Welcome!

Hello, AdmiralKolchak, 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
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 22:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC) reply

thanks for your help with ILUG-B page. I did a little search and found many more pages about local LUG groups that listed themselves here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Linux_User_Groups

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangalore_Linux_User_Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CalLUG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlug , ....are just some of them but there are many more LUG pages which have not Categorized themselves and probably escape the CSD radar. This is not to suggest that LUG pages should be deleted nor is it an argument for keeping the ILUG-Bengaluru page because its about a LUG and FLOSS needs to be promoted.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMPANY has the "splitsection" tag which allows Local chapter articles as a section of the parent organization article. Currently http://bangalore.linux-india.org/ and http://bengaluru.linux-india.org/ redirect to the mailing list, so i plan to add that to [1] as per the "splitsection" rules. ~~ Svaksha

Thanks, but I am not suggesting the ILUG-B page be deleted. Rather, that, it could also be an additional part of the LI page under the splitsection rules. I have replaced the 'notability' tag with 'not verified' as most of the LUG groups listed here dont pass the 'notability' criteria at all. I poked the person who has access to http://bangalore.linux-india.org/. Fwiw, we are expecting an article in a tech magazine, so whilst I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, I would suggest waiting till those guys get the site up. I will add ILIG-Bengaluru to the Linux_India page now.

~~ Svaksha ( talk)

Hi Admiral - the property investor David Whitburn is a good listen on NZ radio stations and his blogs and forum comments have helped myself and friends add value to our property portfolios. He is a popular presenter in our country, and I guess I was jsut frustrated that people in another hemisphere seemingly not involved in property development or investment where saying he was not notable when I can assure you he is. I want to formally apologise for any inconvenience and for my strong opinions being set out - but I want to keep them there as it is ludicrous to take down his page when there are many far less notable people (including 'sports stars' that play like 13 games for their local rugby team, hockey team etc). I think that NZ should be policed by Kiwis. I see what I can do to amend the content. Removal suggestions like this just do not help Wikipedia gain popularity or functional use in New Zealand. All the best for the future. Energyhelen ( talk) 01:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 21:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Please could you consider my comment in Template_talk:Did_you_know#Bill_of_Federalism, thanks,  Chzz   ►  11:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC) reply

On May 14, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jonathan Roberts, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

JamieS93 ( talk) 07:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 12:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC) reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article John Wick (whistleblower), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Person is only notable for one event.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Martin451 ( talk) 21:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

I have nominated John Wick (whistleblower), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wick (whistleblower). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Martin451 ( talk) 23:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC) reply

this...On 28th of May 2009 the pressure became too much. Kirkbride cancelled a meeting to discuss the expense claims in her Bromsgrove constituancy and news was announced that she intended to stand down before the next election........ is not a pov position.

she did not leave because she wanted to , did she? no! she was forced out, pushed out,she left due to public and press press pressure she did cancel the meeting and she intends to stand down before the next election. There are now demands for her to pay the money back and there are demands for her to stand down immediately. If you find a spelling mistake in my posts , would you mnind just correcting it quietly. Ill thank you not to pov label my post. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 12:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)) reply

I was upset and I thank you for your comments .You are welcome to raise it on the talk page if you want, but really it is unworthy of any discussion. " the pressure became too much" is a simple reflection of exactly what happened.

She really loved the job she said, and wanted to contest the next election.. she appeared on tv to say this and defended herself and claimed she had done nothing wrong... however... due to public and press pressure she was forced to stand down. What my insertion was, was really a first strike news addition and over the next 24 hours a lot more citable reasons for her stepping down will be reported, so my reporting the immediate simple facts really didn,t require any change as over the next hours reports expanding this will be added. ( Off2riorob ( talk) 13:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)) reply

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 22:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC) reply

On June 2, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Wick (whistleblower), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) reply

On June 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Next Bracknell parliamentary election, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Royal broil 03:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 10:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 01:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I have nominated John Wick (whistleblower) for deletion. The AFD discussion and reasoning for this can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Wick (whistleblower) (2nd nomination).

I am notifying you since you either created the article, were significantly involved in its editing, or were the nominator or closer of the original deletion discussion. If you are interested in this, please participate by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. FT2 ^{( Talk |  email)} 14:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 07:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 03:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 00:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 02:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Delivered by SoxBot ( talk) at 14:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Next Bracknell parliamentary election‎, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Bracknell parliamentary election‎. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Philip Stevens ( talk) 14:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC) reply

• This is a complicated case and may require a bit of discussion before a decision is made. I'm also going to contact users involved in the SPI that led to your blocking. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Why is this request not done on your main account? PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I made an unblock request on this account, because OpenSeven was tagged as a sockpuppet for this account, as opposed to the other way round, which led me to conclude that OpenSeven was viewed as the ‘secondary’ account by admins. Also, I consider this account to be my main one; whereas the editing period for OpenSeven during its lifetime was more haphazard, this account’s was more consistent. If I should have made an unblock request for OpenSeven, when I make another request (see below), should I make it at that account as opposed to this one?

I’m sorry to have to ask this, considering posts have already been made, but is it possible I could close this request and restart a week or so from now? The reason being I thought this request would be processed by the end of the weekend. I don’t mean that as a snide remark, I just thought that it would. Since this looks to run into next week, and I have some other things that I don’t want to do whilst worrying about this unblock request, I think it best to close this request and restart later on. Sorry about this.

Another quick request, though, is it possible to know what the preliminary opinion is regarding whether I should be unblocked or not? AdmiralKolchak ( talk) 13:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply

At this point, I frankly have no opinion. Perhaps the week would be a good idea, so we can thoroughly review your edits, and if necessary, seek opinions at another noticeboard. PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Thank you, and thank you Beeb for your involvement. I’ll remove my unblock request template until such time as I’m ready to put it back up, and I would like to ask for no additional comments to be made until the request is back up (because I’ll feel obliged to respond, which will probably start the process again at a time when I should be concentrating on other things). Hopefully, I’ll be more ready for the intensive unblock process in a week’s time, but I ask for patience if I might be a little longer than that. Thank you again for all the comments. AdmiralKolchak ( talk) 16:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC) reply