This is an archive of past discussions with User:Animum. 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.
Navbox help
Hi Magnus- thanks for the navbox help. One problem.. it's not fitting into the page very well, it gets shunted down below the infobox rather than fitting snugly to the side of it. This leaves a lot of space between it and the preceding text. Please take a look at Chad Gadya and propose a solution if you have a moment - thank you! Zargulon18:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
That is a lot better, thanks for your help. There is still a lot more space above and below than I would like though.. if there is any easy way to fiddle with these I'd be grateful if you could explain it to me or have a try of your own so that it looks nice. Thanks again, anyway Zargulon19:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Benny Landa
You seem to have deleted Benny Landa, after an objection of another user because of corporate publicity? I am e new user and decided to first pitch in in what I know, I have spent years in the graphics industry and at no point have I been associated with HP Indigo or Mr Landa, who is btw a celebrated and noted person in our industry. I understand the need to safeguard wikipedia from malignant articles but this was far from one. Alagrave20:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
My recent RfB
Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.
I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula// talk // ☯ //04:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey Animum,
congratulations on being skilled enough to design your own bot. I was considering designing one myself, but I was just wondering if I could ask you firsthand: 1. is it very hard? and 2. How long did it take you? Thanks, Anonymous DissidentTalk05:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
You changed the image to an image map (which I do like, by the way), but I'm not familiar with the syntax. How would I go about adding an alternative text for non-graphic browsers, or where the image doesn't load? Is this done with the "desc" setting, and if so, how's the syntax work? Ral315»19:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a non-graphic browser to test it on, but previously, hovering over the image would bring up the description. This doesn't do that- as such, I'm not sure whether it works or not. Ral315»20:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
In which case, please specify where you believe these two links should be situated to distinguish one from the other. This I feel to be the easiest way, and is the way I have used to disambiguate several cricket players in the past. Please suggest any further way which I can make clear which Harry Spencer (cricketer) is which. Bobo.15:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Your Feud with Me...
... is distracting from the nature of my question at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Husond. Please consider removing your comments; I give you permission to remove mine (the line beginning with "If I'd happened", not my oppose vote) at the same time. I'd like to reemphasize the nature of my oppose as an invitation to explanation from Husond, not as part of a pursuit of some sort of vendetta against you carried to its most-extreme-imaginable tangent. Jouster (whisper) 03:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the comments (with Magnus animum's consent), and hope that the two of you can avoid any further unpleasantries. For what it's worth, I think Husond's actions on Magnus animum's RfA were reasonable ones. Newyorkbrad15:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding me. Intentionally obfuscating source code is contrary to everything the project and the GFDL are about. I don't even know how you did it, but stop it. I am doing my best to sort it out now. Jouster (whisper) 16:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It is perfectly fine. It is an encryption method designed to prevent vandalism, and I would appreciate it if you would troll someone else. —«ANIMUM»16:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I had already removed it, though it took me a while to discover how to do so. I can revert it back, if you wish, and ask for community consensus on the issue. I believe and hope that the community would be against it, however. Jouster (whisper) 16:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to argue with me about the coding of my userpage, then fine. You've done so before. If you feel so strongly, though, I suggest asking AzaToth to do the same. —«ANIMUM»16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I see you've put it back. I therefore ask you to strap on your administrator shoes, and inform me where the best place to take the dispute would be. RFM? RFC? Village Pump (policy)? I'd tend to go for the last of those, so if I don't hear from you, that's where I'll ask for assistance in ascertaining consensus on obfuscation. I will look into this AzaToth business; I have never heard of that user. Jouster (whisper) 16:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Jouster, before this escalates, would you care to explain to me as a third party what the issue is here? Newyorkbrad16:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Of course! Magnus is using the right-to-left text order character to effectively obfuscate his User page's code (and he has perma-protected his subpages/templates, a violation of WP:NOT#USER in my eyes, but I disgress). I view that as a possible violation of the "opaque" provision of the GFDL, and an absolute violation of the spirit of openness and community contribution that lie at the heart of Wikipedia and the spirit of the GFDL. Am I patently wrong in this view? May I, for instance, take a template I wrote and whose code I am particularly fond of, and obfuscate it similarly, or wrap my favorite page in some sort of CSS transform so that I may write it in ROT13? Jouster (whisper) 16:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
GFDL isn't a problem, technically the links there for all to see. The page name can easily be typed into the address bar if a subpage is needed to be seen. I personally just don't see the point - vandalism in userspace is far far better than vandalism in article space. Ryan Postlethwaite17:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I just don't see the problem at all, Jouster. The only thing here is a reversal of the text direction in the source (which a number of users have done on their userpages). You can still copy and paste the text and it will appear perfectly normally. Will (aka Wimt) 17:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
(reindent) Suffice it to say that I strongly disagree with your dismissiveness towards this issue. Since I now have, I believe, three administrators looking over my shoulder on this topic, can one of you answer the question, above, as to the best venue to which to take this concern? Jouster (whisper) 17:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Not looking over your shoulder at all, I'm just weighing in my opinion! Where to go from here..... Well, there's WT:USER - that's probably the best place to start a discussion on it, hope that helps. Ryan Postlethwaite17:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate the suggestion, but I'm unsure there are enough eyes there, and it's focused on User page issues, whereas the question of obfuscation is far-more-widely applicable. And, to be clear, I wasn't implying bad faith in you looking over my shoulder; like all admins, you're here for the good of the project, and I'm very happy when, while in pursuit of any endeavor, I'm in a situation where I can be guided by not one, nor two, but three experienced sets of hands. I'll run this over to Policy and post a link here. Jouster (whisper) 17:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
— Note: This discussion (or portions of it) are now being continued at WP:VPP#Obfuscation. It may be appropriate to crosspost especially-widely-applicable portions of your arguments there.
My RfB
Thank you, Animum, for participating in my RfB, which ended unsuccessfully with a final tally of (80/22/3).
I shall continue to work on behalf of the community's interests and improve according to your suggestions.
Most sincere regards, Húsönd22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Obrigado, Animum, por participares no meu RfB, que terminou sem sucesso com um resultado final de (80/22/3).
Continuarei a trabalhar em prol dos interesses da comunidade e a melhorar segundo vossas sugestões.
Calorosos cumprimentos, Húsönd22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks in part to your support, I am Wikipedia's newest bureaucrat. I will do my best to live up to your confidence and kind words. Andre (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi... you appear in this category twice, perhaps due to inclusion of a menu or whatever. It throws the stats of how many admins are in the category off, would you mind trying to correct it? I would be happy to help if you want me to but it's best to manipulate your membership in this category yourself. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c12:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
On RFPP, you put the template as semi-protected, even though you fully-protected the page. Did you mean to put the "fully-protected" template in instead? I changed it, but reverted myself. Just asking. Acalamari18:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Animum,
just thought I'd let you know the hyperlink to your editcount on your talk page needs repairing. I'm not sure exactly what is wrong. Maybe its just me. Thanks, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk15:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
With regards to this, please see this. The issue of you bypassing this guideline has come up before, and was a source of a number of opposes on your AfD, including mine. What is your motivation here—is this an indication that you have forgotten that rule, chosen not to obey it, or do not take it seriously? I'm trying to understand why you'd do this. Jouster (whisper) 07:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Jouster, this single edit to follow up on this Magnus animum's username change is of trivial importance. The purpose of the guideline (not "rule") you cite, to the effect that it is unnecessary to edit links to change the target page following a redirect where the link still works, is patently to prevent wholesale unnecessary series of edits. This concern is scarcely, if at all, implicated by this isolated edit making a couple of changes to the editor's own userspace.
Earlier this week, you assured me that your creation of a page devoted in large part to your concern about "obfuscation" in userspace, in which you acknowledged that Magnus animum was your most frequent "victim," was borne of serious philosophical issues and had nothing to do with a feud between the two of you. At the time, I was prepared to accept that, although I personally considered the practical effect of the types of editing that you were complaining about on the transparency of the project to be slight. With this opening of a new thread raising another marginally important question about the same user's editing of links within his own userpage, in a way that does not affect any other editor in any cognizable way, my concern is renewed. The definite impression is created that you are stalking this user's edits and picking arguments simply for the sake of doing so. Please desist. Newyorkbrad07:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
NYB, violation of that guideline on a large scale (using an AWB rule), to the point where he even accidentally broke some pages via his actions, was the number-one concern I had during Magnus' RfA. Thus, when his User page—which I have on my watch list because I want to monitor it for further obfuscation and out-of-any-process-that-an-administrator-will-bother-to-explain-to-me full-protection of the transcluded templates (despite precisely zero vandalism in the edit history, and, to quote WP:USER, "Protected pages in user space should be unprotected as soon as practical")—gets edited in precisely the same way that trigged at least three of the opposes in the last RfA, I get concerned. Magnus never apologized for the unnecessary and guideline-breaking edits, nor for the ones that actually broke things (typically, template transclusions, IIRC), and, indeed, defended his actions as "making the encyclopedia more reputable" or somesuch. Then, randomly, one of his friends shows up and apologizes on his behalf, I guess? Magnus never "officially" backed down from his stance of, "I will violate this guideline because I think it makes Wikipedia 'more professional'." If he feels this guideline doesn't apply to him—and, despite your assertion to the contrary, I do not stalk his contributions, so short of someone putting a message on his Talk page with an eye-catching headline that I'd see on my Watchlist, or him editing an article I Watch, I wouldn't know—then, together with others who were concerned over his willing violation and lack of regard for this rule, it might be time to pursue the nuclear option. I came here and asked Magnus' intent to discover whether that level of drama could be avoided—i.e., whether he still feels that willful disregard of this policy in article space is justified by the goal of having a more "professional" encyclopedia.
Lastly, on the difference between guidelines and policies, forgive me for being pedantic, but I quote, with emphasis, from WP:PG:
A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.
A policy is similar to a guideline, only more official and less likely to have exceptions.
As I read it, the gulf between guideline and policy is merely one of degree, not one of enforceability. Both are "rules", and, as all rules, both have their exceptions, guidelines more so than policies. But both are rules nevertheless. Jouster (whisper) 17:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
You are making a very large WP:POINT violation, keep that in mind. Another thing, userpages can be protected however the user sees fit if he or she requests it — it may not be in policy, but it is piggybacked onto common sense. —«ANIMUM»02:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
WP:POINT would be making a sock puppet specifically to illustrate the dangers of allowing unrestricted WP:OWN and WP:MYSPACE on userpages. My concerns, as expressed here, do not in any way negatively affect the encyclopaedia; your actions, on the other hand, have a direct, detrimental effect on the servers, and serve only to excoriate an old wound for a gain of a measure of vanity. Regardless, if you feel that I'm truly committing a WP:POINT violation here, then feel free to take appropriate measures.
Do you intend to stop making edits of this type—indeed, have you been making edits of this type? As I mentioned, I haven't been watching—and do you feel remorse for overstepping this guideline earlier and then arguing that the guideline was incorrect, instead of modifying your behavior? Jouster (whisper) 23:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I have an even better idea: You — referring to Jouster — been trolling me since my RFA closed, so I'll take my liberty and make an WP:ANI thread about it. —«ANIMUM»02:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Creme, I have no beef against you; while you were editing using the same settings as Magnus, and were similarly initially-hostile to requests to change your behavior, you came around and apologized for your mistake, and agreed to desist. Since you appear to be a RL friend of Magnus, and you understand the benefits of an admission of wrongdoing, perhaps you can educate him on the matter? Jouster (whisper) 13:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Jouster, although Magnus animum can obviously speak for himself, it appears to me that he does not feel that he has done anything significantly wrong with respect to any of the matters you have raised (or at least not since his RfA in which the earlier dispute was aired). Having reviewed this matter again, I agree with him that he has not done anything inappropriate, either using his administrator tools or in general editing. I am now one of several people who have urged you to drop this crusade immediately. Regarding your threat to seek administrator recall against Magnus animum, I would consider an attempt to invoke recall based upon the trivialities you have raised, a majority of which do not even involve the use of administrator tools, to be frivolous and invalid. Newyorkbrad17:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Its very useful. Thanks a lot, its just what I wanted. Anyway, whenever I click the tab, I get a warning about editcountitis. While its slightly amusing, it's rather annoying. Since it's your script, I'd figure you know how to remove it. Any chance you do? Thanks much! I(said)(did)02:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I responded to your concern about clickable images at the now-archived thread. Quickly looking at User:Magnus animum/Main Page Menu, I see only one image that is not dual-licensed in such a way that it can be safely used via {{click}}, which is, amusingly enough, your multicolored personal logo. Since you own that image, and you're the one using it in a manner inconsistent with the license you gave it, I'm not certain (see WP:IANAL) how copyright would work. That said, you can certainly dual-license the image under a license other than the GFDL that would allow you to continue to use it as you currently do, and would remove any shadow of a doubt as to your use's legitimacy. Jouster (whisper) 19:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
It appears to me that the "Magnus animum" logo is GFDL-licensed, just as are the other images on User:Magnus animum. (There are references to different versions of the GFDL license, but since they all contain the words "or later," that can't make any difference.) GFDL-licensed images are free and can be used in all namespaces, including userspace, so I don't see the distinction or point you are trying to make. (I don't claim I'm an image expert, though; if I have missed something, please let me know on my talkpage). In any case, as you acknowledge, Magnus animum himself owns the logo in question and thereby GFDL licensed it (a second time) by posting it himself on a Wikipedia page, so there is truly no issue about it.
I read the tone of your post as an attempt to de-escalate the tone of the interchanges you have been having with Magnus animum, which are not doing anyone any good. This is appreciated, and it would be great if you could minimize any unnecessary interaction with him for awhile. Regards, Newyorkbrad21:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
GFDL images in derived form (as Magnus' logo is used there, due to resizing) are considered modifications of the original image, and thus must include a link back to the original source of the image, along with copyright information. Even were the image not a modified version, using it with {{click}} is on very shaky—if not nonexistent— legal ground. See this explanation for more information. So, no, in this case, the fact that the other images are GFDL-licensed is not their saving grace; it's the fact that they are dual-licensed under LGPL that allows us to {{click}} them. Magnus Logo has no such dual license, and therefore (probably) needs to have another license allowing this type of linking added to it. Again, IANAL, so the fact that Magnus is the one using it may come into play; it's just safer to dual-license it and call it a day.
Frankly, {{click}} needs some code to automatically stop it from being used with GFDL-only images. It's far too easy to make this mistake. Jouster (whisper) 22:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe it would be possible to do some special-purpose code that checks for {{click}}able images without the proper licensing at commit-time, on the server end. The code would, however, be quite icky; in particular, it would have to try to divine the intended license solely from the text accompanying the picture in question, as the licensing is not a database field. So, for instance, code like:
I agree that if there is a technical issue here, it should be addressed on a broader basis than, and frankly without reference to, Magnus animum's logo. Also, Jouster, could you link me to a specific one of these images with a license combination you find acceptable? Newyorkbrad23:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I have every reason to believe Magnus' use of Presa de decissions.png as a {{click}}able link is valid. Again, however, IANAL, and {{click}} is pretty generically evil, even before licensing comes into play, TBQH. (For instance, I can't right-click on a {{click}}able image and "View Image" in Firefox). Jouster (whisper) 23:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Could we please drop it? If it were a copyvio, I'm sure someone would have found the error by now and either corrected the error or put it up for deletion. —«ANIMUM»23:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem, just wanted to make sure you aware of the issue, since you didn't respond on the AN/I thread. I'll pursue it in other contexts until I can get firm word on this particular set of circumstances. Jouster (whisper) 00:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Before you decide what to do, I implore you to reread Ryan Postlethwaite's comment on your talk page. —«ANIMUM»00:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
↵ reindent
Get over yourself. You seriously think that I'm this obsessed with you? Look, you have a ridiculous User page that violates the laws of copyright, good UI design, and, quite frankly, good taste. Find me someone else with such a user page and I'll happily use them as an example, instead.
Meanwhile, if you actually read the ANI thread you posted, you'd know that the statement by Ryan does not apply, as I do not go through your contributions. I pointed out a copyvio to you, in good faith that you'd want to correct it, I accept your lack of willingness to do so (!), and this is the treatment I get?
Oh, and while I'm in full-scale "get over yourself" mode: in response to your comments on my Talk page of 20 April 2007, it was the deletion discussion for the Noob that got me active on Wikipedia again, not you. So, again, believe it or not, it's not all about you.
This discussion started off in the most civil way imaginable, but it cannot be civil if allowed to go any further than this. Consider this thread, and yourself, shunned, barring continued commitment to violate copyright (which I will take up indirectly, not via your Talk page). I will, of course, continue to use your User space to illustrate points when applicable.
To the administrators: I recognize that I am walking a razor's edge of civility while still disabusing Magnus of this foolish notion that I particularly care about HIM, as opposed to any other user violating policy and the edicts of good taste. As such, kindly take into account my stated intention to never again interact with this user if I can in any way help it before you too-hastily block me simply because your friend perceives me as an enemy. It ends here, block or no block. And remember, blocks are not punitive.
To Magnus: Good luck as an administrator. You seem to have done an acceptable job so far, even better-than-normal for a newbie administrator. Keep it up. And please reconsider your decision to violate copyright (and common sense) on your user page. I will no longer be here to remind you of it. Jouster (whisper) 02:10, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate some parts of that comment, but as always in this world, these types of things come with catches: If you think I am willingly going to give you the name of a user who has a decorated page, you are wrong. Wishing you the best on other areas of the wiki, —«ANIMUM»02:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Adopt a user
Hey Magnus what's up. Just wanted to inform you that you might want to update your status at adopt a user. It states that u are not a admin, when your are in fact one. Just thought I would tell you. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ)21:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I noticed you deleted 4chan with the description "Deleting to get rid of potentially libelous material (will restore promptly)" What does that mean exactly? Douglasr00700:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh. Ok. It just seemed weird for an admin to delete a page because of weird claims and with no notice. Thanks for responding! Douglasr00700:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Please restore the access to the Polytechnic University of Puerto Rico.
I got the message not to copy protected content.
Scientology protection
You just protected Scientology because of an edit war, but the page had been quiet for 21 hours, almost an entire day. I think the edit war was over, and wasn't as bad as it looks. For example, Misou's revert of my edit was fixing a stupid mistake i made, which i fully support. Although tensions are high, editors there are trying to get along, and the article is improving. Would you consider changing your mind and unprotecting it? Foobaz·o<05:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello there Magnus animum. I was wandering through the list of usernames on wikipedia and came across User:Hillary Clinton. From what I can tell the username has not been blocked, and so I just thought I would report it. I highly doubt this is the actual Hillary Clinton. Just thought I would mention it. --Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor (ταlκ) 22:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
There is currently an edit war beginning on the page Straight pride over adding tags and badly sourced references. What should I do, as I am attempting to make bold changes as part of a project to raise the rating and work keeps being reverted or edited back.--Amadscientist01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have done extensive discussion but every edit or addition of tags to improve the article are deleted or reverted. The article has substantial spam links to a site that appears to be a retail site. References are improperly used and sourced. There has not been a 3RR violation so there is no reason to report to that page but the article has an obvious slant and I am not being allowed to edit at all by a single member, Cheeser1. --Amadscientist01:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just about had it with wikipedia. There is to much fighting for factual well referenced material. I give up. I tried my hardest to keep articles I contribute to seriously referenced and researched yet I have been slandered and ridiculed almost every step. No wonder people look at me like I'm an idiot when I say I edit on wikipedia. It's filled with half truth misinformation and when you try to correct it you are reverted over and over by a single person who has a chip on their shoulder for bigoted and prejudice reasons.--Amadscientist06:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Word Wrap
I'm not sure how to use it....Is it like this?
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
(Images and stuff here)
</div>
?
I'm trying to wrap the text around the user info box and the Time Warner Cable picture (see here). I use Firefox and occasionally Opera on my Wii, and had no problems on them. (Well, a small one on Opera.) However, Internet Explorer just looks terrible. You can try it (if you have Internet Explorer somewhere on your computer). Thanks! —Signed by KoЯnfan71My TalkSign Here!19:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support at my recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Angus Lepper RfA, which failed, with no consensus to promote me. However, I appreciate the concerns raised during the course of the discussion (most notably, a lack of experience, particularly in admin-heavy areas such as XfDs and policy discussions) and will attempt to address these before possibly standing again in several months time. Angus Lepper(T, C, D)15:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Since the MfD caused some confusion, you can play in the Tournament of Champions! Welcome and Bonam Fortunam!Marlith04:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! :)
Thank you for your beautiful words and warm wishes on my birthday, dear friend! I took a well-deserved one-day wikibreak and spent it with my family and my friends... and actually had a beer after months of forced abstinence! :) Of course, there's no way I'd forget about you, so I saved a great, tasty piece of chocolate cake just for you - but sorry, no beer left! Again, thank you so much for taking the time to wish me well, and have a wonderful day, dear Magnus! Love, Phaedriel - 06:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I know you'll remove RfA thanks, dear Magnus... but will you remove Bday greetings-thanks too? Please don't... :( (just kidding! - feel free to, but I really wanted to bring you your piece of cake! ;) Tons of xxx, Sharon
Hi, Magnus animum, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. I'll see you on IRC soon :) Thanks again, GiggyUCP04:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi my user name is Essendon United.
Why did you delete my page and how can i Restore it?
regards
franciso
Happy Magnus' Day!
Magnus animum has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Magnus' day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Magnus!
Hello. First, let me congratulate you. Happy Magnus animum Day! Secondly, I have a small request. R Delivery Bot usually delivers WikiProject Puerto Rico's monthly newsletter, but R has not logged in today, and I really want the newsletter delivered today. Would your bot mind delivering the newsletter? --Boricuaeddie20:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Remember to substitute MONTH and YEAR on the header. In other words, use ==WikiProject Puerto Rico July 2007 Newsletter== instead of ==WikiProject Puerto Rico MONTH YEAR Newsletter== --Boricuaeddie21:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your help. The newsletter is transcluded to several pages. I'll be sure to change the credits. Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie21:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
