Kku

	This editor is a Looshpah Laureate of the Encyclopedia and is entitled to display this Book of All Knowledge with Secret Appendix, Errata Sheet, and Author's Signature.

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spring Web Flow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MVC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Proposal to merge some small forestry articles

Maybe you edit on forestry was small but as it was fairly recent and I am struggling to get comments from that wikiproject perhaps you would like to comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ecoforestry#Merge_proposal

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Kku. Thank you for your work on Burnin Red Ivanhoe. Another editor, Boleyn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Please add references

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Boleyn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kku, thank you for your work on Guyana Sugar Corporation.

I work in the corporate affairs team at Tate & Lyle Sugars. We’d like to request a correction is made to this page - Guyana Sugar Corporation specifically, the line: “The company was formed in 1976, when the government of Guyana nationalised and merged the sugar estates operated by Booker Sugar Estates Limited, Tate and Lyle and Jessels Holdings to form the Guyana Sugar Corporation.”

Tate & Lyle (in any guise/ownership) has never owned or invested in any plantation in Guyana. This is confirmed on the Guyana Sugar Corporation’s own website (https://guysuco.gy/our-company/) which states: “By 1967, there were eighteen (18) estates: serving eleven (11) factories, nine of which were owned and/or managed by Booker McConnell Limited, the other two, by the Demerara Company. In 1973, the ownership of the sugar industry was in the hands of two London-based companies – Jessels Securities which owned two factories and accounted for about fifteen percent (15%) of the total sugar production; five percent (5%) was produced by an independent Guyanese factory, owned by the Vieiras and eighty percent (80%) by Booker McConnell.”

Once you and any other interested parties have reviewed our requested correction and the relevant sources, please could you remove any reference to Tate and Lyle on this page. Thank you. Sugarclc (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)