User talk:Lazulilasher/Archive 8

Thanks for your Third Opinion

You may not remember, but you provided a wp:30 on Maryland Terrapins. Thanks for your input. This seems like a good way to resolve disputes. Hopefully it will be so in this case, as I recently implemented the changes I wanted to. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User page question

Since you put a lot of thought into this sort of thing - what do you make of User:Alec2011? Also I would be interested in hearing your feedback on a somewhat related topic - Userfication - Define and clarify "indefinitely". Thanks! Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)

The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Le Monde

I would, I just have no idea where to ask! BTW, would you mind copyediting Lazare Ponticelli? It's at FAR and I certainly don't want to see it delisted. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to help (not sure if I'll be able, but I'll try). If there is something specific you might need, let me know. Also, I have access to Lexis Nexis and a few other tools. I was unable to find the Le Monde article you were searching for. I'll keep looking, though. Lazulilasher (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth

To not clog up the RfA. A few questions about your latest comments - if he is so valuable, wouldn't he be diluting his value by working on multiple projects? It is hard to keep up with multiple projects. Wouldn't Wikipedia deserve a person who spends their time primarily on this project? Also, how about other considerations - if he wants to help out, shouldn't he know the various parts of en that are different from other projects? Perhaps he would also need to know the people that he works with. What about the other considerations, such as him not spending any time here? Do we really want single focused people and not editors? And doesn't it seem a tad silly to approve a set of tools when he will only be using one? And if he only has one job, couldn't someone else do it? etc etc. Sure, most of this is philosophical, but it seems to have at least some importance. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ottava, thanks for coming to this with my talk page. I agree with you: the RfA page is becoming unwieldly; so, good idea to come here.

I think you summed it up well at the end of your note "Sure, most of this is philosophical". I could not agree with you more with that statement. I think that there is a "rift" in views of adminship. My philosophy is that Wikipedia is a volunteer activity, and that adminship is a way for editors to step up and take on more work. I rarely oppose any editor willing to take on more work (as we are all volunteers, after all). I have opposed (rarely), but only in cases of legitimate danger to our work (copyright concerns spring to mind as a reason I oppose).

So, in this case, I agree with what you've said above. Yes, ideally, we would have a dedicated editor who knew everyone, had the technical know-how, and the rest of what you mention. This dream-candidate would also possess, importantly, the desire to work in an area which -to me--appears incredibly thankless and boring. We do not, however, have that dream candidate right now (he is in our dreams, afterall). Therefore, I support Seth because he is offering to do a job which we need to have done; even if he is not our "dream" candidate. I hope this helped explain my support and comments. Again, please reply if you'd wish. I do agree, as well, that there ideally would be a way to just give the candidate access to the SBL, rather than the fullset of tools. The reality is, however, that we do not have that ability. Kindest, Lazulilasher (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I had no intention of being so long winded above! My apologies! Lazulilasher (talk) 01:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% expect him to pass his RfA. However, I want him to know that the community will make sure that he wont be transgressing during that time (hence a lot of supports saying that he can only work on one area). If it was a 100% RfA, it might give him a free pass to do whatever he wants. That might be bad if we don't have a lot of experience with him. If he wouldn't have had so many supports, I might not have opposed (I would have just stayed out of it). Its just one of those things. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, fair enough. I understand your comment a bit better now. It appears you meant to send a message that the promotion did not signal a "mandate", of sorts. That's an approach of not seen before; but, it's interesting. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 01:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your TO at List of European countries

I appreciate your time. The issues brought up in the article's talk page represent a healthy debate over a very old issue. There is another issue I would like to discuss with you regarding the overall behavior of the opposing editor. It seems Rownon is on some sort of Wikipedia-wide crusade against any reference to the term Republic of Ireland:

Is there any way that I can bring to anyone's attention that while probably acting in good faith, the editor is removing relevant information, pursuant to a larger dispute without consensus and often without civility, from a multitude of articles? I'm relatively new to a dispute resolution (that was my first), so I'm not entirely sure what route I should take or what WP:POL is...

Thanks!Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 03:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the kind words. First, I would also direct your attention to this RfC: Ireland: Controversial page move. It seems I inadvertently wandered into a larger dispute than I had thought.

I applaud your desire to achieve a higher level of consensus. I support Third Opinion; and, believe it is a good first step in the dispute resolution process. It does, however, have limitations. In a case such as this, as much additional input as possible is required. To that end, seeking an RfC and contacting the participating projects is the correct course of action.

If, however, you have concerns regarding the civility of another editor there are different avenues (content and behaviour are treated as seperate entities). Akin to Third Opinion, there is Wikiquette Alerts which is a civility noticeboard. The next rung up is posting at Admin's Noticeboard, and there are the rather serious venues of Request for Comment on User and the Arbitration Committee. The Arbcom is generally the last resort; only to be tried after all other avenues have failed. I'll leave it to you which one to choose, however, I would note that a good first step is to alert the editor about what it is, specifically, in his behavior that is bothering you. If that fails, I would move to seek additional remedies.

As an admin, I would offer to help in a case of civility or revert abuse. At this point, however, I feel that I would be causing a conflict of interest (as I've rendered an opinion in the dispute). I hope my "rough guide" to dispute resolution was helpful. Please advise if I can help in any other way. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your counsel. I've requested the article be temporarily protected due to new information regarding the opposing editor; it seems there is a sock puppet question. Based on recent discussions with a few other editors at WP:Ireland and WP:Europe, the larger dispute you mentioned appears to have wandered onto List of European countries. Additionally, I am quite concerned at the lack of civility expressed by the opposing editor.

Having said that and after becoming familiar with the current manual of style discussion regarding the Ireland issue, I think that my view of how the terminology in the article is arranged has changed. Funny what a little dispute will do to one's understanding of an issue...

Thank you again... your counsel was quite helpful. Cheers. The € • ^T/_C 05:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Jhmmvnxcxcxccxvc

Could you please block User: Jhmmvnxcxcxccxvc for his recent edits to User:Vernon22's userpage? moocowsrule 04:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. I gave him one final "final" warning; to give him a chance. After he chose to vandalize Versus' page again, I blocked him. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 05:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: Arbcom?? WHAT?

Thanks for your message :)) Assuming Jimbo ratifies the election result, I intend staying well and truly involved with Milhist. It really is my first love and will be a great antidote to the crazies ArbCom sometimes deals with. I must also say I do enjoy dipping into your work so it's never a chore and it's also great to work with a receptive editor. Autrement, je te souhaite de passer de bonnes fêtes/vacances :) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 10:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up at Sean Hannity

Hi Lazulilasher, Thanks for the 3rr warning over at the Hannity article. Its too bad what militant, POV agenda pushing editors due to political bios. It seems to be a weakness here but its better than nothing I guess :) Cheers! --Tom 17:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it interesting that you just warned some of the editors. jimintheatl is far over 3 reverts in the past 24 hours. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did warn him. See here Lazulilasher (talk) 17:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know you warned him. I found it interesting that you chose warning over a block, particularly since that same editor made a complaint about 3R on that same article yesterday. That was what I meant. In any case, we discussed it at length yesterday and, though I don't think the "award" belongs at all (the opinion of a blogger for a partisan group, not a legit award), I was willing to let it be placed with other criticism, along with some balance, uncontested. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to give the editors a firm warning and chance to resolve the dispute amicably before blocking. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 17:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Sandinista!

Thank you for the message. I did attempt to encourage the anon. to take part in the discussion, to no avail. Perhaps he will discuss the matter when he returns from his block. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 03:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous user (72.220.252.190) is up to his tricks again on the Sandinista! article. I feel, at this point, having been reverted multiple times, blocked, and encouraged to engage in discussion, all to no avail, he has proved himself an unrepentant vandal, and should be dealt with as such. Any thoughts? ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello, Lazulilasher. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#edit=rollbacker.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

Reverts

Excuse me, I know it's not right that number of revertions and in that way, but I see that any one today do something about some actions that I have expose in discussion that haven't any sense (put a marginal ideological agenda where there is a big majority of civil demands) :S. Thanks for your attention, and excuse me :) --200.63.232.144 (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you eliminate the category "History of anarchism" of "Riot in Greece" article, you know, it could be an invention -I think so- of marginal groups to catapult their ideas or promote their violent acts :S. Anyway there is a discussion that wasn't respected. Thanks for your time, have a good day! --200.63.232.144 (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, I would rather not get involved in the dispute/article beyond enforcing the Three Revert Rule. I will, though, be keeping an eye on the article and talk page. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lafayette

Please let me know when you are finished copyediting the article, and I will be happy to reconsider any tags you feel you have dealt with. I should have tagged this at FAC; I'm not sure how these gross violations of idiom and biased and inaccurate claims of fact escaped me. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens, no. I looked at it because it showed up on my watchlist, but you have made so many small edits that it is no longer obvious you just started. Please keep on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, certainly not. I have no objection to the changes you have made; the trash is the bigoted illiteracy that you found, which I encourage you to clean up. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I do. Please sit down and read a history of the French Revolution, taking note of the dates, before you meddle with this set of lies.

BTW, there's nothing wrong with small edits; but it does make edit histories harder to follow.

I will be taking an extensive break. Good luck. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you like. I don't believe it, and it's schmaltz, but it is not impossible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Lazu: Why is La Fayette spelled in one word in en:wiki article ??? If there is a reason, I have not followed the argument. Could you explain??? Frania W. (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Frania's talk page. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Lazu! Meilleurs vœux pour une année de bonheur et de réussite.

As you suggested, I am going to read the article & all discussions on La Fayette - reluctantly using spelling of his name adopted by the Anglos!, which makes it sound as if the dear marquis-general had founded the Galeries Lafayette! Anyway, I shall read it & let you know. I have been back for a couple of weeks & touched up some easy articles that did not demand much time.

Enjoy the new year celebration!

Cordialement, FW Frania W. (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words about Adrienne de La Fayette. with the Maurois book, there is enough stuff there for an article. the guts of that letter to Brissot was notable. (and feeding the blockquote monster) i had been meaning to get to the library of congress and check the lafayette papers out. somebody needs to publish the archive, like the washington or jefferson papers. got the list of captured with lafayette there. pohick (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lazu: J'ai lu environ la moitié de l'article et corrigé des petits trucs, rien de très important. Une phrase me gêne dans son enfance: *He was educated by his aunt and two priests, Curé de Saint-Roch de Chavaniac.* There are the two priests, then Curé de Saint-Roch. Would not that make three priests??? or was it only one who would be the curé? J'espère que tu as bien fêté la Saint Sylvestre et la naissance de la nouvelle année. A plus tard. FW Frania W. (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lazu, cher collègue, Bien lu votre msg sur ma page, ainsi que votre commentaire sur la page de discussion de notre cher marquis/général. Je continuerai cette conversation avec vous & confucius plus tard, car maintenant, je dois faire mes gammes. Cordialement, votre *chère* collègue, FW Frania W. (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Class Review of Jagdgeschwader 1 (World War II)

Hello There!

I have incorporated all of your comments on this A class Review of this article. I'd apprecite if you could take a look and let me know your feedback. If you are satisfied, then could you please provide your support for this article ? Thanks Perseus71 (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons Greetings

	<font=3> Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lazulilasher. You have new messages at Skew-t's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Charles Scott

At the Military History peer review of Charles Scott, you asked me to "give you a nudge" if you forgot to do some copyediting to the article in a few days. Here's your nudge! LOL Actually, I won't begin collecting sources for that article again until I finish my work on Isaac Shelby, Beauchamp-Sharp Tragedy, and Jereboam O. Beauchamp, so no hurry. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

happy 2009!

Oh wow, that's awesome...haha...If anyone wants to read the supremely interesting Parc de Saint-Cloud, be my guest :) Lazulilasher (talk) 20:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

Happy New Year to you, too. I've been wondering what you've been up to. I'm still up to my ears in creek water. I'll review anything with properly-licensed images and active verbs. :-) Finetooth (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year as well! I will not mangle French (Bon Nouvelle Annee??), whoops did it already ;-) In German one wishes einen guten Rutsch ins NeuJahr! (a good slide into the new year). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Parc de Saint-Cloud

Thanks for creating Parc de Saint-Cloud. Could you please also make Parc Saint Cloud, Parc de Saint Cloud, and Parc of Saint-Cloud redirect to it, as various editors are using those forms of the name. (I'm going to try to clean up the articles which mention it over the next few days, but I assume that future contributors will continue to use these variations.) Thanks. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for noticing. An odd thing: I've created many articles, but for some reason this one this particular one got a few people's attention! I can't say that I mind the attention; it's nice to have someone notice your work. Thanks and have a Happy New Year! Lazulilasher (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've made half a dozen or ten links to Parc de Saint-Cloud - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Parc_de_Saint-Cloud

- I think those are all the obvious ones I'm seeing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns0=1&redirs=0&search=parc+saint+cloud&limit=500&offset=0 .

Also, Jean-Louis-Ernest Meissonier ("leading French Classicist painter and sculptor") says: "He also collaborated with the painter Français in a picture of The Park at St Cloud."
I don't know whether this should be linked to Parc de Saint-Cloud or not.
Regards -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 03:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd link it; but, it's your decision. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lazulilasher, and happy new year ! Domaine national isn't like a national park. It is a place which is handled by the States administration. This is more like Public land. For example, the Gardens of Versailles, the Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye are some Domaine nationaux. They are handled direct by the ministry of culture. Best regards, --Serein (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've edited per your improved translation. Lazulilasher (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you could read fr:Domaine public en droit public français if you want to know what's a "domaine national". It matches "#Le domaine public artificiel". --Serein (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A thanks so much for the quick reply! I would like to read it because I do not feel that I fully grasp the concept. Lazulilasher (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Dear L, I'm extremely grateful that my work is appreciated and that you and Julian would offer to nominate me for adminship. However, after only 18 months as a Wikipedia editor I don't think I'm ready. I've looked at WP:RFA briefly only a couple of times during those months, and I've never looked at WP:ARL. I don't know exactly what tools administrators have or how they use them. I know nothing about arbitration committees. In short, my ignorance of Wikipedia administration is vast. In addition, I'm concerned that admin duties would take me away from writing, research, and editing, which are my true loves. I'll read WP:ARL and its cousin articles over the coming weeks and try to comprehend the process. It's something I should do even if I never become an admin. Thank you both again for your expressions of support. Finetooth (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, alas; a shame. I understand your decision; my feeling is that we can always use more content-oriented administrators. No worries :) Lazulilasher (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just drop me a note when you're ready for the PR. I'll be glad to help. Finetooth (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Call me wishy washy

Ok, I was asked about deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people per G4 because the article up for nom was a somewhat different nom and the august 27th version I had reverted to was not the same article nominated on August 28th. I've reopened the debate and invite you to put in your two cents concerning the reverted to version. The version as of Jan 3 was a clear G10.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 04:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishy-washy at all; it is better to get the community's input when required. I've commented; however, many of my original comments regarded the earlier version of the article (the version currently in question). Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 05:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for noticing the edits I did to the article. It seems several editors respond to others' responses to the AfD w/o reading the article themselves. I appreciate your note. • Freechild'sup? 05:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I was wondering where I had seen your name before... then I checked out your userpage to find you are active in the 'Francosphere'. See you around! Ohconfucius (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk page. Lazulilasher (talk) 17:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AdminReview

Lazu—Let me know what you think of the new-fangled lead, and the reorganised structure of the whole page, here. Tony (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ryan4314

May I just say: I am starting to think you might actually be a fair-minded and relatively cool-tempered admin. Certainly Ryan4314 did nothing to make it easy for either Skom or myself to remain calm, such as with edits like this and this and this.

Can I ask you to have a word Ryan on being civil when others are trying to help, since you seem to get on better? Also, you might consider finding the other few "help requests" he sent around to other users' pages (Tony1, Lightmouse, etc) and let them know it's cleared, especially since Ryan4314's now archived it away and they might drop by to help later only to get an angry reception. WW,Quis Custodio 05:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey QuisCustodio: while I agree that Ryan acted hastily, I understand he may have been consumed by the "heat of the moment". I have had the same happen to me, in fact, when Firefox decides to change my zoom level. He was likely worried that he would be unable to continue editing. In this particular case, I hope that we all consider it a "one-time-only" occurrence; could we afford Ryan the benefit of the doubt in this case? Kindly, Lazulilasher (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray

		The Original Barnstar
		For incredible contributions to Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette, the Barnstar is awarded to Lazulilasher. --Leodmacleod (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your hard work reverting vandalism. Keep it up! Maddie (formerly Ashbey) 02:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks! I enlisted myself today because 4chan was the TFA. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent events

Thanks for blocking the IP(s). I hope this is the end of those edits. Versus22_talk 03:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, we're seeing a greater incidence of vandalism because of 4chan (and, notably, /b/) being Today's Featured Article. It should hopefully die down tomorrow. Lazulilasher (talk) 03:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is with those articles? Are the subjects popular? Versus22_talk 03:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, 4chan /b/ is an internet forum which is using their moment in the spotlight to stir disruption. It should pass, soon. The article will only be on the main page for about 21 more hours. Thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! :-) Versus22_talk 03:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NYC Meetup: You're invited!

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Fayette/Lafayette

Lazu: I just went thru the whole LF article, doing some easy editing, and must go thru it again for certain details that I need to check beforehand. J'espère que tu vas bien. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hibernation

Lazu: Maintenant que le printemps approche, il est temps que tu sortes de ta grotte. Salut! Frania W. (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:RfA

Welcome Back! I was wondering where you've been. It's heartwarming to know you would have nominated me for adminship... to be honest, it was only in the past few weeks that I began to think about it. Thanks for your support (btw, next time you pop around you might see Latakia on the GA nominations list...) Much luck with law school, Cheers friend! --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited!

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, sign official incorporation papers for the chapter, review recent projects like Wikipedia Loves Art and upcoming projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the January meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. Roger Davies ^talk 13:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Fayette, nous voici !

Finalement !!! Et maintenant, au boulot !Frania W. (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Le marquis de La Fayette? Tu n'es donc pas au courant? Aux dernières nouvelles, il était mort... FW

Frania W. (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

welcome back, ca va, well that was my joke, i was trying to placate the French pique at the american tone of the Laff article (comparing Madoff to Kerviel), rewrote the Laff and the ladies part, hope you approve, that Gottschalk was a good historian (read his book in the LOC reading room); did Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War and Carlisle Peace Commission; oh took some wiki flikr photos at the smithsonian got the statue of Laff, Anthony Wayne, Nathaniel Langdon Frothingham, John Beale Bordley too shakey for François Alexandre Frédéric, duc de la Rochefoucauld-Liancourt (too close to the miniature)pohick (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umar Israilov peer review

I'd like to request your input on the article Umar Israilov, which needs peer review. I know it's outside your main subject area, but one aspect of the review is evaluation of non-English sources, which I thought you might like to help with. The subject is a Chechen soldier whose death in European exile is a subject of controversy. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 17:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Où es-tu? Que fais-tu?

Toujours en hibernation ? Le printemps va être bientôt fini et tu es toujours dans ta grotte d'hiver ? In other words, we miss you ! à bientôt ! Frania Frania W. (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]