User talk:Bwrs/archive

thank-you note

Thanks so much for your support in myRfA, which closed successfully this morning. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply to emails

We blank suspected copyright violations because Wikipedia is licensed under the GFDL, and anything that might be copyrighted has to be removed quickly to prevent problems. The text is still accessible in the history, so it's not that huge a deal. I'd recommend making your suggestion at WT:Copyright problems, as it's going to get much wider reception and comment there.

As for your image question, you could try posting a request at Wikipedia:Images for upload. As long as you are logged in, however, your IP address cannot be accessed except through the checkuser tool, which is only usable by a handful of trusted users for a handful of specific reasons, most generally to confirm or deny sockpuppetry. In your case, however, I'd recommend uploading the image off-site somewhere, then putting in a request at IFU.

Could I also ask why you needed to email me? It's usually easier to get in touch with me through my talk page, and emails are generally for private or non-Wikipedia-related communication. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

random thoughts

Wow, speedy deletion really is speedy! A few seconds after I tagged the article on craylix for speedy deletion as incoherent nonsense, somebody contested the speedy by removing the speedy-deletion template. A few seconds after that, I went in to the article to put a {{subst:prod}} template with an edit summary of "contested speedy," but it had already been deleted. The entire series of transactions took less than one minute. Bwrs (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

About Synnex Corp

Yo! i work for Synnex dude... The info on wiki is not updated. check synnex.com or Synnergy( official publication of Synnex) Fleurbutterfly —Preceding comment was added at 21:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Is Synnergy published on the web, by any chance? Bwrs (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Don't believe so dude. It's an internal pub. And the Synnex web hasn't been updated, i have reason believe.

Fleurbutterfly 21:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• And there must be some kind of mistake, the headquarters at California was not at Fremont but @ Irvine.

Fleurbutterfly 21:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the thing, though, Canada does not use 5-digit postal codes. Bwrs (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Lady Isabella Hervey

You undid my addition about her bulimia and the quote about her Playboy photo shoot. Why? The quote about the photo shoot was relevant to that part of the paragraph, and her struggle with bulimia is relevant as an event of her life. Jonjames1986 (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is an invasion of privacy since she herself was talking about it in an interview with Closer magazine. I wasn't able to find a transcript of the interview, but an article on http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/isabella-hervey-reveals-disorder-$8644.htm mentions a few of her quotes regarding her behavior, I think this implies an openness about her struggle with it and so it's able to be included. Jonjames1986 (talk) 14:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Bwrs (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Section 28

Hi Bwrs. The word "liberal" does not mean exactly the same as "left-wing" in most of the world outside the US, and so writing [[left-wing|liberal]] in articles on British topics actually introduces POV. Besides, the councils were called by their friends and critics, now and at the time, "left-wing"-- why would you want to hide it behind another term, anyway?

As to "loony left", this is a phrase the tabloids used at the time to whip up public feeling against these councils; its use here as a reference is encyclopedic. (The article it linked to explains the phrase and its use, and it's appropriate to link to it. To hide the link to Loony left behind a link to something else is merely confusing. The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I was under the impression that both left-wing and right-wing have pejorative connotations, and I wanted it to sound more neutral. I apologize if I had inadvertently introduced geographic bias.

By the way, I am in the habit of wikilinking words on talk pages to related articles in the manner you describe. You make a good point about how that might not be appropriate for mainspace articles. Bwrs (talk) 18:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

RFR

"I actually do more editing while not logged in, than while logged in. But I assume that the rollback feature can only be granted to usernames, and not to IP addresses? Thanks. Bwrs (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)"

Yes that's right. No IP can be granted user rights. Are you asking also for rollback on your account? Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Not yet, maybe later. I don't login often enough. When my IP changes, I'll probably start logging in more regularly (unless the new IP develops a good contribution history before I notice that it changed). Thanks for asking though – and for the quick reply. Bwrs (talk) 15:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No probs. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 16:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to my talk page

Yeah, it was just an edit conflict. I used that automatic script, and when I clicked decline, it was still normal. Soxred 93 03:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

There are more copies. I am going to decline some of them – maybe all. Bwrs (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Cross-post: Quick question

I am curious as to whether the mediation committee has "clerks," similar to the arbitration committee and WP:RFCU. I assume not, but I figured that it wouldn't hurt to ask. Bwrs (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee does not have Clerks, no; this is presumably because it has no requirement for Clerks, unlike the Arbitration Committee, which concluded at the time of the Clerks' creation, that it required them. Anthøny 18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

Just to be clear, you aren't in any way related to User:Wrs1864 (who's also edited Open Mail Relay)? ffm

Lol. I poked here when I noticed the edit on open relays also. No, to the best of my knowledge, we have nothing in common other than "wrs" in our user names. Oh, and I agree that your edits improved the article, I guess we have that in common too.  ;-) Wrs1864 (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Bwrs is actually an abbreviation for a business that I was thinking about starting but never got off the ground. Bwrs (talk) 01:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

ID

I came across a comment you left for DS. You are not the only person who thinks ID is non-neutral. In my opinion, mediation would not be useful if the mediator was some random passerby, but it could be useful if the mediator was well-respected for his/her experience in writing unbiased articles on controversial subjects. Gnixon (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a powerful argument to have the mediation done by the Mediation Committee. However, there is also the question of whether we should narrow the scope of the debate before going to mediation or just take the entire article and all the editors including you, me, and everybody else and go there. I am in favor of the latter, but it won't work if any major participants in the debate aren't, as mediation by definition requires the assent of all parties. Bwrs (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I think my issues with those likely to be open to mediation could still be pursued by direct communication, but that can't take place while others (who I doubt would participate honestly in mediation) are poisoning the well. I'm not sure how mediation would address my complaints about conduct, and I don't know what specific content debate should be focused on for mediation. Gnixon (talk) 21:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that all involved editors are able to participate honestly in mediation. As for content disputes, my question is whether the article is slanted against Intelligent Design. I do not think that calling it "pseudoscience" does justice to the complexity of the issue. Any and all editors, feel free to edit the version of the lead in my userspace. Bwrs (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding adjustment of my comments

No problem at all. If I'm unsure I try to state the gender neutrally or avoid it. Do you have any thoughts on the potential rememdies and such? I'm always curious what other folks think, as I have zero ability to predict the results of these hearings. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem with neutral gender. It's just that since the gender is known, I fixed it. As for remedies: anybody who outs anybody, or attempts to do so, should get a long-term ban from editing Wikipedia. And generally ArbCom should abstain from making somebody an administrator under controversial circumstances; it would take clear and convincing evidence of an irregularity in the election (e.g., sockpuppetry confirmed by CheckUser) for me to advocate installing somebody as an admin. who lost an RFA, without a new RFA. Yes, I realize that C68 was winning the RFA when SV asked for the vote to be extended, but I think that the extension of the vote was done in good faith, even if mistaken, and even if it was not done in good faith it does not count as the type of gross irregularity that would call for overturning the result. Other than what I've already said, I would abstain from formally proposing a remedy until ArbCom issues a finding of fact as to who (if anybody) attempted to out editors. (I realize that by then it would be too late for me to suggest anything, but that's fine with me.) Bwrs (talk) 04:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I might add that extending an RFA falls within the sound discretion of bureaucrats, and that's part of the reason why it's so hard to become one. Bwrs (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

____________________________________

See "Changes in the importance of voting and discussion on RfA and what bureaucrats do," in Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 79. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, January 2007.

Just as an aside question, how do you feel about the continuous outing of the wordbomb character? I agree that the extention is at the discretion of the bureaucrats absolutely, and that really a complete rfa (with maybe some lenthy explaination from arbcom members at the top) is likely the only adminship for cla solution. Based on the information available, I have a hard time seeing that the extension was asked for in good faith, even if it was granted in good faith. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a final count of 42 supporting, 2 opposing and 2 neutral. I would like to thank Keeper76 especially for the great nomination. I look forward to assist the project and its community as an administrator. Thanks again, Cenarium ^Talk 01:01, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Bwrs (talk) 01:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Divorce

Most are male? That's funny... Probably just a coincidence. I'm a Christian, so I view marriage as a very sacred act of commitment. According to Malachi 2:16, God Himself does not approve of divorce, accept in cases of adultery or abuse. Happy editing! -- P.B. Pilhet 22:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

As bankruptcy law affects economics and business, it'd still be relevant to them - unless the code has amendments that are pretty much against the case itself.

The way an article is assessed for a WikiProject can be seen from their individual quality scales. Many WikiProject Assessment Depts. (including Law), although aware of the existence of C-class for the editorial team, are not willing to adopt C-class themselves (just yet anyway). In that sense, their quality scale may either stick to the old system, or with a system they have designed or modified.

The only assessment dept. (of the 3 relevant WikiProjects to this article) that adopts C-class is the US Supreme Court cases one. I'll respond to your comments @ review later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's not the basis used to assess articles at Wikipedia, for any WikiProject. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Bwrs (talk) 03:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Each WikiProject assessment dept. has a different "quality scale" - a link to each is available in the assessment banner of the article. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, I appreciate it. I understand the position and the what it involves. I would like it make it this time but I will not get discouraged if I don't. I'll just keep doing what I'm doing then. But for now, I can only hope I can persuade you. Thanks ;-) --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Misconduct

Haha. I took a look at that page. In June 2007, a random user posted a strange story about getting fired from a job for misconduct or some such. The page was later blanked (in January 2008) and I came along and deleted it as part of general housekeeping in March 2008. Feel free to create a talk page if the page needs one. : - ) Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You pique my curiosity. Although all I really wanted to do was make the page a member of some wikiprojects. Bwrs (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleveland Indians

I am renoving the note on the Cleveland Indians article. The Curse of Rocky Colavito is a pretty widely used term in Baseball to refer to the Indians problems since the trade. Not unlike, the Curse of the Bambino or the Curse of the Billy Goat or the Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx. Montco (talk) 01:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Bwrs (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sally Eaton

I was the creator of the article about Sally Eaton. It was nominated for deletion back in December of 2006, and was UNANIMOUSLY voted KEEP [1]. It has been improved since then. I don't see any evidence that Sally Eaton presently objects to the article, and in fact I know that she has stated that she had no problem with it as of February 2007. Please tell me why you believe she currently objects to the article. I will delete the prod if there is no evidence of current objection; however, if there is, I will vote to delete the article myself. I'll go along with her wishes, whatever they really are. Rosencomet (talk) 15:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've been trying to track down where it was first mentioned that Sally had requested removal and the best I can find is [2]. If Rosencomet has more recient information than this I would tend to go with that. This does seem to point to keeping the article, I don't think it went via ORTS. --Salix alba (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You could ask User:BostonMA or User:Mattisse. --Salix alba (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the history of the article, and could find no request by Sally Eaton to have the article removed, though there are a few items she has wanted deleted in the past, and at least one of them I might delete since it has been tagged for a citation for a long time and I could not find a source. I also contacted her myself, and she does not want it deleted (though she would like to see it updated). I've added a few items I could find (primarily to the discography) and deleted both the prod and the category about the sunjec requesting removal. If it was ever true, it was a long time ago before many changes were made. I'm certain both you and Salix alba were just trying to respond to what you thought were the subject's wishes, and I hope you are both satisfied with this result; I am not trying to be contentious about any of this.Rosencomet (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your !vote at my RFA

Thanks!

Thank you, Bwrs, for your support !vote at my RFA. I will be doing my best to make sure that your confidence has not been misplaced. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

My RfA

I hope the other kids at school play with me...

Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

I noticed that you made some subsequent edits ([3] and [4] about the article image. However, User:PhilKnight had taken care of that earlier, so there was no further copyvio and no need for action. Please let me know if you have further concerns about this. I also noticed your congratulations on my talk page, for which I add additional thanks!

 Frank  |  talk  15:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sad to see you go

hope you'll remain on occasion. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

afd of Political society

Hi. As a contributor to the first afd of this article you might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political society (2nd nomination) andy (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

could you please insert BELOW citation from Pelczynski, in such a form that would be withi wiki standards? then i will be able to copypaste it to article. here it goes: 'Political society' is the realm of citizens' involvement in politics or public affairs - the realm of local self-government, parties, newspapers, public opinion, etc. thanks in advance --discourseur 07:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

proposal to refactor Wikipedia:Editorial Council/Poll and Wikipedia talk:Editorial Council

I propose to move all voting from Wikipedia talk:Editorial Council to Wikipedia:Editorial Council/Poll and to move the Comments section of Wikipedia:Editorial Council/Poll to Wikipedia talk:Editorial Council. Bwrs (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your participation at my RfA, which passed with a count of (166/43/7). I appreciate your comments and in my actions as an administrator I will endeavor to act in ways that earn your full confidence, even though I don't have it now. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! By the way I didn't intend my "neutral" as an "oppose in disguise"; "too controversial" was more of me "taking the temperature" of the debate, if you will, and stating a reluctance to vote for somebody that provokes that kind of a response, rather than a statement about your qualifications. Anyway, when I really want to oppose somebody, I oppose them. Thanks again, and best of wishes. Bwrs (talk) 02:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well in any event I thank you for not opposing me and I hope that at some point in the future I will be able to gain your full confidence in me as an administrator. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 10:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Parish Priest

I don't think Parish priest should be moved there, as there's no reason for the extra capital. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 03:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

As I see it, the title of the book is "Parish Priest," hence the disambiguation page, whereas parish priest should be a simple redirect. Bwrs (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's a book! I think it's safe to assume that more people will search for the priest variant rather than the book, so maybe the disambig should be lowercase? There's probably a guideline on this somewhere but I'm really, really tired... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that I was consciously aware of the book until I found the lowercase one as a disambiguation page. I see no need for a disambiguation page with a lowercase title, so I switched the disambiguation one to be the upper-case one, and the lowercase one now just redirects to priesthood (Catholic Church). Bwrs (talk) 23:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Without claiming any expertise on the subject, the term can also apply to Anglican ministry#Parish clergy as in this example, so making the lower case version a disambiguation page might be a good thing. . . dave souza, talk 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the lowercase one now redirects to the disambiguation page. Bwrs (talk) 09:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that works. . dave souza, talk 12:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust it me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Mortonstalker

I can understand why the name may come across a little funny. I am open to suggestions as to where to start on the possibility of renaming my account. MortonStalker (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Foxy Loxy's RfA

Hello, this message is to inform you that User:Foxy Loxy has restarted their RfA. The new discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. GlassCobra 09:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You got a thank you card!

A Thank You Card!

Dear Bwrs, thank you so much for your words of support, kindness, and your trust in me. My request for Adminship has been closed, and the support the community has shown will be with me forever. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am, and all I can tell you is this: I shall try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, please tell me! :) If you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you are welcome to ask, and I shall do my very best. Please take care. G.A.S 16:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Soft redir on Solid apple

Looking through the soft redirect category (hey, someone might as well...), I noticed you made a soft redirect at Solid apple, to Option key. Generally, there's no need to make a soft redirect from one article to another -- as it seemed like a perfectly sensible redirect, I changed it to a normal, hard redirect. You can easily make them yourself. Just a note of advice! I saw above that you left for a while recently -- glad to see you back. I'm, currently, a very occasional user myself. Good wiki'ing! JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I made it soft because it is a non-obvious redirect, and because I figured there are probably other meanings of the phrase "solid apple" besides the button on Apple keyboards. Bwrs (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-obvious redirects can still be hard -- if necessary, they can be section redirects or their titles can be mentioned in the lead section of the page they redirect to. And if solid apple is ambiguious, it'll get turned into a disambig page (or a disambig tag will be added to the redirect _target), so a soft redirect isn't needed. Soft redirects are really pretty much only for inter-project redirections. In any case, thanks for the reply. JesseW, the juggling janitor 03:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

terrane/terrain

I appreciate the help with housekeeping, really. But there is not a difficulty choosing the correct word in these instances.

FYI: the phrase "exotic terrain" means nothing, geologically speaking, and earth scientists do not use it. Although a geologist may well use the term "terrain," when describing landforms or an area of the earths surface. "Terrane" or "exotic terrane" refers to a discrete 3-dimensional portion of the earths crust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CGX (talk • contribs) 04:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about the metamorphic terrain/terrane in Interior Alaska, south of the Yukon River? Bwrs (talk) 04:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer terrane there, but both are used. And a quick google search gives metamorphic terrain the edge - 166k to 149k hits. So for usage it would be exotic terrane and either terrane or terrain for metamorphic. Terrain seems more fitting for landscape - geomorphology usage, but terrane would fit better for structural/regional geology reffering to 3D masses of rock as CGX notes above. Vsmith (talk) 04:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

I have moved your question from Talk:Vandalism to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, as it is more likely to be answered there. Please check there regularly.--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 18:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Your Tzipi page

If you want to delete it, clear the text and add a {{db-author}} tag at the top instead. §FreeRangeFrog 05:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverting tests/vandalism

Hey, I just noticed your undo of a test edit on Titanium, and all of your manual warning of the user. I'd recommend that you check out WP:TWINKLE if you haven't yet, it just makes life a lot easier (at least for me). If you do want to keep up the manual work though, go for it, looks like you are doing a good job, just doing it the (harder) way. Cheers! --Terrillja _talk 05:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been testing Twinkle for a while. Probably will end up not using it that much. Bwrs (talk) 03:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to ask you that you do not create spi cases as "twinkle tests". Thank you. Synergy 04:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you. Bwrs (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio on Bobby Jindal page

I agree that the link given was a link to a possible copyright violation. I changed the link to the actual article. DanielZimmerman (talk) 20:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Father Damien

is the one in the U.S. Capitol the original and the one in front of the state capitol the replica, or is the one in front of the state capitol the original and the one in the U.S. capitol a replica? Or are both originals?

I see the problem and I'm trying to fix it now. I'll be in and out tonight, so it may take me a while to tie up all the loose ends. Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, the text, "The Father Damien Statue honors the priest in bronze at the United States Capitol, while a full size replica stands in front of the Hawaii State Capitol," is correct according to the historical timeline. This statue was produced for the Statuary Hall Commission, based on a bill originally signed into Hawaii law by Gov. John A. Burns on May 10, 1965. The statue was unveiled in the U.S. Capitol on April 15, 1969, and a second statue was unveiled in the Hawaii State Capitol on May 8, 1969. I'll try and add this to the statue article as time permits. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect templates

I see that you make a practice of subst'ing various redirect templates, and I am curious as to why. It seems to me to be undesirable to subst these templates, since they add the redirect pages to various categories; if a future change is made to any of the categorization schemes, a change to the template would take care of it automatically for all transclusions, but all the subst'd instances would then have to be hunted down and edited separately. However, perhaps there is some other issue I hadn't considered? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 16:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I substitute them out of habit, mainly. Maybe I like to substitute templates in general. If there were a rationale, it would be that if you subst: the template, you enable anybody to see the text of the template just by "editing" the page containing the redirect. Bwrs (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Madden

Don't be sorry. Most people wouldn't apologize for their edits. Depending on the individual point of view, it may be relevant or not. I think it is because the Madden Curse has been popular for some time, and Polamalu's recent injury is already being linked to the Madden Curse. Jgera5 (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I mistook it for vandalism because the only thing that was highlighted in red in the diff was the word “he” sitting by itself at the end of a paragraph. So that looked like a test edit. Bwrs (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Rfa

I have answered your question. Go ahead and take a look here - Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 07:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see your response until today. Bwrs (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Bwrs ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent changes!

Thanks for your recent edits!! - You helped the world today in some way... maybe a little bit, but wrong is doing nothing at all. 189.217.171.135 (talk) 01:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Warnings and warnings

Hi Bwrs. I've just seen this comment of yours. As the editor had been warned for removing material from the very same article four days previously, and as this seems to be merely the latest incident in his long-term editing pattern (only briefly interrupted by blocks), in your position I might have chosen a more robustly worded template. Though it's your call. -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why I started it at level 2 instead of level 1. Bwrs (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"

ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.

A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RUMOR

What was the former content of WP:RUMOR, which you deleted? (If it was a redirect somewhere then I think it should be debated. Just my opinion.) Thanks. Bwrs (talk) 02:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It was a redirect to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources. You're welcome to recreate it if you think it's worthwhile. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Morad, Group Captain Abul Mujahid

Hi. Do you want to add some reasoning for the proposed deletion of Morad, Group Captain Abul Mujahid. You've tagged it as possibly being a copyvio, but that's not a reason for deletion, and the PROD noticwe provides no rationale for the deletion. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is completely unsourced; in fact, it reads as if it is copied or typed, with some errors, from a printed source. (If the article truly is a copyvio., that would be a reason for deletion, but with no source, I cannot tell.) Bwrs (talk) 11:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Wikipedia voting images

Category:Wikipedia voting images, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 03:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

My RFA →→→

Dear Bwrs, here is a little note to say thank you for your kind vote on my request for adminship which failed with a final result of (40/19/12).

Thank you for your participation in my RfA which I withdrew after concerns of my knowledge of policy. Special thanks are owed to Coffee, who defended me throughout and whom I cannot thank enough for the nomination; to 2over0 for being supportive and helpful; to A Stop at Willoughby for the thorough, thoughtful and articulate support rationale; to IP69.226.103.13 for maintaining composure and for a pleasant interaction on my talk page and, last but not least, to Juliancolton who was good enough to close the RfA at my request and, frankly, because an editor whom I respect so much found the time to support me! If the need for more admins at the main page is still apparent in a few months, I may try again. Thank you all for a relatively drama-free RfA and for providing me with much material from which to learn from my mistakes. You're all welcome to drop by my talk page any time. God save the Queen Wiki! HJMitchell You rang? 18:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SniffEx

A tag has been placed on SniffEx requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 00:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this note because of your participation in WT:Revision deletion#Community consultation, which is referred to in Wikipedia:VPR#Proposal to turn on revision deletion immediately (despite some lingering concerns). –xeno^talk 14:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Locum (disambiguation)

The article Locum (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You will be pleased to know that I have no objection to the deletion of this article. Bwrs (talk) 05:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

RFA revert

Is there a reason you did this? When you strike an RFA vote, you have to indent it, or the numbering still counts your vote- see, it is still listed as #59, while the vote after yours is listed as #60. Courcelles (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I see your point now. Bwrs (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support and comments in my RfA. It was an eye-opening experience. I will not be trying for it again any time soon, though. Cgoodwin (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank semi-spam

Thanks for your support at my RfA, which has been closed as successful. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Bwrs. You have new messages at Talk:Rescue 1122 Pakistan.
Message added 09:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks (regarding carotid siphon)

You're probably correct on that one. The page has been taken down anyhow (sigh) although I think there were a number of reasons contributing to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferson61345 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your move of Rochester Police Department

Out of curiosity, why did you create a disambiguation page if there were no (and still aren't) other articles of similar names? How did you know that the "The municipal police department in Rochester, Minnesota" would meet the notability requirements set forth in WP:ORG? Would you put your money where your mouth is and research and create a Rochester Police Department (Rochester, Minnesota) article? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Scotuslink

Template:Scotuslink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TJRC (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Caucus

Thanks for your editing at caucus - I think that's an improvement. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I appreciate the compliment. Bwrs (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alexithymia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phenomenology (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Bwrs; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Global rollbacker

Are you a global rollbacker? Ryan Vesey 04:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

No, just on the English Wikipedia. Why? Bwrs (talk) 14:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:UpdatedMailVisibilityDrawingVer1 35.pdf)

Thanks for uploading File:UpdatedMailVisibilityDrawingVer1 35.pdf. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 08:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Catchphrase, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Typecasting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi

If you got the time to check out the refs formatting for Hildegard Björck it would be appreciated. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not know the language. The only way I knew it was derived from the Swedish Wikipedia article is that I ran the Swedish Wikipedia article through Google Translate. Bwrs (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Erythr-

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Erythr- requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. KonveyorBelt 00:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

List of court cases citing to Wikipedia

In 2008. you created List of court cases citing to Wikipedia (and some variations of that) as a cross namespace soft redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source. Is there some reason you made it a soft redirect? My understanding it that cross namespace redirects are almost always hare unless there is some technical reason (such as redirecting to a sister project) that would prevent a hard redirect from working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk • contribs) 22:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your comment. What do you mean by "hare"? Do you mean that cross-namespace redirects are prohibited? If that is the case, you are welcome to request its deletion. Otherwise, I do not understand what you meant. Thank you. Bwrs (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

"hare" is a typo, it was supposed to be "hard". I don't want them deleted, these seams like good cross namespace redirects to me (we do have plenty of Lists of court cases). I just don't see why these redirects should be soft rather then hard. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

According to my edit summary, the reason I changed it to a "soft" redirect was that there were 2 competing lists, so it is not clear which one should be the _target. At the time, I decided to soft-redirect them to the "better" list, but I could easily have made a disambiguation page instead. Bwrs (talk) 01:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I must have missed that edit summery. Is the other list Wikipedia:Wikipedia in judicial opinions? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:01, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't remember. But when I went looking for the second list that I might have been referring to, that's the one that I found. Bwrs (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The judicial opinions page says the court source page is the main page (the exact quote is "For a table of a much larger selection of opinions which have used Wikipedia as a source, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia as a court source"), so mind if I change those soft redirects to hard redirects? The court source page lists the judicial opinions page in its see also. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:51, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't mind at all. Bwrs (talk) 08:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

FYI

I nominated Wikipedia:SENSITIVE for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:SENSITIVE. Debresser (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Digital mailroom

Could you pick up on the statement at Talk:Digital mailroom with regard to copyright and potential COI? I have locked the OTRS ticket but this seems advice that can readily be given openly rather than by closed email correspondence. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no idea you might also have a COI. I'll take a separate look off-wiki. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

sorry, I thought your message (above) was alluding to it. Otherwise I wouldn't even have thought of it as an issue. My only declareable interest is that I currently happen to work in a digital mailroom of the type described in the article. Bwrs (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries, someone else has offered to provide some guidance, hopefully that will suffice. --Fæ (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Kayanza Roadmap

I believe this refers to the proposal for Burundi's new electoral code, which has just been passed by the National Assembly.--Pharos (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Finnish Santa Claus Foundation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Finnish Santa Claus Foundation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Gbawden (talk) 10:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Finnish Santa Claus Foundation

The article Finnish Santa Claus Foundation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable organisation, although has a source fails GNG

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}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gbawden (talk) 06:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bwrs. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Circular reporting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Napoleon and the Catholic Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Certosa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from opposites has been nominated for renaming

Category:Redirects from opposites has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 22:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)