| Revision as of 23:03, 28 December 2007 editO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,413 edits →Help requested← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:27, 29 December 2007 edit undoRschen7754 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users123,234 edits →Help requested: ==Request for arbitration==Next edit → | ||
| Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
| Please note that the article isn't finished with the FA. It will receive continued updates. Your thoughts are continually welcomed, at least by me. Also note that several other articles have FA stars but aren't nearly as good as the 747 article. Let's work together for FA! ] (]) 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC) | Please note that the article isn't finished with the FA. It will receive continued updates. Your thoughts are continually welcomed, at least by me. Also note that several other articles have FA stars but aren't nearly as good as the 747 article. Let's work together for FA! ] (]) 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :I'd love to. However, issues like editors favouring the aircraft project guidelines (which is not officially an MOS subset) rather than the MOS troubles it from reaching FA. That's one of my reasons why I'm still opposing. Other than that, it is pretty good, but can be expanded. I have ~4000 old newspaper articles at my disposal right now, one of which describes Lockheed proposing a 900-seat, triple-deck passenger version of the ]. ]]<small>(])</small> 23:03, 28 December 2007 (GMT) | :I'd love to. However, issues like editors favouring the aircraft project guidelines (which is not officially an MOS subset) rather than the MOS troubles it from reaching FA. That's one of my reasons why I'm still opposing. Other than that, it is pretty good, but can be expanded. I have ~4000 old newspaper articles at my disposal right now, one of which describes Lockheed proposing a 900-seat, triple-deck passenger version of the ]. ]]<small>(])</small> 23:03, 28 December 2007 (GMT) | ||
| ==Request for arbitration== | |||
| A request for arbitration that you are a party to has been filed at ]. --''']''' (] ]) 03:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:27, 29 December 2007
 |
 |
 |
No urgent messages right now. edit this message
| User:O | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Main page watch Main userpage |
Talk page post | watch | archives Discussions pertaining to this user |
User contributions Block log | Logs |
Wikimedia user matrix Display all accounts on all Wikimedia wikis |
Miscellany Other user subpages |
| This is O's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
 |
 |
| edit |
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
User:Vishwin60/Tabs/Other User:Vishwin60/Tabs/Other User:Vishwin60/Tabs/Other User:Vishwin60/Tabs/Other User:Vishwin60/Tabs/Other |
AdopterHi O, I've started to clean up the Adopters' list. You appear to have changed username since you added yourself to the list but not updated your info there. In case you're still interested, can you kindly update your information? Or, if you're not interested any more, would you mind removing yourself? Thank you and happy editing, Snowolf 22:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)~~ RfA Thanks
172.189.127.93 vandalismI noticed you were vandalized by this IP as well. I also noticed he said something about the Wikimedia Commons. I don't recall seeing this user anywhere at all, let alone the commons. Do you think this user could be a puppet of someone you know? I'm kinda confused. ♣ Klptyzm ♣ 04:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC) A&W Root BeerOkay, there are a few things you didn't touch on. I'm thinking specificly of when you said it was a poorly written article. Please elaborate. - ~VNinja~ 01:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I guess that was my explanation of why it was short. - ~VNinja~ 21:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Thank youFor updating the 747 incidents category on so many pages :) Anynobody 05:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Mediation CabalHello. I saw a request for mediation at the Mediation Cabal that has you listed as a party, and would like to mediate the case, Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-12-28 WikiProject U.S. Roads. I hope that you will allow me to mediate your dispute peacefully, and that the problem can be resolved in a satisfactory manner. Best regards, Keilana(recall) 21:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Help requested http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Boeing_747 I'm trying to improve the article not argue with you. After discussion with SandyGeorgia, it was suggested that I contact you and see if your concerns for FA have been addressed. If so, please change your "oppose" conclusion. Fnlayson and I, as well as others, have done a lot of fixing since your comments on the FAC. Your change of heart regarding FA is essential. Thank you. Please note that the article isn't finished with the FA. It will receive continued updates. Your thoughts are continually welcomed, at least by me. Also note that several other articles have FA stars but aren't nearly as good as the 747 article. Let's work together for FA! Archtransit (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Request for arbitrationA request for arbitration that you are a party to has been filed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#NE2. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Done 
