreciate it. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you have time could you stop by the Shakespeare authorship question page and compare the current page with that of four months ago and see if you notice any improvement? I've been working on that page at the request of a friend, and having to work with ant-Stratfordians who want to use it to promote their particular man is like herding cats, and if I'm just wasting my time I might as well abandon the project. Also if you have any structural suggestions I'd appreciate it, because I'm too close to the material.

Cheers! Tom Reedy (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Wrad! You are receiving this message because you are on WikiProject Homeschooling's list of members. WikiProject Homeschooling is holding a roll call to identify active members. All members will be listed under "Pending". Please move your name to "Active" or "Inactive" based on your ability or interest in contributing to the project. After two weeks all names still listed under "Pending" will be moved to "Inactive". If you are actively interested in participating, we are in the process of trying to revive the project and would welcome any help. Discussion can be found at the project talk page. Cheers! 21:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wrad,

I just got some nice compliments about Banquo and Fleance elsewhere and just wanted to pass it along: «Very interesting article. I've at times been sceptical about creating articles about every minor character, but these articles clearly prove that it is appropriate, when done correctly.» A sentiment I can only agree with. Kudos! (and ditto to Scartol if you're stalking this page, IIRC you were also involved) --Xover (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Just FYI, I'm trying to fix up the refs on Banquo so they're more consistent, adding links, and doi etc. I'm using citation templates to do it because it ensures a consistent format and because I think it's much easier to do it that way. If you absolutely hate citation templates (as I know some people do), please do feel free to revert. --Xover (talk) 10:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wrad. Would you please take a look? Tom Reedy (talk) 18:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

My apologies for not being more help with the Banquo FAC; I was ill prepared, and Karanacs closed it a little sooner than I expected. I do however take solace in the fact that we now have a better idea of where the reviewers found it to fall short of the standard, and thus how to improve it. I intend to keep chipping away on a copy-edit of the entire article—and using that as a jumping-off point to read up more on the topic as I spot areas that could use recasting—so eventually we might, if you're willing, give it another go. --Xover (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. On Jimbo, do I need to change or recast anything? Did I misrepresent anything, do you feel?

On the other, well, cesspools—not to put too fine a point on it—I was planning on going through those too to illustrate how the topic keeps invading almost every Shakespeare-related article, but right now I am mostly despairing after the pain of suffering through the archives I did go through. We'll see if my intestinal fortitude reasserts itself later on. --Xover (talk) 22:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me Wrad, but I am trying to be nice, here. I am On YOUR side, if anything. I don't agree with what Derby is saying, I just don't believe he should remove all those elections. If I were to add for example Julia Gillard to the article, right now, I should either expect it to be removed now, or later. That is why I am saying that we should develop a list of all the elections removed, for example 1989-2010, and we should go case by case reviewing them and their importance step by step, instead of just adding them straight away. I am sure that there are many cases simmilar to Barack Obama over the last century on the years article. A whole list of Leaders elections etc. that have been removed by editors, and we can then re-add them all to the article's they belong to. Julia Gillard should be on the 2010 article, I may have a long way till we review her, but I am patient...as we will get to her, just like everyone else. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

I removed that page from my watchlist, so I don't care anymore. I think your goal is overly optimistic, but whatever floats your boat. Recent year articles don't matter all that much anyway. They pretty much all have an awful quality by nature, and try as we might, I don't think it can be helped. Wrad (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

There is know problem in trying to upper the quality standard even a little :) Anyway, Thank You for your time. -- MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hey are you currently still involved in English to Egyptian Arabic translations on Wikipedia? AJona1992 (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am much better the other way around--Egyptian Arabic to English. Wrad (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well I was looking for a translator to Egyptian Arabic, but thanks for responding and letting me know, have a nice day! AJona1992 (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

A couple of months ago you placed a "worldwide" template on the Mormons article because it only devoted one sentence to international Mormons. (see here for the discussion). There is now a whole paragraph on them in a section devoted to Groups within Mormonism. Do you think that's sufficient to warrant removing the template? (It was also noted in the discussion that most of what is said in the article applies to international Mormons, even if it doesn't explicitly say that.) -- Adjwilley (talk) 21:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi... We had a conflict with editing. I reordered the information and lost your newest addition. I'm going to go and put it back in now. Just wanted you to know.  :) Wikipelli ^Talk 15:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Done... see if it's ok. I reordered the VA info because it was the center of the quake. It seemed to make sense to me to present the information geographically from the epicenter outward.Wikipelli ^Talk 15:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

If you are still interested in the Color project, would you mind looking at this RfC here? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

 

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wrad, I see you’re widely-read on my current favourite poem. Can you tell me if you ever came across any reference to the possibility of Galician lyrics as an influence on the Gawain-poet? When I was looking for stuff on the net about medieval symbolism + hinds it threw up a piece on Galician love poems (13th-14th c.) and apparently deer-imagery featured a lot:

‘In many of the Galician songs the hinds (cervas) are symbolically the confidantes of the girl in love, embodying all that is farouche and all that is ardent in her own nature.’ (P. Dronke, ‘The Medieval Lyric’)

The hind as a metaphor for female sexuality...could he have come across this? Unlikely on the face of it I know, as there’s a fair distance between Galicia and North Staffs. Still, John of Gaunt had Iberian connections so if the Gawain-poet had links to him and his court, it’s just possible. Just. Anyway I wondered if you recall seeing the suggestion made anywhere? RLamb (talk) 01:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I don't recall running into that one. Seems like it might be a good route to take to get some new insight into the poem. Wrad (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. Damn. As you've probably guessed I was thinking along the lines of hind=sexual intrigue, boar=animal passion?, fox=deceit. Oh well, I shall mull it over while re-reading. Happy Christmas, and may neither of us be tested to destruction in the New Year.RLamb (talk) 09:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Closest thing to that would probably be ref 20 on J. D. Burnley. Wrad (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

The items you have repeatedly added to 2011 are both under discussion on the talk page. If it is so obvious that they should included then consensus should be straightforward, depending on the level of input from other editors that may be only one or two days, a week is usually more than sufficient. There is no "violation" of WP:RY. WP:RY is a guideline, inclusion or exclusion can be overriden by consensus, and as there is no consensus yet for either entry those guidelines are still being followed. My understanding of wiki rules is that any item whose inclusion or exclusion is being discussed should not be included or included (i.e. the status quo should remain) until there is a clear consensus. Even though I disagree that either is worthy of inclusion that may be contradicted by the relevant articles, as you have pointed out BUT that is irrelevant and not the reason I reverted your edits. That is simply because they are under discussion and I would have done the same had they previously been included and an editor removed them while a discussion was being held which had yet to reach consensus. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Consensus is required if WP:RY is not met. That is not the case here. The entries follow guidelines, but you are reverting them anyway, even when, in the case of Occupy, there is a consensus for inclusion, with only you and one other person opposing in the face of several requests to add it, saying that it isn't internationally significant when clearly, as I have demonstrated, it is. Wrad (talk) 01:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to let you know I am bowing out of the discussion there. I think we have all said our piece. No hard feelings. I admire your persistence for being willing to discuss your position there and trying to drive consensus. No hard feelings on my part.—Bagumba (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your account has been updated to 'autopatrolled'. A random check of your creations shows that some are tagged for maintenance issue, while some are still completely unreferenced. I trust you will attend to these as soon as possible. Your new articles will still list in special:new pages but will not be highlighted in yellow. Thanks.

Yep, that was back in my early days. Wrad (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, since your name's down on this project, I'm just writing to let you know that there's a discussion going on at the moment on how to format events – and in particular, events that go on for multiple days – on year pages. Your input would be appreciated. — Smjg (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

 

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Have you seen Elijah lately? I have been away-health. ThomasHartman —Preceding undated comment added 00:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC).Reply

You're invited to 3 exciting events Wikipedians are planning in your region this June—a tour and meetup at the National Archives in Kansas City, and Wiknics in Wichita and St. Louis:

Kansas City Saturday, June 16, starting at 9 a.m. — National Archives in Kansas City This full-day event will include a tour of the facility; presentations from National Archives Wikipedian-in-Residence, Dominic McDevitt-Parks, and Exhibit Specialist, Dee Harris; and time in the research room to work on projects. The focus of the projects will be scanning, writing articles, transcribing, or categorizing images on Commons. Wikipedians from St. Louis and elsewhere in the region are encouraged to make a day-trip of it and come to Kansas City for this special opportunity!
And two local editions of the Great American Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit." Come meet (and geek out with, if you want) your local Wikipedians in a laid-back atmosphere: Wichita Saturday, June 23, starting at 1 p.m. — Central Riverside Park Join the 1st annual Wichita Wiknic: The Sunflower State blooms Free Knowledge! St. Louis Saturday, June 23, starting at 11 a.m. — Forest Park Visitors' Center Join the 2nd annual St Louis Wiknic: The Gateway to the West is now The Gateway to the Wiki!

Message delivered by Dominic·t 20:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Reply

You appear to be unfamiliar with what constitutes canvassing, since announcing an intention to seek a third opinion to resolve a dispute BEFORE doing so is clearly not canvassing. May I suggest you make sure of your facts before you level such an accusation again. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Usually when you ask for a third opinion, you link to the appropriate discussion and provide a neutral summary of the issue. What you posted was extremely biased and out of context, which is exactly what canvassing is. Wrad (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yep, I probably should have linked to the discussion, my bad. But what I posted was not out of context and not biased. See [3] I made it plain I was bringing it to the language board because the guy didn't believe me that pirate didn't have the same context in Spanish and English (especially South American Spanish). You've jumped to a conclusion that is unwarranted. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

You are quite honestly probably the only person on the planet who would say what you posted was not biased. Wrad (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I asked a specific question, simply because the guy virtually called me a liar to my face and I made it plain in my original posting that it annoyed me. You know what it takes strength of character to admit you made a mistake, it takes none to come back with a wisecrack. Goodnight. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I know you are WPs William Shakespeare master. Your WP:FAs for him and his two most pageviewed plays are impressive. You have made your mark on some of the main trunks of the tree of knowledge. I am quite sure that all the templates that I recently created could use some reworking. I encourage you to make your mark.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm writing because you are listed in Category:Translators ar-en. It was recently pointed out at Talk:Innocence of Muslims#ARABIC Wikipedia version that the English Wikipedia article on the deliberately inflammatory film trailer Innocence of Muslims contains very much more detailed information about the deliberate deceit on the part of the filmmakers to try to obscure their identity and the nature of the trailers which has not yet been added to the Arabic version at ar:براءة_المسلمين which is getting about 8,000 page views per day presently. Would you please consider adding some of the details which might help Arabic readers understand some of the missing details of the trailers? Thank you for your consideration. —Cupco 22:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Can you please deal with the comments at Talk:Wojdan Shaherkani‎/GA1 regarding that sentence? I'd like to see it elevated to GA but the sentence structure there needs changing. --LauraHale (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. :) --LauraHale (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

"Not really. It still carries this "quote", but says earlier in the article that it was her first competition. This is a contradiction, and maybe worth just cutting that section of the paraphrase. Also, the rather chatty nature of the "Still,..." does not quite work. Sarastro1 (talk) 5:49 am, Today (UTC+11)" in Talk:Wojdan Shaherkani‎/GA1. Can you comment to address that? (And when this hopefully passes, take credit for assisting in taking this to GA as your assistance has been valuable.) --LauraHale (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

As someone who is listed as a participant for WikiProject Poetry, I hope you will be interested to learn of an attempt to revive the WP and alongside this the creation of task force to improve coverage of The Canterbury Tales. We are currently looking for participants to help set up the basics. Please get involved if you can, and we can hopefully revive this important project within Wikipedia! Many thanks, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)

Also, I've seen that you've listed yourself as a participant for the project already, but just to make sure you are aware of why it's there (if you haven't seen the other notices) I thought I'd be safe and post this to you. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, writing to you because you are a member of the wikiproject kansas. created a GLAM (Galleries, Libraries, Archives, Museums) group for kansas, mailing list for topeka and a facebook page linked from here Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka. would like to organize some more meetups at different historic sites in topeka (and even other places if we can find someone with a car), go there and take photos, collect information and work on the articles. It could be a great group event. please let me know what you think, and sign up on the mailing list if you like. Also if you know of GLAM sites anywhere in kansas, please add them to the list. Also I would like to organize a photo contest for Kansas. you can send me a mail if you like as well, my mail is on my user page.

thanks, James Michael DuPont (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

So green is a no-no? Or is red and blue difficult too? Tony (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've found it difficult to predict, but something about the combination in the graphs just wasn't working for me. Wrad (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you could translate Arabic to English. I wonder if you could look at Sujud#Sajdah of recitation and Sujud#Sayings during sujud. I checked the history but they don't appear to have ever been in English. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have started a discussion here about the Shakespeare sidebar template that has been added to several articles. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wrad, since you reviewed this article for GAC, I thought you'd like to know that it's now at FAC. However, it's dangerously close to failing due to lack of support. Would you mind going over there [4] and taking a look? I appreciate it. Let me know how I can assist you in whatever you're currently working on. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm writing an academic article on people-participation in the 'production' of Shakespeare studies. I noticed that you had recently provided some edits for the Wiki Shakespeare page, and wondered if I might ask you some questions about that? This project is at a very early stage so I've not yet refined or worked out a fixed methodology. So the questions are also not yet fully formed. (And I am aware that you also contribute to many other pages.) 1. What motivates you specifically to contribute specifically to the Shakespeare page? 2. Do you consider that your skills in this regard are general, technical, or specialist? 3. Have you contributed to other Shakespeare-related pages? 3. What's you opinion on how the Shakespeare page has evolved over time? 4. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Shakespeare page in terms of its current form and content? 5. Who would you say are the target readers for this page? 6. What have been the advantages and/or the frustrations of working on the Shakespeare page? 7. What are your reflections on the process of wiki-engagement in terms of dialogue, connection, community and collaboration? 8. In your view, are there any other questions that ought to be considered? Many thanks for taking the time to read this! TheoryofSexuality (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring William Shakespeare (estimated annual readership: 4,550,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing William Shakespeare to Featured Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:26, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I've been eying the Ben Jonson page. Wudduyah think? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

That could be fun... We would need some help, though. Wrad (talk) 22:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I put a message on Andy's page. There are enough people who track our edits that I think some of them will pitch in.

Those cites are gonna have to be the first thing revamped--children's encyclopedias and 150-year-old refs won't cut it. I've sent for Donaldson's biography and I should get it in a few days. We should be able to take it to FA by the end of the year I expect. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I finally got my Donaldson yesterday. I'm going out of town for the weekend but I'll be back next week and get started (might even do some formatting in my spare time). If you shoot me an email I can sent you the DNB Jonson article. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

All right, I've had to drop just about everything in preparation for going abroad the month of November, so any work I do will just be piddling around until I get back. I'm guessing it will be December before I can do any appreciable work on the page. Tom Reedy (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Just to let you know, I've made the suggested changes to Titus Andronicus, as per the discussion last week, if you fancy taking a look. I've included more quotes than is really necessary in the article, but I wanted to err on the side of overkill, as it were. I can simply remove a couple of them at a later date if needs be. I've left a note in the discussion as well. Thanks. Bertaut (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hey, just thought I'd let you know that an interesting discussion has opened up at the Love's Labour's Lost talk page that you may not be aware of. A user has made some extensive edits to the page recently, all good, as part of an educational assignment. A reviewer came in to take a look at the page and did some ce and tidy up and the like, and then completely redid the layout. I was just passing through, and I pointed out on the talk page that we used a standardised article layout at the Project and was much surprised to be told that that layout isn't good enough, and, basically, I think the reviewer is pretty much going to ignore it. I know that much of the layout was worked out during the FA drives for Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet, and that you wrote practically the whole thing, so I just thought I'd let you know, as you might want to offer an opinion. All the best. Bertaut (talk) 11:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Characters in The Tempest has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Characters in Romeo and Juliet has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Characters in A Midsummer Night's Dream has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey, saw your 2008 nomination of the Dune novel article for GAN, thought you might be interested in this conversation, Sadads (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Long time no…

Just to let you know, I've finally found an illustration of Sycorax for Sycorax, as per the discussion in the GA review. Cheers, --Xover (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Jean Keane.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jean Keane.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Thanks for uploading File:Jean Keane.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Thank you for uploading File:Jean Keane.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Family of William Shakespeare has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Opera hat (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

... to see you have left. I remember your helpful contributions at the reference desks, particularly when it came to questions about Arabic. And of course I've seen you here and there, at more relevant places, and realize how much valuable work you have been doing in building an encyclopedia. I hope you will return when you feel like it; a lot of editors (and readers, unknowingly) would welcome it. Take care and all the best, in the meantime and in any event! ---Sluzzelin talk 20:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Wrad,

This and this edit(s) may be of some relevance to you.Warm Regards:)Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 13:04, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey Wrad. Glad to see you editing again. Long time no see, and the last one was this! :)

In any case, good to see you're still alive; I hope you're well; and if you should ever feel inclined, your old haunts are still in desperate need of more interested editors (there's been remarkably little drama since WP:ARBSAQ, you might actually find it a pleasant experience!).

PS. The Conflict of Interest and Paid Editing policies have been dramatically widened in scope and much more rigorously (one might even say zealously) enforced since last you were active (there were a few really bad cases of widespread and commercially backed socking etc.). If your areas of recent edits came about through professional involvement you may want to have a look at the main points to avoid stepping in anything. Where these policies are concerned, edits being otherwise unobjectionable and made in good faith doesn't count for as much as one would intuitively expect. --Xover (talk) 21:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads up. Wrad (talk) 02:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Dear Wrad,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. ​

Best regards, Tea and crumpets (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

 

The file File:World 820 part 2.PNG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image, no context to determine possible future use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Template:King Arthur characters has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Fleance has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply