Anjouli

Refactoring

Wik, can you explain why you deleted several paragraphs of discussion by various parties on 22 November? I'm not complaining (or reverting), but if there was some valid reason for this, I do not immediately see it. Anjouli 05:59, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It wasn't Wik, it was Martin. I expect the talk page was too long and therefore needed refactoring. See Wikipedia:Talk page#Refactoring talk pages and Meatball:RefactorAsYouGo. Angela 07:25, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, it was me. Since you objected, the page is back to the state before I tried to do anything with it. Have fun. Martin 16:16, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Martin. I did not object. I said "I'm not complaining". I just did not see why. But I guess you had a valid resaon, so that's fine with me. Sorry, Wik, if I misread the history. Anjouli 05:51, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Curious as to what might provoke someone to refactor someone else's talk page, I looked in the page history. Oddly enough, the previous version doesn't appear to be in the page history. Any idea why? orthogonal 06:49, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Orthogonal. Do you mean the Mecca/Makkah talk page? There was a recent "move war" and a sneaky cut-and-paste move that disconnected the history. It was fixed as far as I know. If you mean this talk page, as far as I know it was never refactored by anyone but me. (I removed some resolved chat between me and Angela that was just taking up space.) Anjouli 07:02, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'd been referring to this Talk page, yes. (I'd been looking for an explanation of "Brianist", but found it via Google and the Brianism Wiki page.) orthogonal 07:23, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

All is clear. But why my response to Angela is not listed in the history, I have no clue. Looks like a Wiki bug. Anjouli 08:28, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Copy vios

Dear Anjouli, copy-vios go to Wikipedia:Possible copyrights infringements. You should also use the boilerplate...

Removed possible [[Wikipedia:Copyrights|copyright infringement]]. Text that was previously posted here is the same as text from this source: ::ADDRESS :This page is now listed on [[Wikipedia:Possible copyright infringements]]. To the poster: If there was permission to use this material under terms of our [[Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License|license]] or if you are the copyright holder of the externally linked text, then please so indicate on [[Talk:PAGE NAME|the talk page]]. If there was no permission to use this text then please rewrite the page at: ::[[Talk:PAGE NAME/temp]] :or leave this page to be deleted. Deletion will occur about one week from the time this page title was placed on the Votes for deletion page. If a temp page is created, it will be moved here following deletion of the original. It also should be noted that the posting of copyrighted material that does ''not'' have the express permission of the copyright holder is possibly in violation of applicable law and of our [[wikipedia:copyright|policy]]. Those with a history of violations may be temporarily [[Special:Ipblocklist|suspended]] from editing pages. If this is in fact an infringement of copyright, we still welcome any original contributions by you. :Thanks, ~~~~

Have fun!, Muriel Victoria 13:19, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Muriel! Anjouli 13:21, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Redirects for deletion

Redirects go to wikipedia:redirects for deletion. I've moved (not deleted!) your nomination... Martin 00:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi Martin. That's just fine. Thank you for correcting my faux pas. I'm still relatively new to WP and finding my feet to some extent. It is nice when people like you are helpful; less so when people delete contributions for no obvious reason and then get excited if one objects.Anjouli 05:09, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Oh, I can be unhelpful too. :)

wikipedia:redirects for deletion is quite new, so it'll take a while to get established - but I do think it'll help us make better decisions. Martin 18:45, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Fixing links

Since you moved the page, could you fix all the links directing to Charles Taylor: [1]? --Jiang|(Talk) 07:09, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working on it. Help if you like! Anjouli 07:17, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Oh, ack. I've screwed it up for you. What I'd like to propose is moving Charles Taylor to Charles Taylor (disambiguation), Charles Ghankay Taylor back to Charles Taylor. This is standard Wikipedia usage, because the ex-President of Liberia is much more common than the other Charles Taylors (judging from the links). But, I'm not a sysop, and I couldn't finish the move. I'm really sorry. I've appealed to User:Maveric149 to finish the move --- I don't think I can either complete the move or undo it. :-( --- hike395 07:34, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Don't worry. These things happen. I'm sure we will get it fixed.Anjouli 07:37, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I finished the move. Normally, the software allows you to overwrite the redirects (w/o having to delete them instead), but this time (for some strange reason) it didn't. Now that it's been moved back, the links don't need to be changed. --Jiang|(Talk) 07:38, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Seems to be fine now. Just a few links to fix. Thanks everybody!Anjouli 07:43, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Student Pugwash

Thanks for your comments at Talk:Student Pugwash USA/Delete. I'm going to try to keep out of it from now on. -Anthropos 17:44, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You are welcome. Anjouli 16:17, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Horrible Histories

Dear Anjouli, you are the only person defending to keep the Horrible stories in Dec 10 (11?). There was some discussion afterwards, can you please see if that chenges your opinion? I would like a consensus on this. Thanks, Muriel Victoria 10:47, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Muriel. Well they seem to have vanished from VfD whilst I was not looking. But thanks for asking my opinion. I don't everybody will always reach a consensus on everything on WP - but I think that's healthy. Perhaps I was wrong on this issue. The main thing is to give in with dignity when the majority is against one, which I am now happy to do. Anjouli 16:16, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hello! This version has the things you missed. I believe that Horrible Histories looks much better now and i hope you agree. Cheers, Muriel Victoria 16:26, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Yes, that looks fine now - it meets my original desire that any child looking up Horrible Histories would be pointed in the right direction. (And it's really nice to see I am missed when I do not log-on for a day or two!) Anjouli 16:35, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Simultaneous delete and edit

Apologies. Secretlondon 18:09, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

For what? You did exactly the right thing. If anything I was apologising to you for putting back a page you had deleted. I was unaware of this WP software behaviour. Perhaps it should say "this page deleted - sure you want to save?" but not a big deal. Anjouli 18:13, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Carmen

Anjouli, what on earth is going on at Talk:Carmen by Horace? I can't make any sense out of the discussion there! It's been listed on VfD for 10 days, so I'm assuming others are having the same problem and ignoring it. As far as I can tell, 80.255 wants to keep (but gives no reason why), RickK, yourself and Daniel Quinlan want to delete it. MIRV and Smerdis of Tlön either want it deleted or moved. Bmills wants it merged with Horace. But I honestly have no idea what Onebyone, Binky or Domatrios are talking about. You seem to have to been following the discussion closely. Do you have any feeling over whether consensus to delete it has been reached? By the way, my only thought on it is that I don't want it at Wikisource. Angela. 10:47, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Angela. Yes, it is a bit of a mess, isn't it!

Basically we have an article titled as a work by Horace (Carmen). It actually contains a different Horace work (Bandusia), in the original Latin and with no translation, and a "critique" that is utter drivel.

Onebyone wants it moved to Bandusia. Binky felt the title matched the work. I pointed out he was wrong - perhaps a little strongly, on re-reading my remarks. (Sorry Binky.) He made no response, so presumably now agrees. Domatrios is discussing the merits of the WP voting process in an unusual form of English - I suspect he may be translating from Greek, word-by-word. He was the original author, although the "critique" was probably not written by him as it exhibits a different standard of English. I suspected a cut-and-paste job, but couldn't find the source anywhere on-line. I think Domatrios now agrees with deletion, or at least he says "I agree with my democratic executor Anjouli". I think the consensus is to delete it and that is what I would do if I was a sysop. Hope that helps! Anjouli 13:11, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

BJP renaming

Agreed - someone's already changed it back anyway. The Indian political parties are a mess - but that was wrong. Thanks. Secretlondon 14:55, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)

You are welcome!Anjouli 15:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sandbox

You might be interested to know you are mentioned on the village pump as a result of this edit. See Wikipedia:Village_pump#Policy on Signed_Pages. I assumed you'd signed the page accidentally so I removed it. :) Angela.

Yes, just dumb stupidity on my part I'm afraid. Thanks for fixing it! Though it is nice to know so many people are watching the edits for anything untoward. Anjouli 11:13, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

VfD notice

I used to faithfully add the VfD notice on every page I listed on the VfD page, but then The Cunctator came along and started deleting them willy-nilly, and I got no support when I objected, so I figured, "Why bother?" RickK 19:19, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• Certainly you would have had my support if I had known. Why on earth would he delete them? I would call that vandalism. If I had written an article (and presumably clicked on "Watch this Page") I would be mad as hell if it was deleted after 6 days on VfD and I had no idea it was being discussed and no chance to defend it. I think VfD tags are essential. So essential in fact, that I would move a VfD vote to a different date if it had had a few days with no tag. To do otherwise is sneaky at best. Anjouli 19:32, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Éothéod

Thanks for fixing the Éothéod links in various articles! Jor 21:52, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)

You're welcome. Not sure if I got them all as my ISP went down. But there were other people working on them too. Anjouli 04:11, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Circumpunct

Hi Anjouli, Why don't you have a look at the brilliant symbols.com website:http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/26/268.html re your query some time ago about "circumpunct"? --Dieter Simon 01:18, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi Dieter. Yes, that is a very interesting site. Unfortunately that site does not seem to give any of the symbols names, other than the very simple ones, like circle etc. Anjouli 12:37, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, Anjouli, Symbols com doesn't give it a name, which is a pity. Circumpunct, circumpunction or circumpunctuate, although they ought to be in it, so far haven't made the OED. However, there is no reason why, quite rightly a Brionist expression of the above should not be started and propagated. It will ultimately reach all dictionaries. Traditionally, it actually belongs to the family of "roundels" or "roundles", originally an heraldic device meaning a round shield, and they include dots surrounded by circles or bands, or inner concentric circles surrounded in the same way. I wish the word luck and success. --Dieter Simon

The term certainly exists in Latin, and I have been told by a marine biologist that it forms part of the name of a fish that has the circumpunct pattern on its skin - but I could not find any on-line reference to that. I'm also told that it is in the Complete Oxford English Dictionary, but not having a copy I can't confirm that. (Anybody reading this and having a copy, please verify or refute.) It certainly does not appear much in Google but, as some on Wiki have found to their shame, just because something does not appear in Google does not mean it does not exist. The Internet is still young, and there must be huge amounts of obscure knowledge that still only exist in paper form. Anjouli 14:31, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am sure you are right about the Latin term, Anjouli, but what troubles me on second thoughts, after I had been convinced it was just a matter of time before it would be in all dictionaries/encyclopedias, is the lack of supporting reference material for the term. What it is actually about is whether we can really introduce neologisms in a general, even though free encyclopedia such as Wiki, rather than garner them from other sources who have created/used them first, or at least refer back to them.
Now, I did in fact check it out in the OED Second Edition of 1989, the only one available in the local library, and it wasn't in there. So, as you say if someone can lay their hands on the most recent edition of 2002, and search for us that would indeed be a great help. The way it looks at the moment, it is as though someone is pulling our leg about this, and it doesn't look terribly convincing. In fact, it does come over like some kind of vandalism because it just isn't supported by any other than Wikipedia sources. Sorry about that.--Dieter Simon 23:20, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry to be so brusque about it, Anjouli, but Menchi did check the word out in the up-to-date version as I did in the preceding edition of the OED, the full edition that is, and circumpunct isn't there. I earnestly beg you to redirect the article to roundel because that is what it really is and where it belongs. You can elaborate as much as you like then, introduce all the other types of roundel and make it a pretty good article.

Here are the various relevant entries for "roundel" in the OED edition, the 1989 one, I looked at:

1. Roundel
   1. A circle drawn, marked out, or formed in any way. Now dial.
   2. Something forming a circle or ring; a number of things or persons disposed or grouped in a circle
   3. The outer circuit or rim of anything
   4. A round hole or hollow
   5. A small round table
   6. A round mat for vessels to stand on
   7. A circular wooden trencher
   8. A small round shield
   9. A small circular object; a little disk or rounded piece
   10. A perforated iron disk placed between the stock and cheeks of a gun
   11. An ornamental circle sewn or embroidered on a garment
   12. A decorative panel, plate, medallion, etc., of a round form
   13. A circle of painted glass; a small round pane or window
   14. An identification disc painted on an aeroplane; spe(cifically) that of the Royal Air Force and Royal Naval Air Command, comprising a design of concentric red, white, and blue circles
   15. A sphere or globe
   16. A ball or bead-moulding
   17. The ball of the elbow- or the knee-joint
   18. A cylinder (of wood); a rung of a ladder
   19. A round turret (Sc.)
   20. A circular bastion
   21. A rondeau or rondel
   22. A round dance

1. Roundle
   1. A ring or circle; an object of circular form; a disk' a round plate, etc.
   2. Her(aldics) One of various circular charges distinguished by their tincture.
   3. A sphere or globe
   4. A round of a ladder

As far as I noticed a few days ago, there is no article for roundel as yet. Why don't you make it a circumscribed dot or point? "To circmscribe" means "to draw a line tound", among other things. I leave that up to you. At least it would make it quite legit. What do you think? I would urge you to bear in mind Nos 8 and 14 which seem particularly relevant, because more countries than not have these "roundels" on their military aircraft with various designs, including the United States ( a white star surrounded by a circle), and they all call them roundel. --Dieter Simon 23:23, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It should be moved to "roundel" rather than redirected. Moving a page moves the history as well to the new page (roundel). Redirecting a page does not. --Dieter Simon 01:06, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Brianism

I expect you'll notice anyway as you're often at VfD, but I wanted to make sure you were aware that Brianism has been listed there. Angela. 06:52, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Is that me, Angela, who is often at Vfd? I didn't think I was. All I was saying was that "circumpunct" doesn't exist, and we should not be in the business of creating neologisms. However, this whole thing has now been resolved as someone else has redirected circumpunct to solar symbol. As far as Brianism is concerned I shall add my vote tomorrow --Dieter Simon 01:27, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A belated but nontheless heartfelt thank you for pointing this out. It looks like a dead duck anyway, perhaps mercifully after the total chaos on the talk page, involving (I suspect) at least a few agents provocateurs. I do not think you are in favor of keeping this page, so double credit for ethics for telling me.Anjouli 14:18, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I clicked. - UtherSRG 14:44, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(Response to my defending the Brianism website in VfD.) Anjouli

Sister, withdraw. You will just upset yourself. What is your house? 62.3.32.33 13:05, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Avalon, since you ask. Don't worry. It's not a problem. Do I call you Sister or Brother? Anjouli 15:36, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sister of Albion, Mother of Amethyst. Nevermore! 62.3.32.33 05:55, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Nevermore yourself, Sister. Please spare me the "Reverend Mother" nonsense. E-mail me if you have anything to say. Anjouli 09:28, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(Response to my notifying her of the open letter from brianism.org)Anjouli

Thanks all fine. I saw it on VfD. Secretlondon 14:24, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Should it be immediately deleted, since the site-owener has requested that? Anjouli 14:35, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

There is a requests for immediate deletion page somewhere. I'll stick it on that. Secretlondon 14:36, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. XX Anjouli 14:45, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree with the vote count UtherSRG made, and I have suggested the period of discussion be extended beyond 5 days so that more of a consensus may be reached, particularly in view of the fact that people may wish to change their vote after seeing the letter. Thanks for letting me know about it. Angela. 23:26, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Angela. That seems very fair. Can you be a bit more specific about what you mean by "I don't agree with the vote count UtherSRG made"? Which of those votes on which side would you not count? I'm not questioning what you say, and there are some I would not count either. I would just be interested to know if there is a recognised method of determining these things. Anjouli 04:57, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The users who have not made edits before would be suspicious. It doesn't mean I wouldn't count them, but I would certainly weight their votes less. I'd also discount those who hadn't given a reason, like Reddi (although he has given one since). Angela. 05:47, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

I will change my vote, if the Brianism people don't want to be on the wikipedia. Where should I do it at? Thanks for the heads up, Jack 04:44, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would think the Talk page was still the proper place, although there has been some "spillage" back to VfD. Anjouli 04:59, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It's best to keep it on the talk page. VfD is too big already! Angela. 05:47, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

I've replied on my talk page. Angela. 06:17, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Anjouli, thank you for drawing attention to Rex Mundy's open letter. I appreciate your note very much. Mr Mundy seems a man of integrity, and I find it highly regrettable that he should have been attacked through offensive e-mails and and that people have attempted hacking into his website's server. That is not the way to conduct a civilised discourse. If you can pass this on to Mr Mundy I would be grateful. I do, however still stand by my two main objections which are:

• In Wikipedia we should not create articles on expressions, such as "circumpunct", terms that really only exist in the glossary of a website that advocates a particular movement and that do not exist anywhere else, as yet, not even the full edition of the Oxford English Dixtionary.
• An encyclopedia should not include an article about a concept, be it a movement or a particular philosophy that has not as yet been established sufficiently to have entered the main-stream of public discussion and discourse. We should be seen to and be able to refer to sources other than those of the originators and thus be able to describe what is already in the public realm of reference.

These are still the points I adhere to. But of course, this is all subject to the vote of the Wickipedia community as a whole. Thank you again --Dieter Simon 13:54, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hello Dieter. Thank you for your reply. I was originally under the impression that Circumpunct was a regular English word. It seems it is not and I do not contest that. Brianism apart, it is a correct description of the symbol in Latin, but of course that does not mean it should go in WP. It is a shame that all the data about the symbol, whatever we choose to call it, was moved to Sun symbol as it is not only a Sun symbol. We may as well have moved it to Town center symbol. I have been toying with the idea of recreating it under Circle with a dot in it and removing any reference to Circumpunct or Brianism. What do you think?

As far as Brianism is concerned, I have withdrawn totally from that argument. I remain privately a Brianist, but have no further interest in whether or not it appears in WP. It may well be that it is too obscure a movement and I do not dispute that. Some other Brianists have behaved like trolls over this and have not done Brianism any good. Since even I lost my temper and asked for The Anome to be blocked when he replaced the entire article, the only ones who emerge from the argument with any dignity or credibility are the owners of brianism.org.Anjouli 14:16, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Saudi Flag

You are of course right in your comment. Where are you located? Paul, in Saudi

Hello Paul. I am currently in Germany, still on New Year holiday, but I normally live in Jeddah. See my user page for further details. Anjouli 16:11, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Hi, no need to apologise. I just tend to get a bit overly defensive of the deletion policy. Regarding the notes on a vote that should not be counted; the only time I have ever done this was with RickK (a sysop). He took offense to some things said on the mailing list recently and reacted to that by voting keep on every single item on VfD. This was discussed on the talk page of VfD as well when Jiang noticed it. These votes were not made in good faith. I doubt he had even looked at the articles he was voting on, so I thought it only fair to mention it. I didn't do it because he was voting keep for everything, but because they were not real votes at all, but just statements to prove a point.

Regarding the VfD rules, the discussions on the deletion policy pages certainly imply that users must give a reason with their vote. I've reworded it now to make that clear. However, I would emphasise that the policy is flexible, so in reality, people's votes won't generally be discounted without reason. Anyway, all this could be set to change with the proposed new system being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, where the reasoning and votes will occur on separate pages and at separate times.

I hope this makes things a bit clearer. Let me know if not. You later point about having a a "fixed" version of WP is discussed on various places on Meta, and on Adam Carr's user/talk pages. See m:Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles, m:Referees, m:Wikipedia needs editors and Wikipedia 1.0 for example. Angela. 18:15, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Angela. Still a lot on WP I have not found yet. I need pointing in the right direction now and then. I know I should not "feed the trolls" but I had to respond to that personal attack on you on Brianism talk. Hope you don;t mind. Anjouli 14:26, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Vote again please

Would you consider changing your vote again? It's about 50/50 right now. I know you believe in this and you just ducked out because you were sick of the arguing. I think you voted against because this Rex Mundy said he did not want the article. I think that's just because somebody was hacking them and don't think they would mind if that stopped. SpellBott 12:39, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No hard feelings, but I would rather not. I'm keeping my Brianism "off wiki" for now as it seems to be a red rag to a bull to some. You seem to be doing a good job of holding up the Brianist end yourself. Do I call you "brother" yet? Anjouli 14:30, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, sister. You can call me brother. Did you pull out of the vote on Brianism because you are afraid ******* will attack your other pages? I see he has been on the recreated circumopunct. SpellBott 06:27, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Afraid brother? The only thing that scares me at my age is the proximity of the Grim Reaper :) Let's just say I can do without the aggravation. Please just e-mail me if it's anything on Brianism. And remember this page is public if you are mentioning users by name. Anjouli 09:47, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeti disagreement

Sister, I would appreciate your input on talk:Yeti. Thanks! - UtherSRG 01:41, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Saudi talk

Thanks for your note on Talk:Saudi Arabia. I was waiting a couple of days to go back there to avoid an edit war with that fellow.... BCorr¤Брайен 13:28, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'm still trying to avoid the edit war, but he's changed the article back -- and replaced the link for a BBC story with a Google search on "Saudi torture". I've left notes on his talk page and the article's talk page as well. Just FYI. Thanks, BCorr¤Брайен 12:56, Mar 20, 2004 (UTC)

Another user has also listed him under vandalism in progress. Not quite sure I would go that far quite yet - but I'm getting there!. Just keep reverting and I'm sure he will get fed up. I wish people would VISIT Saudi Arbia (tourist visas easily available) and see for themselves. Yes, there are things that are wrong, but this xenophobic racist hysteria really annoys me. Anjouli 15:36, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello again -- I just wanted to say that your suggestions on the talk page are excellent -- some of the best I've yet seen. Thanks for thinking through them and setting them down so clearly. -- BCorr¤Брайен 21:53, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)

You are very kind. Please join in on Saudi Arabia and give us your input. Anjouli 03:46, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

HELP!

Dear Anjouli,
Could you please check the Arabic version of the Lord's Prayer and tell me if there are any mistakes. Unfortunately, my Arabic is not good enough. REX 17:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

there is no arabic version of that mr REX :S :S :S Ammar 19:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The last time I was at an Arabic Christian church ( a LONG time ago) it was said in Latin. Anjouli 14:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Charlie Taylor

Glad to see the page you initiated (I believe) on Charlie. I spoke to author 3 years back on phone (from UK) and reviewed his book. Made me quite emotional, his story of finding and handling original supports for engine block, proving all work could have been done with the equipment Charlie had to hand in Dayton.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Prossies

It looks like the sysop deleted the article for its csd tag. It met the csd criteria without question. I usually nominate csd articles if they have been tagged and contested for more than an hour or so. I went ahead and closed the debate, since there was no more article to debate. Navou ^talk 08:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. But I think it would help if who deleted it and why was documented on the VfD.

• I agree, is should be notated in the result now. Some times folks will insert a CSD template into an article while its on afd, a little controversial, but if its csd, its csd. Regardless, the admin who deleted the article should close the csd, IMHO. Navou ^talk 20:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Mark Lund AfD

FYI, I have completely rewritten the Mark Lund article from external published sources. You might want to reconsider your AfD vote, since the article is no longer autobiography. Dr.frog 15:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Saudi Arabia

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of Saudi Arabia related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the Saudi Arabian WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-)  A M M A R  19:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Amma. I'm honoured to be asked. Would be delighted to help. Anjouli 10:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Lorcan Ó Muireadais

Since you feel so strongly about it why don't you just fix the article and make it as good as possible, and probably !votes will be ajdusted accordingly.Spaceheatercozitiscold (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't have time right now. Just don't want to see a stub on a notable historic character go down the drain. Why don't you fix it? I've given you the references. Anjouli (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

GEORDIE

Anjouli, you ,rightly, criticise WP saying that "any idiot" can write a comment here and then on an article on the Geordie and north eastern dialects you promptly prove the point by agreeing to some nonesense written by another user on the uses of the word "canny"  when you clearly don't know anything about it. I have inserted my own comment on the relevant page Khasab (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Ian Cottage for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ian Cottage is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Cottage until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)