This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archives

1 Apr. 13-Oct. 10, 2006 2 Oct. 25, 2006-Jan. 1, 2007 3 Jan. 1-Mar. 3, 2007 4 Mar. 5-May 12, 2007 5 May 16-Sept. 18, 2007 6 Sept. 15, 2007-Jan. 25, 2008 7 Jan. 25-Sept. 4, 2008 8 Sept. 9-Dec. 31, 2008 9 Dec. 28, 2008-Jun. 9, 2009 10 Jun. 10-Dec. 31, 2009 11 2010 12 2011-2013 13 2014-2019 Current

Hello, Reywas92! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | finger on pulse Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | finger on pulse

-- Zeitgespenst ( talk) 23:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Please go through the WP:MM procedure, when merging articles. And also, don't forget to fix double redirects when you do. Cheers! Ban Ray 09:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I guess I didn't even think about that template. Wow all that work for nothing. If you would be willing to merge I'd really appreciate it (I'm in the middle of getting Sports in Indianapolis working). Thanks for pointing that out to me. HoosierState ^Talk 01:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind I took care of it. HoosierState ^Talk 02:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I can see where you are coming from with your request but as you say some claim that all places are notable which i feel they are and think that if the stubs are not created it doesn't give anyone the opportunity to expand on them. I am happy to create a page for villages in Hampshire or edit an existing one i just feel it would be better to create individual articles on each village. Cheers Dewster ^{My Talk} 17:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok i will take my time to create a list and leave a foot note asking others to create articles on the places if they have sufficient information to meet the quality standards you speak of. =] Cheers m8 Dewster ^{My Talk} 17:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that was getting rather tedious. I will keep to my coordinate adding as well as concentrating on my A-Z of places in Hampshire. And no problem i am always happy to except advice on ways to improve myself as a wikipedian. =] Thanks again. Dewster ^{My Talk} 18:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I refer to the speedy deletion and prod templates that you placed on this page. Firstly, you did not notify the author as you are asked to do on the template. This is particularly important with pages created by new users who may not have got a handle on the Watchlist concept. Secondly, as explained at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, schools are exempt from speedy deletion on grounds of notability. Finally, there is already an article at Union High School (Modoc); it is always worth checking to see if a page is a duplicate, first. HTH. TerriersFan ( talk) 02:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that schools aren't covered by CSD, though I strongly disagree and I believe that CSD schould be expanded. Some people are getting really rediculous in declining SD candidates when it is obvious that they will be deleted. I did in fact search for a possible redirect, but none could be found with WP's search. Also, I kindly refuse to notify the creator as we have a very useful bot who does that for us, User:BJBot. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The bot doesn't notify speedy deletions. In any case, I think a personal notification to new users is a courtesy that should be encouraged. Many good editors start out by creating a page on their school. Even if the page gets deleted, how the matter is handled may well determine whether that editor stays or leaves hurt. TerriersFan ( talk) 02:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting my Random Question correct!! Oh and by the way, it was The Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. Here's you award:

Cheers and congrats again!! Ninety ^wazup? ( r t ) ^{sign here!} 21:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

As long as you don't mind I'm going to nominate the list for List of the day. I think it looks great by the way. I'll come back and let you know when voting starts so you can vote for your list :). HoosierState ^Talk 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's up now, I believe voting starts in March for April lists. Currently there's voting for March's lists, if you want to pick your top 5, there's 2 Indianapolis related lists up for nomination. HoosierState ^Talk 21:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Congrats the list was selected as a List of the Day for April. Do you have a date preference for when it will be featured? HoosierState ^Talk 15:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 05:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you redirected the article Wonston to City of Winchester which in my seemed rather pointless as now if some one places the link [[Wonston]] in an article intending it to take anybody clicking on that link to an article about Wonston will be rather confused when they click on the link and instead the article that comes up is city of winchester. Question marks all round i think ?????? So i think it would be better to delete the actual article rather than redirecting it. If you have a decent reason for doing this then i will be happy to send my apologies. Cheers Dewster ^{_^*'_} 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I will look into that and am sure i already know where to find what i need. Cheers Dewster ^{_^*'_} 10:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you on the usefulness of the stub articles I create. The department a place is located in is already quite helpful, since that narrows the possible location down to about 1% of France. Anyway, this is just a first stage in creating good articles about all French communes. There is more to come, and you can help if you like, see Wikipedia:WikiProject French communes. Markussep ^Talk 15:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

One of the things on my wishlist is to automatically create maps and title coordinates using the "lat" and "long" fields in the French infobox. But that's for later. BTW once you've added an infobox you need to check the links in it, for instance in the Saint-Pierre-d'Entremont article the link to the arrondissement is broken (just fixed it). That takes time, so I'll finish the stubs first. Actually, what I do is add the ones others have missed. Markussep ^Talk 15:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		You have made excellent edits all over wikipedia. Keep up the great work. Juthani1 ( talk) 14:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support for my admin application, which recently closed successfully (36/3/1). I hope I can continue to justify the confidence that you have placed in me. If there is any way that I can help out more, please drop me a line. Thanks again. - 52 Pickup (deal) 21:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I just combined two articles which were exactly the same thing but had different spellings. I combined the articles with the more common name and Used ALL information found on each of the articles. I need help fixing up references and completely deleting the old article. Here are the articles- Paramahansa the less common and Paramahamsa the more common term.-- Juthani1 ( talk) 03:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder to be careful when renaming section headings, as often it may result in broken redirects and section link. When you edited Brain, there was a notice there that <!--Brain dish redirects here-->. I have fixed the redirect for you. (EhJJ) ^TALK 16:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you-- Juthani1 ( talk) 23:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've removed the speedy delete tags you added to 8 Japanese author article-stubs. They each have corresponding articles at the Japanese Wikipedia. Most are also about long-dead foreign-language authors, hence it is hard to find references quickly.

At the very least, it would've been better to add a prod tag, instead of speedy-delete. However, stubs like this should generally be left to grow. Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 02:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, and I will add prod tags, but if you look at their histories they've had more than four year to grow, and they haven't. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, how did you find these 8 particular articles? Part of a cleanup category/backlog somewhere?

I do object to the prod tags, but I'll let them sit there for a few days to get more attention. Then if they're still there, I'll remove them and let you know.

There is nothing wrong with having a stub. See Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:There is no deadline for the general idea. See also Eventualism. Any weeding should be done delicately. See also many current discussion at the wikien-l mailing list about how deletionism may be considered harmful. Thanks. -- Quiddity ( talk) 03:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

As it happens, I found the first one with Special:Random, was curious, and found the rest on the creator's contributions page. I do agree that Wikipedia is a work in progress and there is no deadline, but I don't think for these it's really demolishing the house. If you see the history pages of these articles, you will see that they were created by an IP address in February 2003. That's over five years ago! I do realize that Eventualism, etc, but these probably won't be going anywhere terribly soon. Although there are respective Japanese articles, they have different policies and aren't necessarily notable, and they are still stubs. Also, these articles are unreferenced, and asserting that one is an author does not sufficiently assert notability and these don't pass WP:BIO. I obviously disagree with you on inclusionism/deletionism; too many deletions are harmful, but we definitely cannot have an article on every real person...You know what I mean. But at only one sentence long and mostly refless, they do not currently pass WP:BIO, and if you decline the prods without doing anything, they will be deleted at AFD. Reywas92 ^Talk 02:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Bounza an actual character? This guy ain't on the list. In fact, there is no mention at all on Wikipedia. I'm considering deletion, per WP:CSD#G6. Thoughts? Please reply on your talk page. Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 05:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete it. It was a poorly written orphaned article with no references and no reason why the fictional charactor was notable, so I just redirected it. Reywas92 ^Talk 03:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll ( talk) 15:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't. I keep trying to use the preview button, but it keeps coming back to the editing page and I lose all of my work. I don't know what's wrong. I use the button when I can.-- Juthani1 ( talk) 01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, how do you make your signature have awesome fonts?-- Juthani1 ( talk) 01:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the thing you said I could find on my watchlist.-- Juthani1 ( talk) 19:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

LOL! No need to feel badly. I've been racking my brain for the past hour trying to figure out how to get the damn thing to collapse. Thank you! -- JT ^Holla! 00:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to the comments you left on the Angkor Wat FAR, I have posted a Wikiquette alert at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Reywas92. Collectonian ( talk) 13:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Wikiquette page says not to discuss things there, so I wanted to respond this this remark here: "In my experience, I would never FAR an article, though I respect your opinion to do so. In most cases, tagging an article for something does not help at all. For example, you could have easily taken care of the image problem yourself, rather than FARing it."

Why would you never FAR an article? FAR does not equal automatic delisting, it is calling attention to the fact that an article no longer meets the FA qualifications and should be reviewed. FAR, in fact, is designed to do what you are now doing, calling attention to the article so editors can fix it before it is delisted. Sure, I could have fixed the image problem, but in my experiences my just jumping in removing them would get nothing but backlash and insults thrown my way. Besides, the image problem alone was not why I sent it to FAR, but the huge chunks of unsourced statements. An article should not carry the featured article star if it is not featured article quality. It degrades the project and the value of the featured article title. Angkor Wat passed FA nearly three years ago, and it has not maintained the FA level since. If you can fix it all up, great. If not, it should appropriately be delisted until it can return to FA status.

As for saying you never edited it, I apologize. I didn't remember seeing your name when I checked contributers to notify about the FAR. I myself came across the article while looking at FA level architecture articles to point someone to as examples in a failed GA. This, being in the As, was one of the first I found and unfortunately, found it was not a good FA example and needed review. I'm also sorry you felt my alert was unnecessary. When I pointed to civility after your first remark, it was in hopes you would simply apologize and focus on the issue at hand, but instead I felt you insulted me even worse. I felt your remarks implied I did no real editing and only run around "ruining" articles and being useless. When I have taken an article from horrible to FA, gotten several lists to FL, am on track for my first Featured Topic, and have rescued several other articles to get them close to GA level, it hurt my editor's pride and left me near tears. Hence my filing the report. Collectonian ( talk) 14:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologise again, and I do recognize your improvements to other articles. I was not trying to insult you, just that I disagreed. You surely do plenty of real editing, but Jeopardy's quality was brought down rather than up.

I know that FAR brings attention to an article, which it did, and does not automatically delist it, though it does seriously threaten it, which I did not think was necessary. About the image problem, I would just be bold and do whatever seems best. Backlash is rare and can always be discussed. We obviously have different view on FAs, but it really isn't that bad. What needs improvement is web sources rather than book sources. As it isn't terribly long, 46 refs is about plenty. I'll se what else I can do, and I hope this will work out between us. Reywas92 ^Talk 14:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It would really hep me and the other admins who patrol WP:PROD if you gave somewhat fuller prod reasons than just "Notability not sufficently asserted. No references." it helps to say what sort of article at least, because different of us tend to work on different sorts o topics--I , for example, wouldnt even try to evaluate a deletion for a musician. eg Athili Krishna Rao as " Theater director--Notability not sufficently asserted. No references." (no problem with your actual nomination by the way, they seem totally appropriate) thanks -- DGG ( talk) 21:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed you removed a dead link on Anophthalmus hitleri. While the link is indeed dead it's still being used as a reference, and that's actually alright for references, as long as it was live when the author cited it and there was a "date accessed" put in along with the reference. In this case the page wasn't gone, though, the URL had just changed and I found it again using Google. EditorInTheRye ( talk) 17:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If someone removes a prod tag, don't readd it, the deletion has been contested. Instead, take the article to AFD. Thanks, and let me know if you need any assistance. Prodego ^talk 19:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I was not re-adding a contested prod, I was reverting vandalism. An IP had removed all tags and info and replaced it with "this is a great book". That was not contesting the prod, but I will respect your removal of it. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I saw this, and that you removed it before, and didn't notice the rest of the edit. Prodego ^talk 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your note. There are a couple of more in Indiana on Wiki and not yet created. I'm trying to find the archived discussion I just had with someone re: New York on the same issue. Basically we're trying to categorize them for WP:MUSEUMS. Without getting into WP:OTHERSTUFF, I don't see the difference between those and Museums in Saitama, Saitama, which was one of a series just closed as no consensus to delete. Children's Museums in the US is small because a good number of the already existing children's museums are not yet categorized -- I know because I've spent part of today working on the categories. Is there any reason why it definitely shouldn't exist or is too small a cat? TRAVELLINGCARI ^{My story} _{Tell me yours} 18:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to Category:Children's museums in the Midwest as that's what I did for Category:Children's museums in New England. Could then add the existing Illinois and Indiana ones, plus Ohio, Michigan and whoever else has Children's Museums. If you really want to tackle this, there are a ton of apparently long-existing one article cats along the lines of Category:Museums in Laredo, Texas that I've found when going through and tagging for WP:MUSEUMS TRAVELLINGCARI ^{My story} _{Tell me yours} 19:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to make you a master list of the one offs as I find them if you feel like dealing with them. I don't necessarily have an opinion one way or the other but I don't think country-wide categorisation is the best option either because some have a *huge* number. I think there needs to be a way to find the information and it's my personal opinion that categories are far easier to navigate and are more complete in terms of what exists on wiki than lists of... Thoughts? I'm creating the mid west and moving them there

Re: master list, when I come across them in tagging museum cats with the Museums Banner, I can let you know if there are categories of one if you want to deal with them. Since I don't feel strongly that they should go, I don't know that I'd nominate them all. I'll db-author the cats, didn't know that applied to cats as well as self-created articles. I would object strongly to New York and New England being merged as both have a lot of museums within their scope even if they're not yet categorized. While this search doesn't return only children's museums, it gives an idea to how many there are and within the scope of WP:MUSEUMS we're actively creating more articles. New England and Mid-Atlantic are both recognised regions and while New England makes sense as a category, I don't think Mid-Atlantic does -- nor does East as a logical category, in my opinion. New England is a multi-state region that could easily sustain its own category, same with New York and I think both are a likely search. But that's just me. It's not official project POV. You can mention it there if you want more feedback on it. I'm happy to go with consensus. TRAVELLINGCARI ^{My story} _{Tell me yours} 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

taken care of so I suppose G7 worked fine, even if it wasn't exactly what to do. Thanks for the tip TRAVELLINGCARI ^{My story} _{Tell me yours} 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day, Reywas92, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! User:Reywas92 ( talk) 06:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Idontknow 610 ^TM 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing Reywas92/Archive 7 a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

-- SMS ^Talk 20:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. There have been a few threads recently on WT:RFA about a lack of candidates, so I looked through Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls and found you. I think you'd make Wikipedia better if you were an administrator; you're a familiar name around here, and I haven't seen anything to make me think otherwise. I'm a novice nomination writer, but if you'll accept, I'd be happy to nominate you. WODUP 04:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed you removed image caption attribution in the Rat Rock article, you may be interested in a conversation going on right now about image attribution at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Photograph_attribution_in_image_captions. Doesn't look like consensus to me at the moment, one way or the other. - Owlmonkey ( talk) 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

This is just to let you know that I think you make a mistake in your comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Discussion_2. You addressed the comment to "Mike", when I believe you meant "x42bn6". Mike Godwin was only mentioned at the end of x42bn6's comment, though at a glance I can see how it would look like he signed as Mike. - kotra ( talk) 22:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, he linked to Mike's userpage, so I must have mistaken that for the signature. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry    Juthani1    00:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Others have done it and so Nate Williams has trouble editing my page. He will keep vandalizing and making new accounts. I believe he plans on doing it today.    Juthani1    21:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you were refering to your talk page by saying here. I forgot about the link underneath it, but Nate isn't smart enough to find it. I will work on the NY article. The section with the news and pic was added for no particular reason, but it makes my userpage look nicer. I ue it rather than the main page since its easier for me to get to.    Juthani1    21:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in cleaning out these "schedules." I removed the one from the article on the old network version of Wheel of Fortune after it was repeatedly the target of both inaccurate information and just plain vandalism. I see they're popping up all over the place. JTRH ( talk) 00:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The high school artcle needs more sources.    Juthani1    ^{t c s} 22:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You must be ecstatic over today's feature article.    Juthani1    ^{t c s} 02:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed a merger between two articles that no one seems very interested in. Granted, they're not heavily trafficked... anyway, they're numismatism-related. Take a look if you get a second. Skiasaurus ( talk) 03:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at this diff, I see that you have changed date formats in the Botswana article to American dating (m-d-y). Botswana uses International Dating format (d-m-y) and you should not change the format for this or other articles. I have restored the Botswana article to its correct format, but if you could retrace your steps and correct any other similar edits you have made, to comply with WP:DATE, that would be helpful. -- Pete ( talk) 02:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

<from user talk:Docu>

I see that you have been changing coordinates from Template:Mapit-US-cityscale to Template:Coor at d, Template:Coor at dm,or Template:Coor at dms. While this is okay, I'd like to inform you of the more useful Template:Coord, which is universal and accepts all forms of coordinates rather than using multiple templates. Thanks, Reywas92 ^Talk 02:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

</moved from user talk:Docu>

I'm aware of that. The shorter version seems easier though. -- User:Docu

Didn't mean to do that. I didn't see that there was a ref. Sorry    Juthani1    ^{t c s} 01:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha you forgot to log in    Juthani1    ^{t c s} 01:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there,

I wonder why you felt that putting == instead of a === is better. I personally like it more the way it was before.

Anyway, in order to achieve consistency can you also do them for articles like Euro gold and silver commemorative coins‎ (France): 2002?

Thanks, Miguel.mateo ( talk) 04:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

HoosierState ^Talk 18:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Right on, Reywas. I was planning some more work on it myself. And thank you for your kind comments. Shlimozzle ( talk) 22:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to participate at WP:MOS and WT:MOS, I hope you will, but I had to revert your edit at WP:MOS concerning possessives; it contradicted everything in North American style guides (I don't talk about other style guides because I don't know them), and everything I've seen on Wikipedia. I started a thread to ask if consensus is changing on this at WT:MOS; please join us. - Dan Dank55 ( talk)( mistakes) 15:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You placed one of the templates for spaming on my talk page. I am fully aware of wikipedia policy concerning external links and believe that I have not violated it. I'd like to know which article you were referring to. This way I can start a discussion on the article talk page to determine if the community thinks the link I added was spam or not. I tend to think the NPS travel itineraries are fantastic resources that deserve inclusion. A few other agree with me as well, but I will respectfully let the community decide and abide by their decision. Please let me know the article in question, and I will begin the discussion process. Have a wonderful day. Jfknrh ( talk) 21:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We need refs for the athletic awards.    Juthani1    ^{t c s} 20:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I took your {{db-band}} tag off this article because, much though it needed speedying, unfortunately WP:CSD#A7 is only for people, groups etc: "A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on." I have taken the article to AfD here (remarking in the AfD that we could do with a speedy category for "forthcoming studio album" articles). Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 21:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent change to MoS:

Most forms almost always take an extra s (Ross's father); some, mainly Biblical or Classical, often do not (Socrates' wife; Moses' ascent of Sinai; Jesus' last words).

I think "and" is better than "or. Tony (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me if you change it to and. I wasn't completely sure. Reywas92 ^Talk 23:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I added a link to a you-tube clip that features NBC using the John Williams composition "The Olympic Spirit" for their 1988 Seoul Olympics coverage. That's a striking piece of music on its own, but I remember that quite a few people didn't like it when NBC changed the music because they were so used to hearing ABC using "Bugler's Dream" during their Olympics coverage, so I was pleasantly surprised that they brought it back for Barcelona. I'll work on finding a citation for that. Thanks for the heads-up. Mdb1370 ( talk) 08:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, you should reconsider your header style proposal because the form that you call the "wrong form" has been the standard since Day 1 of the Olympics and its use has been generally accepted. The one that you call the "right form" has been rarely used and has been corrected properly. Mannschaftskapitän ( talk) 01:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks i'll take a look at it, most of those edits were made whilst sat watching hundreds of hours of olympic tv coverage, so i found it a good time to do the repetative edits that didn't need much concentration! Basement12 (T. C) 21:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it's ok to have the medal tables on the article because they're only for sports the US got medals in. In all the other individual results sections, an indication is given for gold, silver, and bronze. There is no apparent indication of that for the team sports other than the small medal table. In baseball, for example, you have a listing of its games during the group stage, a group standing, and then a list of games in the final round. It's hard to tell if it actually medaled. If you'd like, we could bring this p at Wikiproject Olympics -- Jh12 ( talk) 07:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand why you'd want it there, but the US's result is already in bold in the Finals section. Personally I don't think listing the other two countries that medaled is relevant in the US's article. And it makes that giant article a tad shorter. Reywas92 ^Talk 19:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Great point; they're working on article standards at the Wikiproject. I'll make sure to mention it. Thanks, -- Jh12 ( talk) 19:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{ motd}} templates, run by Wikipedia:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold ^{( t/ a/ c)} 01:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)