User talk:Qxz

Ad request

We need a few more people at WP:PR and WP:FAC. Something that could help is something like this:

Your opinion counts! Help us improve articles!
Please join and help us peer review articles to featured status.

A modification of Image:Unclesamwantyou.jpg would be really nice... :) Nice job with this, by the way. Excellent idea. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your suggestion. I'll see what I can do. Not sure the image would really fit into the banner-ad shape, but I can certainly make one for WP:PR – Qxz 06:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was thinking something along the lines of that, mostly to serve as a recruiting tool, and that is the iconic image for recruiting... perhaps a slight fade/zoom would work? Or perhaps Image:Kitchener-Britons.jpg... same pose, different subject. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came up with this. Any good? – Qxz 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. :) One little thing I noticed on #3, though: It says "Good Articles" and "Featured articles". The capitalization should be consistent on those. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does. Well spotted; one moment, I'll fix it – Qxz 19:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Upload an image" ad should go to Commons

Or at least to a page that points the Free Content images to commons. Wikipedia:Fromowner is a start ... it still points at en:wp. I'd hope this doesn't have to wait until Single User Logon - David Gerard 10:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this did occur to me when I was deciding where to point it. Pointing it at commons:Special:Upload would result in a "not logged in" error page for anyone who isn't currently logged in there (which I'd imagine is most people). Single User Login should hopefully solve this. A limitation of the <imagemap> extension is that it can't use arbitrary external links, else I'd point it at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=fromowner directly. I'll change it to Wikipedia:Fromowner for now. Thanks for your input – Qxz 16:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity and WikiCast..

Hi.

Your comment that non-Wikpedia stuff is likley to be rejected, but would it be possible for you to consider if an advert for the Wikiversity project is possible?

An 'ad' for WikiCast would also be appreciated longer term, but as you know WikiCast is not 'foundation' approved at the moment, so I doubt it falls within your criteria...

ShakespeareFan00 14:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your suggestion. I suppose cross-project advertising would probably be OK. Though I'm erring on the side of caution here; I'm trying to maintain as narrow a scope as possible because much of the community (myself included) is strongly opposed to commercial advertising on Wikipedia and I want it to be clear that what I am doing is nothing of the sort. Hence promoting things outside of the "official" Wikimedia projects is something of a slippery slope – once it starts, it's only a matter of time before things completely unrelated to Wikimedia are being promoted. People are likely to spot this, and the last thing I want is an MfD of User:Qxz/ad.css. Hence all the big, strongly-worded notices. I'll consider Wikiversity, though they're already linked from the bottom of the Main Page, which is a lot more visible than these ads will ever be. Thanks – Qxz 16:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...

While I adore your formal style, I think what you are proposing is over-reaction. There are plenty of other templates, and I cannot see the reason why this one (Blade Runner) is not suitable, and if it is, why others are not to be deleted? Besides, I don't want to offend you, but you couldn't be more vague than in comment on my talk page...Broken soul 14:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry if I was a bit vague. What I mean is that you accidentally created two pages. Unfortunately I misspelt the name of the second page myself, so that was probably a little difficult to see. Anyway, you created these pages:

Template:User Blade Runner
Template User:Blade Runner

As you can see, the page names have the colon in a different place. What this means is that while the first one is a template, the second is an article and won't actually work as a template, because it doesn't start with "Template:". If there was only the misnamed page, I'd move it to the correct name, but since an identical template already exists at the correct name, the misnamed copy isn't a lot of use. Named as it is, it's technically an article rather than a template – which makes it subject to the usual article content policies, which as a userbox it obviously doesn't meet. Hence why I proposed it for deletion. The deletion won't affect users of the template in any way, because everyone (including you) is using the correctly-named version. Hope this clears things up – Qxz 16:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now it is clear. I actually assumed that I made two templates and thought that you had in mind this mispelled one, but I was uncertain at that time. Ok, so the redundant one is ready for deletion. No problem, thanks. Have a nice day :) Broken soul 11:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dude

This is the anonymous vandal of the Nami page. I didn't get your message immeadiatley but have fixed the stuff I have edited since. I didn't know the rules here. Just wanted to say sorry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.77.78.193 (talk) 21:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I want to say sorryfor the vandalism again and ask if you could tell sir_james_paul for me I don't know how to talk to him.

It was a mistake

That edit was a mistake. I did not see that all he did was remove a space. My bad :( --James, La gloria è a dio 21:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to james guy

i did leave other stuff on there I shouldn't have but fixed it all and am really sorry I didn't know the rules. I actually thought it would just show it on this computer. once again I'm sorry, it won't happen again and please don't ban be I didn't know —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.77.78.193 (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

question

How do you get the you have knew message thing to go away? I read them and it is still there.

p.s. please don't ban me

Don't worry, I'm not an administrator, so I can't ban you. The 'new messages' bar should disappear once you've clicked on it and read the messages, but I think it sometimes behaves strangely with users who aren't logged in. The easiest way to fix that is to create an account – this has many benefits, it only takes a moment, and you don't have to provide an email address or any details like that, just a username and password. Thanks – Qxz 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad suggestions

Help your fellow editors. Respond to requests for comments ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome new users, and don't bite them ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your suggestions. I'll see what I can do – Qxz 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the no-newbie-biting one – Qxz 23:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC one 02:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I love the don't bite the new comers! Real96 03:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Awarded for creating fun, yet very educational ads. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WPSPAM

Could you possibly make something up for WP:WPSPAM. We can always use new volenteers to help deal with spam and advertising links. Enjoy the irony, and thanks ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eagle 101 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

here's an ugly one I made:

_→AzaToth 04:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, nice. Almost as annoying as the spam itself... :) – Qxz 05:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified it slightly and added it to the template – Qxz 05:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Request

Sweeeet. :p I'll let you know if I think of any more. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad suggestions

Could you please add these to your ad:
Please sign your posts on talk pages
Counter-Vandalism Unit

—ze ro _{(formerly User:Meteoroid)} 02:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your suggestions; I'll see what I can do. I'll do one for talk page signing, however I'm not sure about this "counter vandalism unit" because I haven't quite figured out what it is. It just seems to be a page telling you how to revert vandalism (which is redundant to the information on the official policy page and the Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism help page), and giving you a userbox with a nice logo to put on your page; I've dealt with a lot of vandalism without even having heard of this page before, so I'm curious as to what there is to advertise. Thanks – Qxz 02:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signatures – Qxz 03:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship ad

I would suggest a change where it asks "Have you edited for six months?" because it makes it sound like that is the required amount. It may put users who are perfectly capable off requesting, when users like myself, Husond, Arjun01, Ryanpostlethwaite and Yandman had less than that amount (recent examples) and passed. Also not too sure about the featured article thing either, or the clean block log; it just seems like these are just set standards being advertised and people may take them seriously. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 02:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your feedback. I have scanned through a number of adminship requests and found that many users will oppose a user with less than six months' experience; the fact that some users get through with less doesn't affect the fact that six months is the point at which one can feel certain they will not be opposed solely for length of time with the project. Your argument that it's better not to make the standards look higher than they are is a good point; however, I think it is better to do that than to make the standards appear lower than they are and risk misleading users. In other words, if someone meets the standards specified they will almost certainly pass an RfA, rather than just having a chance depending on circumstances. Furthermore, I think some of the latter frames in the animation should make it clear beyond reasonable doubt that these are not set standards. Thanks – Qxz 02:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've reworded some of the sections in a way that is hopefully agreeable to all. I've also extended the disclaimer at the end. Is this to your satisfaction? – Qxz 03:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comet article vandalism report...

I found you here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jesserich If you look at the history on the comet page, between this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comet&oldid=114730362 and this one by Jesserich: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comet&oldid=114829467 the article seems to have "reproduced" itself multiple times. I would try to fix it but I'm a bit a noob about that sort of thing. So I am leaving you this note, thinking you can fix it quickly and properly. Feel free to drop me a note at my talk page if you think I could have figured how to do it myself! Thanks much, human 02:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for bringing this issue to my attention; it has now been resolved. The issue you encountered was most likely caused by vandalism – intentionally unconstructive edits to the article. If in future you wish to fix such problems yourself, you can 'revert' the article to an earlier version that hasn't been tampered with. See Help:Reverting#How_to_revert. Thanks – Qxz 02:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! And maybe next time, I'll be BOLD and try to do it myself. human 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I use any of these?

I saw this page in recent edits and got curious, so I clicked it. Do you mind if I use any of those images? I don't want to use them without your permission. Bsroiaadn 02:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your query. They are intended to be displayed in a userpage template I have made; you can add this to your own userpage using {{User:Qxz/ad.css}}. I have set up an information page at User:Qxz/Ads; see that for details. You are free to use the individual images as you wish, provided you comply with the license terms for those images which have a license (as far as internal use within Wikipedia is concerned, you can do anything you want). Thanks – Qxz 02:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ad4

I'm not sure that linking to from owner is a good idea since it only offers one lisence option and most wikipedians want more.Geni 03:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See David Gerard's comment above. Ideally it would link to Special:Upload on Commons, but for most users that would just give a "you are not logged in" error page. Do you have a better suggestion, or shall I just change it back to Special:Upload? (and subsequently be asked to change it back, ad infinitum...) – Qxz 03:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

would not be a major problem to set up a fromadvert system. Would need to find some sucker to look after it to a degree.Geni 03:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not worth the effort, this is only a small thing. I'll change it back to Special:Upload, then, if people want multiple licenses. Once single user login comes along it should be possibly to point it to Commons. Thanks – Qxz 03:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Template User:Blade Runner

Hi - you wrote: I'd appreciate it if you could actually read nominations before commenting on them. Please look carefully at the name: this page is an article, not a template, which is why I brought it to AfD. ... As it's technically an article, and I'm arguing for its deletion based on its inappropriateness as an article, not its inappropriateness as a template, AfD is surely the preferred venue. I've now been told to take it to TfD (by another person who I suspect didn't read the nomination) and I won't be at all surprised if it gets referred back to AfD. Please don't just read the word "template" and trot out that same old quip about which door to try. Thanks

I'd appreciate it if you also read the nomination which - even though you wrote it, it seems you did not do. Its title makes it clear that it is not technically an article, and you made it clear that the creator intended it to be a template. As such, TfD or MfD are the only possible places for it - not AfD. Given the creator's original intention, TfD is a likely place to take it, but if you'd prefer,take it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Whichever of the two you prefer, it certainly does not belong at AfD. As to your last line, please don't let "that same old quip" be a cause of you forgetting your civility. Grutness...wha? 05:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA Graphic

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For your absolutely hysterical RfA gif, in which you prove that the truth is funnier than fiction can ever be. Kudos!! -- Avi 18:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! – Qxz 19:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newest addition

_→AzaToth 19:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there *is*... in fact, there are hundreds. Oh, never mind :) – Qxz 19:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there isn't.... :) _→AzaToth 19:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IS! – Qxz 19:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmm... I thought you would get the joke in the "ad". _→AzaToth 20:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Wikipediahistory

Hey Qxz, I'm concerned that Conservapedia has been added to "Related projects and forks" in this template. To be honest, I'm not sure how it's related to Wikipedia at all (except for their baseless assertions of bias, but that's irrelevant). I think that including Conservapedia in this list (and I haven't checked the other members) could imply that it is, in fact, "related" to Wikipedia in an official way, which isn't at all accurate. Could you clarify your reasons for adding it? Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 19:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's "related" because it's a wiki-based Internet encyclopedia that makes repeated references to Wikipedia in its principles – in fact, it almost defines itself by pointing out issues with Wikipedia which it wants to avoid. I think that counts as "related". If you can suggest a different wording that you think doesn't make it sound official, go ahead and change it; however, I given some of the existing items on there (Wikitruth, for example), I don't think anyone's going to mistake it for a list of related projects – and I would argue Conservapedia deserves to be on there at least as much as Wikitruth does. Thanks – Qxz 19:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I wasn't speaking to the other items, but I agree, and would argue that Wikitruth should also not be included. :) Forks I don't have a problem with including, but from what I can tell, there are only 2 listed that could possibly be called forks. I guess my problem is with what the definition of "related" is — who determines whether a project is related to Wikipedia? I guess I should move this to the talk page of the template. Headed there now. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 20:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the help on this! Your tweaked layout is much nicer than my original... - Denny 19:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think Citizendium should be there as a fork of Wikipedia? I added it, feel free to rv it out if you don't think so. Also, how can I get your ads centered on my user page? I can't seem to get the code right to have it center-aligned... - Denny 20:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizendium isn't actually a fork of Wikipedia (it originally was but they decided to delete all the Wikipedia articles and start again), but I think it definitely qualifies as a related project because it compares itself to Wikipedia and is generally regarded as an attempt to re-invent Wikipedia with different policies in order to eliminate percieved flaws – Qxz 20:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To center something, use:

<div align=center>

[insert item here]

</div>

– Qxz 20:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, apparently

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. NSR77 23:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Please accept my humblest apologies. I was running through Recent Changes with VP rather quickly and saw the deletion which was made to a Disambiguation page, without actually check what the edit was. Once again, I am deeply sorry for an incontinence I may have caused, and with your permission, will remove my previous message!! NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)}

That's quite all right. I suppose it's my fault for not leaving a more detailed summary, like "removing excessive redlinks from disambiguation page in accordance with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) this is not vandalism please do not revert it" rather than "format". I'm assuming the word "incontinence" in your previous message is a typo? Rest assured I have not suffered from that as a result of your edit. All the best – Qxz 00:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no, it was intended be "inconvenience". Word must have picked it up as a different spelling. Nonetheless, I apologize once again and thank you for being so understanding. Regards, NSR77 ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 00:08 March 15, 2007 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit

Is it possible for you to make an ad that represents joining for the Counter-Vandalism Unit? zero » 00:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so... it's just I still don't really understand what the 'counter-vandalism unit' is. Is it just a group of people who do RC Patrol a lot? Is there a separate WikiProject page somewhere that lists members or something? The page you link just seems to be an information page, and I wouldn't do an ad just for an information page, though I'll happily do an ad for the concept of RC Patrol in general – Qxz 00:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the {{permprot}} rollout? Has this been discussed? Are you going to follow up by protecting these? Or is someone else? Or should I? Hesperian 03:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The corresponding templates are all protected and tagged with {{protected template}} already – I'm just tagging the talk pages with {{permprot}} in cases where it hasn't been done. I'm not going to protect or unprotect anything – apart from anything else I'm not an administrator, so I can't. Thanks – Qxz 03:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I see. I looked up at the top of the page and noticed it wasn't protected... but that was the talk page not the template itself. Sorry to waste your time. Hesperian 03:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of wiki farms

Hi. Thanks for adding the better coding for the table. Someone had added the "sortable" code earlier, but that caused the internal grid lines in the table to disappear. I had been trying other code to fix it, but with limited success. Your addition/substitution of

class="sortable wikitable"

fixed several problems. The grid lines are not as dark. They are now gray. That looks better. Also, the last column now has grid lines, too. The background of blank cells is now gray, instead of white. That looks better.

I used the code to fix the tables here:

Comparison of raster graphics editors --Timeshifter 04:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "wikitable" class is the standard for these sorts of tables across the project and gives, as you observed, grid lines and borders in a colour that matches the rest of the interface. What I imagine happened is that someone replaced class="wikitable" with class="sortable", not realizing that it is possible to use more than one class at once as I have done. (Another example is class="messagebox standard-talk" used on talk page templates, where the "messagebox" part gives it a border, centers it and makes it 80% of the width of the screen, while the "standard-talk" part gives it the orange-brown color) – Qxz 04:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad suggestion

Hey, how about a possible AIV banner. Something flashy that would get the message across that people should report only after a user violates a t3 or t4 (uw-3 or uw-4) warning, and not before they go against the warning. That might be effective (maybe we can put it on AIV, itself lol). Tell me if you like the suggestion. Nishkid 64 04:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea; AIV - Report vandals! Then, the next slide "only after they vandalize after a t3/t4 warning!". Something like that. Nishkid 64 04:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your suggestion. I'll see what I can do – Qxz 04:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made it more of a generic "how to deal with vandalism" one, and it links to Wikipedia:Vandalism, but it does explain when to report users (and it uses the same colours as the message on WP:AIV) – Qxz 05:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work in progress

Great essay! - David Gerard 16:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! (And someone noticed it at last, yay!) – Qxz 17:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It got blogged. I'm suddenly addicted to http://open.wikiblogplanet.com/ ... - David Gerard 17:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Pennsylvania

Would you mind making something for Wikiproject Pennsylvania to help promote it? The project isn't going so well, with only 22 members, and I was looking for something to grab people's interest and get them involved. Thanks, 1312020Wikicop 20:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your suggestion. I'll see what I can do – Qxz 22:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this OK? – Qxz 04:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit requests on protected templates

Hi Qxz. The templates are tagged with the {{permprot}} tag on the talk pages, which is how they should be (I actually started making a few of the changes then realised it was unnecessary). I have used rollback to revert your edits; please don't take offence to this, but there were a lot of pages you made the same request to. Neil (not Proto ►) 22:27, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, I can see the talk pages are all tagged with {{permprot}}; in most cases that's because I put it there. :) However, I was under the impression that protected templates were meant to be tagged with {{protected template}} as well. Two reasons for this; first, {{permprot}} is on the talk page, not the template page, and second and more importantly, {{protected template}} puts the templates into a category (Category:Protected templates), which I assume is necessary in order to keep track of which templates are protected, and {{permprot}} doesn't. (Even if it did, it would categorize the talk pages, so that would be no good). Apologies if I've misunderstood, but if so could you possibly clarify for me in which situations {{protected template}} does need to be used and when it doesn't? Thanks – Qxz 22:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually the first time I've come across it, as I was under the impression that templates got tagged via {{permprot}} on their talk pages (that's how I always did it). Hmm. Perhaps asking at Wikipedia talk:Protection policy what the best thing to do would be a good idea? Neil (not Proto ►) 22:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for clarification on Wikipedia talk:Protection policy ... I'm not sure myself! Neil (not Proto ►) 22:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Santin has very kindly handled the requests for me. Apologies for taking up your time – Qxz 04:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: {{editprotected}} requests

Heh, thanks. ^_^ Who says guys can't appreciate flowers, eh? Unless this is one more in a long series of "Luna is a girl's name :o" jokes! Much appreciated, and always glad to help out those who help out the community. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harder

I wrote:

Should we make Wikipedia harder from people who are vandalists or etc., like a special test?(Trampton 04:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

You replied:

How exactly would this work (without affecting the fundamental anyone-can-edit philosophy of the project)? – Qxz 18:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replied:

Well, aren't we being too too easy, I think some users are kinda sick of vandalists and reverting their mistakes.(Trampton 11:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Julian Amyes

This shouldn't be a redlink as I just done a basi stub based on infomration in the IMDB and BFI databases (both entries linked from stub)

ShakespeareFan00 12:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Sailing vessels and rigging AD

Even though wikiproject sailing vessels and rigging is active it only has three members. Please create an ad saying basicaly this "WikiProject Sailing and Rigging needs Members Join and Sail around Wiki", Thank you Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talkTodays Pick 15:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]