User talk:Crownjewel82/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Welcome!

Hello, Crownjewel82, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --PaxEquilibrium 13:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

wp:aiv reports

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. — coelacan — 21:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Good question. You and everyone else can give a warning of any level, including a final warning. The standardized warning templates can be found at WP:UWT. Admins will usually only block when the user has vandalize within the last couple of hours and had a level 3 or 4 warning within the last week; a block only helps if it's stopping ongoing vandalism; if they've stopped, there's no benefit. Here's a tactic that I've found useful and can save you a little time. If it's light vandalism, start with {{uw-v1}}, and if they continue, go straight up to {{uw-v4}} (to be honest I find that if the level 1 warning doesn't deter them, 2 and 3 are a waste of time). If it's heavy vandalism, skip level 1 and go straight to {{uw-v4im}} (that's the only warning message). A lot of vandals stop completely once they get a level 4 warning. I couldn't explain the psychology of it, but I've seen it work. If they do one more within a minute or two of the level 4 warning, don't report, that was probably an edit-conflict and they didn't get the orange bar until they'd already vandalized. But any vandalism at all more than a couple of minutes after the level 4, report that, and a block is pretty much assured (and necessary). Hope that helps! — coelacan — 14:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Shanti Kumar

Sorry about that- yeah I see now that was just an edit conflict with my deleting the page. Thanks for keeping an eye on new pages... WjBscribe 16:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User page vs. User talk page

Please note that when you want to communicate with other users, you should put a note on their "User talk" page, not their User page. (For example, if you want to communicate with me, you should put your message on User talk:Metropolitan90 rather than User:Metropolitan90.) When you put a note on a User talk page, the person gets a "You have new messages" indicator when they next log in to Wikipedia. If you edit another person's User page, they won't get a notice of that.

In general, you should never edit another person's User page, unless you have a very important reason to do so (like removing vandalism).

This refers to the following edit: [1]. --Metropolitan90 15:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Stub Usage

Hello Crownjewel82,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! - HammerHeadHuman ^(talk)(work) 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Recommend block for 204.38.140.10

User:204.38.140.10 is continuing to vandalize pages. One that caught my attention was Roswell UFO incident. I recommend blocking this user and advising the owner of the IP address of the vandalism. I have reverted the damage to the Roswell article. Thanks! Chrisbrl88 13:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahem

Hi 'CJ'. Kindly undo that action. Thankyou ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 17:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, I believe [I] looked before I leaped. I thought you had blanked a page I was barking on. Again, apologies. Just out of curiosity, why is the Black history talk page being blanked? ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)/18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Then please do something awful so I don't feel as bad :-) Maybe some redirects could due with project maintenance, wih an =NA or course. Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the Leonidas Berry article nomination! Optimale ^Gu 08:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

African American culture

Damn! Don't you take a break to eat or sleep?!?

Great work. You've found some really wonderful sources. I've been bookmarking them because I know they'll be helpful for other articles. I'll try to clean up a little — if there's anything left to do. :-) — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Scott Halpin

I just read Scott Halpin and enjoyed it. I think this story is a candidate for legendary example of 15 minutes of fame. What's wrong with the 'tone'? (reply here please) Milo 05:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It reads like a story my best friend told me over drinks and not something I pulled out of an encyclopedia. See WP:BETTER for how to improve it. CJ 09:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

BPP

Thanks for your help at the BPP article. Generally when Godwin's Law kicks in on a talk page, I try to avoid feeding it too much. Hopefully, it doesn't spill over into the article itself. Anyway, like I mentioned on the article's talk page, the best we can do is add material from reliable sources. These days, however, the reliable sources market is flooded with people who have a positive view of the BPP (while the blagosphere has plenty who don't, but that isn't "reliable"). I know you've done a lot with different sources, so I wanted to ask you personally if you knew of anything we could use, as I haven't had much luck (maybe I've done a bad job searching). Thanks, Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I usually start with whatever the most popular Google hits are. From there I try to peel off embellishments and get to the facts. Who did what when and where. If I get the sense that a source doesn't cover everything, I go looking for one that does. It takes time. A lot of time. Some of the resources I use aside from regular search engines, Google Books, Google Scholar, etc. I like to stick to sources from universities or research centers if at all possible. But the Black Panther article will never be neutral enough for some people. Especially those who have a negative opinion of the group. CJ 10:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned at the article, the overwhelming majority of hits from google scholar are "cheerleading" type articles. Google itself is pretty worthless on an emotional issue like this, but I just found a good academic bibliography type site, so I think my question is answered for now. Let me know if you find any good articles, though. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, spoke to soon. That site isn't really what we're looking for, either. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Clifton family, & families in general

This is not for speedy--there is room for divergence of opinion about notability on this article. I suggest a discussion on the article talk page. (And, if there is no consensus there, then obtaining one at AfD.

I simply do not know whether or not pages like this are a good idea., They may be: combining paragraphs for relative minor members of a family is a way of handling intermediate between a full article and a redirect, and may be the solution to our problems with gentry and minor nobility. The problem, of course, is the standards to be used, both for having he page at all, and for what goes in it. It is actually easier to remove non notable pages at AfD than to remove non-notable paragraphs from an article if there is opposition. So I see it both ways, and I think this page is a good opportunity to explore the possibilities and the problems presented. DGG 19:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Alive Bible Club

Given the media mentions in the reference section, I don't think this is a speedy case. PROD or AFD would be more suitable because even with the coverage this is clearly WP:NFT fodder.--Isotope23 19:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The Hormone Foundation

Hi there - I'm sure you'll be able to tell I'm brand new to Wikipedia. You rightly put a copyright violation on a page I created (The Hormone Foundation) and I've been trying to correct it for 2-3 weeks now. Can you help??? Thanks so much. 209.193.195.138 14:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

African Americans in Omaha, Nebraska

I saw that you changed the box style on this article, and I'm wondering if you also rated the article. If so, can you give me any insight as to what it would take to bring it to good article status? Thanks in advance. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 23:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Anton Wilhelm Amo

I have upped Amo from low to mid importance, although I feel he may even desrve high importance As one of the few Africans to embark on an academic career in Europe in the eighteenth century, is in itself very notable.he is a regular fetaure in oveview books of African philosophy to this day, and I beleive there is a statue of him in Jena.Harrypotter 09:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

funniest racist vandal ever

HA! OMG. where do these people come from?!? Uh. Thanks for reverting that! futurebird 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Autopilot methodology

Hi, I would like to propose this article for deleting right away if it is ok with you? And then we drop the merge proposal right away also. If the article survices the deletion process, which it didn't last time, then we can bring the merger proposal back up. - Mdd 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no attachment to the article. I came across it through Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikify. But if it's gone through a deletion process and been recreated then it's a speedy delete candidate. CJ 18:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I got it, thanks. I only assume the article was created a The Autopilot Methodology, but I can really figure this out. An administrator can. Thanks for bringing the article up for speedy deletion. We'll just see what happens. - Mdd 19:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is deleted. I hope you don't mind, that I removed your merge proposal from the chaos theory article. And thanks again. It's always nice to get those problems away at once. - Mdd 21:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Big lies

No one can "improve" something which is a big lie to begin with unless they remove the big lies.

SultanOfVelocicaptorXVI 17:18, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE, please, please leave me alone. I know that I cannot say "Negro" in Wikipedia without being told to not do so. There are plenty of warners at work in Wikipedia. I have been "warned" by others since 2005. I HAVE MOVED ON.

SultanOfVelocicaptorXVI 03:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Warning Level 2

I issued a friendly Level 2 Warning to the above editor regarding his repeated use of the Historically black colleges and universities talk page as a personal forum. I also added an off topic warning to the article page. Additional incidents should probably be brought to an editor's attention for a temporary ban. Thanks. Absolon S. Kent 14:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose African American culture as this week's WP:ACID winner

CJ 10:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Calhoun and Derby?

I put it down to temporary insanity .... thanks for the prod Victuallers —Preceding comment was added at 12:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Black Loyalists

It is there you are mistaken CJ, black loyalists have been called African American Loyalists in scholarly work and it is only now that scholars are beginning to realize that a cohesive culture had developed even before the American Revolution among blacks, making themTAfrican Americans. To say they knew they were not American is also ridiculous..they were slaves of Patriots who defected to the British side..meaning they were African Americans who decided to leave their masters to gain freedom. Black Loyalists are also referred to as 'Nova Scotians','African Canadians' all of which are inaccurate descriptions of these people. They were African Americans, and to say they were not shows your ignorance of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I can find the sources if you need them but since you have already made changes to my edits, I think it unnecessary. I know what I am talking about however, my own ancestors were african american or black loyalist who went to freetown and were able to negotiate with the french on the basis of them being american —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 02:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Black loyalists

Thanks for the tip. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

African American topics template

Looks good. The only thing I see is that it needs to be a bit wider so the title doesn't overlap the show button. CJ 17:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I widened just a bit. Absolon S. Kent 18:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi =)

I made the Damage caused by the one drop rule section. I'm gonna try to make sure that I double check my writing, and make sure my citation isn't from wikipedia. I apologize I forgot not to use wikipedia as a source if you know of any Native-African Americans books dealing with interracial relationships between the groups. I find it very important to make it clear on the hardships some African Americans go through just because they acknowledge all of there heritage. Mcelite 16:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Do you think that would increase chances for making it easier to find more resources?? The one drop rule has had such a huge impact on African American families especially when it comes down to admitting their true heritage overall, and not being bullied into only accepting one aspect of it. Mcelite 17:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)mcelite

LOL. You just missed me. I wasn't finished doing all the citations on it. lol But I'll see if I can pull some more up, and please let me know if you have any or if you have any ideas. Mcelite 17:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC) mcelite

Crown Heights

The term lie was removed. The remainder of your complaints seems to be your insistence on style changes, which you are are apparently unwilling to make. I believe those style changes (e.g., moving citations relative to points in specific places throughout the article where they are raised to a separate section) will make it impossible for the reader to following the chron. or the issues at hand. Your reverting on this issue is WP:OWN, where you are insisting on "Minor edits concerning layout". As for requiring information that "balances" viewpoints, you presume such information exists, and if it doesn't, then your NPOV tag must stay forever. A clever use of negative evidence, but the complaint is nothing more than that. No reversions have occurred on material with appropriate citations, regardless of which viewpoint it makes. Shabazz tried to misconstrue a citation by citing the last half of a sentence; I put in the entire quote. He/she tried to change the chron. order of quotes to miscontrue the meaning; I tried putting it in proper order, and when that failed, deleted it. You have created straw-man arguments (against all the Black populations) when the authors have taken extensive pains to indicate it was a tiny minority. At Shabazz's insistence, almost every sentence has a wiki-vetted citation for support, and editors are busy providing citations for many statements that are not contentuous. It appears that the current strategy (and if you check the archived pages, you will see it crops up frequently) is to put on the NPOV as a strategy. I recommend any of the following to resolve this: "Discuss with third parties", "Informal mediation", "Conduct a survey", "Formal mediation", or "Arbitration". Regarding the three revert rule: IMO, and reading of the wiki policies, a NPOV tag without specifics can be immediately removed, and a NPOV tag with specifics can be removed if specifics raised are resolved, or are factually incorrect. You did not respond to the resolutions on the discussion page, despite the changes that were made - you simply reverted.Edstat 14:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course I can be patient, you need not rush. Indeed, if you had posted a response, instead of just deleting the NPOV tag, I wouldn't have deleted the tag. Perhaps mediation will resolve once and for all the issue of using that tag as a political tool instead of an editing tool.Edstat 23:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Regiment

I saw the WP:ANI complaint, and I was adding a comment when I got your message. Regiment has already made four reverts to the template today. I reverted him, and left him a 3RR warning, which I think is necessary before I can report him for a 3RR violation.

I thought I left this message earlier. I guess I forgot. :-) — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 19:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Spryde, who commented at WP:ANI, beat me to it. I added a comment. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 20:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• You can undue your reverts so you don't get caught in the 3RR. And let others take care of it that belong to the project. Be careful. I wish you had your email available. Jeeny ^(talk) 21:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Crown Heights Riot

Two more issues with the article:

• Shapiro's views are given WP:UNDUE. Citations include his book (note 2, 57 cites), a journal article by him (notes 1 and 39, which are the same source, 3 cites), a review of his book (note 7, 7 cites), and the book publisher's advertisement for the book (note 14). Nearly 70 references are from Shapiro or directly based on his book.

• I think Edstat has a WP:COI. In a comment on the article's Talk page, he said that he lived in Crown Heights during the riot, and suggested that previous editors were wrong because "they weren't born or were far too young to have participated or have direct knowledge of many of those events". (He also wrote that the article shouldn't endorse any particular POV, words that have been contradicted by his subsequent actions.)

In any event, I agree that further discussion with Edstat on my part would be unproductive. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 21:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

3RR Violation

You are bang to rights and have clearly violated the 3RR. IAR is not an excuse to disrupt the project and nor are there any medals for single handedly fighting off unwelcome contributions. Please see my comments on the 3RR report [2]. I am willing not to block you if you agree to leave the article alone for the next 7 days? Deal? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Juneteenth

I'd always been under the impression that Juneteenth was only a Texas holiday. If I am wrong, then by all means revert the changes. Thanks. Karanacs 19:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Rough Draft Discussing more on African Native American relations

I wanted to send you a draft of what I did and I would like your opinion because I truly feel that this is important and overlooked. Please let me know if you want to see it. Thank You Mcelite 16:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Mcelite

Black loyalists

Black Loyalists have never historically been called 'Africans', they have been called free blacks, black loyalists, nova scotians, african americans, black americans, and free people of color but they have only been called 'africans' by the black loyalist heritage society. historically even thomas jefferson referred to the black loyalist settlers in sierra leone (and this is rephrased a little) 'as the american rebel slaves'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Black loyalists

Its ok I will not edit wikipedia any longer, obviously wikipedia is not looking for the correct information on a subject but on its own view on a subject...with that I will leave the editing to people like you who know it all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You helped choose Cool (aesthetic) as this week's WP:ACID winner

BorgQueen 00:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Proof of African American heritage

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E4DD1031F93BA35753C1A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

Researchers have found the Black Loyalists had the same culture as African Americans of that time and considered themselves Americans who only fought for the British for freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Black Loyalists

By the basis of your argument, no black person in the United States who was born before the 1960s to 1970s should be called an African American because that term only came to use during that time period. Slaves were not referred to as African Americans during their time period. Booker T. Washington, Frederick Douglas would not have been historically called 'African Americans' but would have been called people of color or (American) negroes. Are you saying we should refer to them as such? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Black Loyalists

I am not trying to argue with you needlessly I am only trying to enhance the accuracy of wikipedia's articles. Referring to Black Loyalists as 'Africans' when historically they were not Africans is an inaccuracy. According to you Joe Opala is making a mistake or a recent analysis in calling Black Loyalists 'African Americans' but is it not also a recent analysis to call Booker T. Washington and other such people as African Americans when in reality that term never existed in their time (same with the BLack Loyalists)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaddict8962 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

♥ Love, You're so smart CJ, i think I love you... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.207.42 (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Creepy... CJ 02:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Note

I sent her a note. futurebird 04:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

CopyNight Orlando

Hi Crownjewel82/Archive 1! I see you're from Florida. If you're in the Orlando area, please check out this brief survey. I'm looking to start a meet-up of CopyNight, a monthly social discussion of copyright and related issues (like Wikipedia, Creative Commons, and open source). If that sounds neat, please answer this short survey to help with scheduling the event. Thanks! --Gavin Baker 10:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't revert again

That guy is right, the sources are mismatched it should be 30 percent and 70 percent not 1/3 and 2/3s-- but the only source I can find that says this isn't that great (see my comments on the talk page) If you have access to the journal article referenced and can verify the stats and fix them... that'd be great-- but I could not find anything.

So this guy is right, even if he's right for the wrong reasons. futurebird 01:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Think twice before judging me, lest ye be judged for your own (condescending) approach. Who are you to arbitrate right and wrong convictions? BTW, what's so wrong with your source? You judge the source and find it, or the person in the source, inferior to your standards? Savignac 01:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

He's just a journalist, and some of his views are questionable. I'd rather have something from a peer reviewed journal as the source.futurebird 02:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and according to the List of diasporas there's not a European diaspora article. There's a ton of them.

Ha! I know. That's why the question was rhetorical. :P

BTW. That list gives me and idea... For recent immigrants from specific African countries there really ought to be separate diaspora articles and we should just have a summary... right? futurebird 02:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I suck at sarcasm. But as far as the article structure is concerned I like it. In fact I was thinking along the lines of having summaries on each of the largest "from" countries and each of the largest "to" countries and the various peoples contained therein. CJ 02:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound stuffy or a "dead white male" proponent, but would an encylopedia like Britannica go that far? Would you assert their reluctance, based upon some sort of "white guilt racism" forever a blood libel on whites? Do you think that's a legitimate reason to avoid following the high standards of a serious encyclopedia? Savignac 02:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Savignac, just answer yes or no, are you saying that having articles on the country based disaporas is a bad ide becuse it isn't notable? I don't 't know what you're getting at....at any rate.

CJ, they have this really nice table format in the encyclopedia Africana that shows "from" and "to" for various periods in history, but my copy is old and lacks recent data... and it only covers "to" countries in the Americas... Something like that would be neat. futurebird 02:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am against the innovation. I would use a sandbox, just to see if there is even enough information on the subject. Then again, it can be incorporated into the main articles of relevance. Why are there ethnicity articles, such as Spanish people, when they are simply the demographics of Spain? Savignac 02:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, because "spanish" is more than a demographic it's a culture... maybe... jeez. It sounds like you should take this up with the wikiproject on systemic bias, you're all over the map and it's way beyond the concerns on one little wikiproject. futurebird 02:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm simply against a bloated Wikipedia, with repetitive and worthless articles that all collectively, form one circular argument and no linear progression to the expansion of knowledge. What happens, is a lot of systemic bias and editors convincing themselves of their own biases, which you note is what irritates me. Wikipedians think that their no-nonsense approach is legit and professional, but it really isn't. Savignac 02:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Black Church

Hi, after looking at your article, I was looking at other Wikipedia articles. Yours seemed one of the few that capitalized Black and White in that sense. I don't think it's consistent with their guidelines; it certainly jumped out at me. The article provides the context - no one is going to misunderstand what it means. The article is good; the churches have been great forces for good in the black communities. In Washington, DC, some churches whose middle and upper-class members had moved out to the suburbs had started their own revitalization movements - buying property near the churches (in the heart of poor areas), creating afer-school programs, and otherwise bringing successful members back in to lead the community in the Shaw neighborhood.--Parkwells 13:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AFRO

Thanks for your invite (futurebird also invited me)and followup on the capitalization issue. Meant to sign up yesterday. I've been doing work to add to state and county history articles to reflect African American population and history, especially 19th c., as that's an area I've been studying and researching. There is plenty in here on battles, but not much on social history in the state articles.--Parkwells 15:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Crown Heights Riot

I appreciate your comments. I hope that a level-headed commentary from an uninvolved editor who has no prior experience with the subject may help all sides see the problems involved a little more objectively. If not, drawing in a wider audience never hurt on its own merits.

I would be happy to work with you and the rest of the group involved to support the progress of this article. But thanks for the warning -- duly noted ;)

Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 21:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/EJ220

Since you have encountered this user, your input would be helpful here.--Southern Texas 19:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ugigi --> Ujiji

Hi, there was already an article on Ujiji. Ugigi is not really a valid name for en.wikipedia which is why I suggested deleted; but I've put in a redirect instead. Regards, Rexparry sydney 00:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

African American neighborhoods

Can you take a look at this and give me some feedback? Thanks! futurebird (talk) 03:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)