![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Hi, Please add stub tags at the end of articles, not at the beginning as you did for Symmetric inverse semigroup - it makes life easier for people doing stub-sorting. See WP:STUB which says "By convention this is placed at the end of the article, after the External links section, any navigation templates, and the category tags, so that the stub category will appear last." Thanks, PamD (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article OpenType feature tag list, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((dated prod))
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Ros0709 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Pcap, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((helpme))
before the question. Again, welcome! DougsTech (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
You have totally misunderstood me. I'm not a fan of Jurnalul naţional, in fact I never read it; I have no relationship with it whatsoever. I just consider it important in that particular context that the most read newspaper in Romania uses the old spelling. Don't you think this is relevant, objectively speaking?
If you had taken the time to read the source I mentioned you'd have also realized that it's not just today that JN is in the top, but it has been so for the last three years. I understand you don't like the source (Antena 1); you are free to find a replacement. The original source, Biroul Român de Audit al Tirajelor, is not part of the same trust, or is it?
I have no intention to start an edit war with you. If you think the information I added is totally useless, I'll just step away. But you behave as if you were the owner of that article. May I remind you that no editor owns it, no matter their share of contribution.
One small final point: Please don't shout at me, I have pretty good hearing. — AdiJapan 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
If you have a question about a policy or guideline or other instructional information, please ask on the relevant talk/discussion page - don't edit the policy or guideline or instructional page itself. I've deleted your question from the above page; if you want to ask it again, please do so at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. -- John Broughton (dd) 20:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
VG, thanks for the welcoming to the Wikipdea community. I look forward to helping out where I can. Thanks again for posting those helpful getting started links. I'm still working on my wiki markup skills! Isaiahdw (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll add short section to Yau's bio with the claims he made about academic corruption in China. That story was carried by Xinhua in English (and it's not a blog). Please make the content available to me. Thanks, Pohta ce-am pohtit (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Just a comment as to what you said on AN/I. Being notable in its niche is often the problem with a lot of articles on wikipedia. These types of things are notable with the type of people who edit wikipedia and their articles. Yet when held up to policy they often don't meet it. Things really need to be notable to the general public and not just to the niche. That is why WP:NOTE was created. --Crossmr (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you. --Architengi (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pohta ce-am pohtit. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —?????? •discussion• 23:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your comment here. Who said anything about having a policy and a guideline? I think the discussion is solely about renaming or not renaming the guideline page. Everyme 13:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Your comment here was entirely correct. In fact I had already decided not to reply, but that's not important: you put the AfD back on track. For essentially the same reason, I've removed your section on the title. I don't see the benefit of forking the !vote in the middle of an AfD. If editors want to change the title, then they can say so in their comments. Geometry guy 07:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Rescuer's Barnstar | |
I honor you with the Rescuer's Award for having the propensity to snatch articles from the jaws of death. The right decision was made, and that is most important. --Architengi (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC) |
![]() |
Life Preserver Star | |
I honor you with the Life Preserver Star Award for flagging for rescue, improving, and rescuing the article NimbleX which was marked for deletion. You came up with the perfect improvements for the article right from the third-party sources and you managed to rescue it: ([1]). Keep up the very good work to improve Wikipedia! --Architengi (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC) |
I've been working on it quite a bit and would appreciate it if you would take another look. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you're right, it's hard to not respond in the face of this kind of things, but I think I'll heed your advice, it's taking up too much of my time anyway... Happy editing! --Crusio (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a count of (154/3/2). I appreciate the community's trust in me, and I will do my best to be sure it won't regret handing me the mop. I am honored by your trust and your support. Again, thank you. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:05, 27 September 2008 (UTC) |
Thanks for that! :). It seemed the WP:BOLD thing to do; I didn't want the entire RfA derailed by people going off on a freedom of speech tangent (happened to me last time round with an atheism userbox). My personal views on the topic are mixed, but tend towards the look-at-his-contributions end of the scale. Ironholds 20:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Vasile
I hope that there is merit to the above-captioned article. However, even a million articles with the name in their titles won't convince me that the term isn't being used simply as an adjective modifying a noun (e.g., "yellow paint"). If you want to rescue the article, perhaps it would be worthwhile trying to add content instead of references.
Rgds, Bongomatic (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the award and for endorsing my closure at the inevitable DRV. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I added some references to SevOne. You may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SevOne. -- Eastmain (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I added some comments on the deletion page. I have edited many pages before, but never started a new one so I don't know what is required to prove it is notable. Captkrob (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I added this comment in response to your comment, but the AfD had been closed in the interim. (It took me quite a while to compose a response to your comment.) My comment remains in the discussion; it was added in good faith since I didn't know the discussion had been closed while I was composing it, but I wanted to alert you to the comment in case you stopped watching the discussion after it was closed. Presumably any further comment should be on your talk page (I'm watching) or mine. I'm not sure additional comment is necessary, though. Frank | talk 01:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this message is to inform you that User:Foxy Loxy has restarted their RfA. The new discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. GlassCobra 09:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
It would really help me--and I suppose others--if you would say more than just "Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources," and indicate just what the specific problem is--whether the sources are not third party, are not reliable, are not sufficient for notability, or are absent altogether--all in the context of the specific article. This hels to show you've considered the individual circumstances, focuses the discussion, and leads to more certain and quicker deletions of the ones that need to be deleted. DGG (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
DGG's comment above is supported. You nominated Black Lake, Saskatchewan for deletion when it was perfectly obvious it was a place and thus obviously notable per policy. BTW, it had a third-party source at the time you nominated it. Better practice would be to comment on the talk page or tag the page about what the deficits are versus "patrolling" in this way. There are a number of ways to contribute to improvements in articles, deletion proposals being only one of a number. Please consider using some of these. Unless you are an "unapologetic deletionist". Kindly, Fremte (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
FYI, Category:Biography is a category about the genre of biography (and Category:Biographies is a redirect to it), so you should avoid adding it to articles about individuals. Categories that reference a specific occupation, like Category:American songwriters, would be more appropriate. Thanks. --Russ (talk) 10:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The article has been reduced to a disambig page. Please renew your comments BMW(drive) 20:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite flattered you've asked, but the fact is I have a lot of enemies here, as proven quite recently. Maybe in a few months the situation will look better - I'll let you know. But thank you. Biruitorul Talk 01:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
A Thank You Card! | |
---|---|
![]() |
Dear Pohta ce-am pohtit, thank you so much for your words of support, kindness, and your trust in me. My request for Adminship has been closed, and the support the community has shown will be with me forever. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am, and all I can tell you is this: I shall try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, please tell me! :) If you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you are welcome to ask, and I shall do my very best.
Please take care. G.A.S 05:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC) |
I wish I'd been paying more attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NetSupport Manager (2nd nomination) now. The reason I stated advertising as a reason, and I realise now I wasn't clear, is that the guy who wrote the article is the guy who wrote NetSupport Manager. Just curious whether this would have affected your "Keep"? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Pohta ce-am pohtit, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, SpencerT¦C 02:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I saw you comments at WP:Comp Sc. Perhaps you haven't seen this discussion ? -- Tinu Cherian - 10:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello VG. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC) |
Please see my comments there, particularly this one: reliable sources do exist for the basic facts, at the very least.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Much thanks for supporting in my recent RfA, I appreciate your trust. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you much for your support in my recent RfA, which just passed. Kindest, Lazulilasher (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
I would like to draw your attention to this AfD discussion I have just started. I am leaving this message here as you were involved in the previous discussion about this page which ended just over a week ago. I realise that this renomination is not within the normal acceptable time frame and I have outlined my reasoning for the exception on the discussion page. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! All the best, Ale_Jrbtalk 20:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to review my RfA. While you did not support my nomination, I still appreciate the fact that you took the time to evaluate my contributions, and provide me with important feedback. Even though my RfA was successful, I intend to take your advice and do some significant article work as well. All the best, Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the defense - I've had the same problem with Coren's searchbot a number of times before. Left a note on his page about it, too. --User:AlbertHerring Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla! 13:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again--Jac16888 (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the input on both essays. The PDT is closer to mainspace than bludgeon, and I appreciate all the help I can get on them. Bludeon is a much harder essay to write as well, since it covers a broader topic area. If enough good people contribute, it may actually be more than a little useful soon. PHARMBOY (TALK) 12:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. I just didn't want to overstep my rights here. Thanks for the clarification. Thingg⊕⊗ 16:04, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the second opinion on the GA review - I had major concerns about coverage and about the "programmers' guide" impression DOS made, but was worried that I might have been asking for too much - I used DOS from the mid-1980s to late 1990s, and was getting no feeling from the article that this was the product I had used. I may have a go at improving it myself in a month, if no-one else steps up first.
If you have any comments on my approach to the review I'd be glad to hear them, as I'm a rookie reviewer. -- Philcha (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Non-admin User:NuclearWarfare closed as redirect a bunch of articles on Axis of Time characters: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jane_Willet_(fictional_character), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mike_Judge_(fictional_character), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J_Lonesome_Jones_(fictional_character), Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Karen_Halabi_(fictional_character), even thoug all of the !votes were delete. I could support redirects to Characters_in_the_Axis_of_Time_Trilogy, where these characters are already covered, even though such redirects are of little use because a search for those names returns the Characters_in_the_Axis_of_Time_Trilogy article anyway, but the redirects to Axis of Time make even less sense, and were against consensus. I'm inclined to adjust the redirects just to avoid any drama, but I thought to check with you first since you have lost of experience with the AfD process. Thanks, VG ☎ 07:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
You beat me to it. I was myself going to remove the "self-pub" tag, as http://atarimagazines.com/ is NOT a magizine, nor published ny Atari, and acts only as a redirect to the "Classic Computer Magazine Archive". Good job. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the Barnstar! Being brand new at this, I wasn't sure the page was going to be there when I woke up this morning, having never been through the AfD process before. I have to admit I am more than a little overwhelmed by all there is to learn, but thanks to people like you, I will stick with it. Eggzactly (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Your entry was ill-informed and your posting was inserted in between the contributions of other Wikipedia editors who were contributing to the discussion. You should observe that this at the link: Joe the Plumber Consensus: Dispute on tax lien issue expands to dispute on consensus the topic you raised was already addressed. You said:
" This long discussion strikes me as forum shopping for those that don't like the result on the article's talk page because it's debating the exact same issue as the talk page. Interested editors have seen it, and have been put on notice already. I don't see what else this this long thread is going to achieve. It's time to close it."
The users who moved the discussion, moved it FROM the talk page to where it is now. You came in without ever having contributed to the discussion, and evidently haven't taken the time to fully look at the discussion. We all want to resolve this issue, but impatiently swooping in and in the middle of everything explaining to us that "it's time to close it," without having even assessed what this is all about seems too careless and callous. Thanks for your interest, and if you have anything to contribute to this issue please participate. We need a fresh perspective. Please try to support your statements with logic and not emotion. --VictorC (talk) 23:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive support for the page George Karakunnel. Simon Cheakkanal (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
You may wish to join the discussion I started here about the aparent inconsistencies in the two policies. -- The Red Pen of Doom 13:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Joe the Plumber, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Inclusionist (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
One of the deleters changed your keep vote at the AfD to a "comment". I changed it back. You may wish to keep on eye out in case it happens again. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:39, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
This diff was a terrific thing to do and I am sure raised the author's spirits greatly. Wiki can be incredibly daunting to newbies, and your Oddball Barnstar was just the thing to make him feel like family. Nice. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi Pohta ce-am pohtit! Thank you very much for your support in my RfA, which passed yesterday. I hope not to let you and the others down, and use the tools for the benefit of the project. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 21:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for drawing my attention to inherent problems with Remote Data/Deposit Capture. I worry you assumed I was acting maliciously in trying to clarify the stub in response to your initial concerns. I assure you this was not the case. I am completely pleased with the result you helped WP to achieve, and sincerely appreciate your contributions to the project. Thanks again, --Thomas B♘talk 04:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC) (Updated for clarity)--Thomas B♘talk 04:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
They really need to extend the list in twinkle (which I used to create the AFD), I didn't realise there was that category until you added it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
You used false CSD numbers, namely CSD 10, in several messages you posted on my talk page. CSD 10 is for attack articles and other negative articles and could not possibly apply to redirects, which what those pages were when I created them. Please do not post such false messages in the future they can be considered personal attacks. Hobartimus (talk) 05:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed your comments on the FAC. Could you review my changes and replies?
Thanks for commenting,
--Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 02:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
i recently noticed that you are claiming about unsourced edits on battle of longewala i have not added any unsourced material im reverting edits by a new random editor and maintaning what the user MRG inserted a long while ago 86.158.236.85 (talk) 18:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
This article has been rewritten. Please visit the AfD discussion to see if your concerns have been addressed. Thank you. -- Banjeboi 22:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi VG, I was wondering if you were interested in adminship? Let me know if you're interested. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not very good at Wikipedia, so I hope I am writing to the right person. If I understand things correctly you, VG, were the person who proposed it, (Taken in Hand), for deletion. I have never contributed to this article, nor have I seen the website "takeninhand.com".
I was discussing with some friends a variety of new words and expresseions which have entered the English language in the last 5 years, including "dogging", "office wife" and *taken in hand". There was some discussion as to whether "taken in hand" was a domination/contolling style relationship, or a leadership/guidance/caring type of relationship. We decided to clarify the answer by looking it up in Wikipedia. We were somewhat surprised to find that an article on this subject had been deleted in the past few days before we looked.
In our opinion the words "taken in hand" are used to describe the state of a relationship between a man and a woman. "She is a taken in hand wife/girlfriend" "She is taken in hand", They have a "taken in hand relationship". From an encyclopedic point of view taken in hand" is a type of relationship between two partners, in the same way that "marriage", "domination" "subserviance" or "love" can describe a relationship between two people.
I have heard the words used to describe both the domination/contolling style relationship and leadership/guidance/caring type of relationship. Possibly both are correct, and an article is needed to clarify the meaning.
One of the reasons mentioned for deletion was that it was a BDSM term. I have not really heard it used as a BDSM term, although the submissive in a BDSM relationship may also be in a "taken in hand" relationship, just as they could be in a "married" relationship, or a "love" realtionship, but one does not automatically imply the other.
Another reason given for deletion was that this term is not used beyond the site "takeninhand.com". This is not true. Me and my friends had never heard of such as site before looking at the deletion log. Clearly "Taken in hand" would not have been discussed by us if the term was not in wider use beyond a website. In fact the taken in hand style relationship is widely used as an experession. To prove this, use Firefox, go to Tools and check the box "Search for text as I start typing". Now load Google and start typing "Taken in...". Immediately you will see all the common searches by Firefox users on Googele. You will note that the second term searched is "Taken in hand relationship" with 6.6 million searches, with more than 100'000 websites referring to the term. "Taken in hand" is a widely known and widely used term.
However, I agree that the Wikipedia encyclopedic reference should not be a crib of an existing website. I also think that the reference in Wikipedia should be to "Taken in hand relationship", not to just "taken in hand". I would like to re-start the article under a new name "taken in hand realtionship". Please can you consider this and give me your support? Although (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
The Barnstar of Diligence is hereby awarded in recognition of extraordinary scrutiny, precision, and community service, especially in regard to article improvement.
Awarded by PhilKnight (talk) 10:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC) |
Hi, You missed SA off your list, making it 19. All the best, Verbal chat 16:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to maintain WP:ACST (which is indeed designed as the kitchen sink list of Wikipedia in academia), and recently written and submitted a paper about academic studies about Wikipedia; I didn't know about this page, though. Are you an academic yourself? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I responded to your oppose !vote on my successful Rfa, but it closed before you got a chance to respond. What about my posts to WP:AN convinced you that I would intervene in content disputes? I don't think I made any content judgements in the posts I made. I'd appreciate hearing your response. Thanks!--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 21:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The current wikimedia server setup does use dvipng to make images, as I found out when I was researching bugzilla:15777. The image file corruption is probably not due to the texvc program itself. It's probably because of some issue with the image servers, or with a server problem that makes texvc abort in the middle of execution, leaving the image file created but empty. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I've deleted it. Hut 8.5 18:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Would you reconsider the manner of presenting the final quote? Although I haven't been active at the noticeboard discussion on this site, the images are hosted at Commons where I'm an administrator and it's a rather difficult matter. The individual under discussion is demonstrably not well, yet that particular colorful turn of phrase is gratuitous and perhaps harmful--the fellow is functional enough to log into our website and if he reads that no good would come of it. Perhaps a refactor, a link to the diff, or some other less on-the-nose reference? DurovaCharge! 20:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Your response to Colonel Warden accusing him of "bullshitting" violates WP:FAITH, and is also a violation of WP:EQ, especially since you state an unwillingness to check all the sources cited by him. Please review both behavioral guidelines as the AFD process continues. You are welcome to disagree, but accusations of that sort against another editor are not aceeptable. 23skidoo (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I have hopefully given you an answer that is in line with the question. If i have misunderstood your question feel free to respond :) Thank you for the time in posting a question and reading my response. Seddσn talk 02:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
[Broken template removed] (06:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC))
Hello Pcap, I posted a reply to your comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Content_dispute. When you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could review what I wrote and respond. Thanks! --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello Pcap, I posted a reply to your comment on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Content_dispute. When you have time, I'd appreciate it if you could review what I wrote and respond. Thanks! --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 21:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
And butting into this section because it has "thank you" in the title, thanks for the courtesy of notifying me about the recent AfD. If I was snappy, I apologize. --Kizor 01:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that if the nominator did a good-faith withdrawal, it was closed no matter what. Maybe I am wrong though - I can't find any policies that mention this scenario. Do you know of any? — neuro(talk) 21:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Let me summarize the issue in clear terms, better than my edit summary could. For one, the article is obviously about the Romanian ethnicity; the statistics cited are not, they are about the citizenship. While I could stop right there, allow me to elaborate on an even more obvious point: the statistics in question refer to migrant workers, who are counted at home as citizens, and who reside in other countries for variable periods, but always non-permanently. If they were to live there permanently, they would not be included in those statistics. Hope you see that this has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being counted twice. No, the issue is not even about "deducting from the total", but, if anything, about deducting a specific number of migrant Romanian workers (those who are ethnic Romanian) from the 19 million ethnic Romanians living at home. As if such a thing were feasible... and, even if it were, invitations to modify other numbers are invitations to original research.
The numbers are there just because, long ago, a group of rudimentary trolls pushed them in, in order to make the total number of Romanians seem gigantic. The only reason these "references" survived for so long was illustrated only recently by you: once they got their foot in the door, people need to be explained the exact problem that posed. In the absence of reliable data about even a worldwide total of ethnic Romanians, we are left with "verified sources" that verify whatever other information, none of which is actually relevant for the article. Dahn (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I hope you don't think it unappropriate but I have removed your comment from the WPM page. I did this out of sensitivity to TE. I have informed User:CBM about the matter, a "math admin" as requested. I don't think it needs to publicised more than that. Martin 19:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Pcap: I see what you mean. The backstory with wikiprojects may not be obvious to newer editors. Many editors object when a wikiproject tries to "take over" some general aspect of the project, or when it appears to be a clique that protects its own members from scrutiny. Examples:
I hope the math project doesn't have a bad reputation, since it does a lot of good work and I don't see the same sorts of problems as with intelligent design articles. But quite a few people already complain about math articles ("too technical", "don't understand, can't read") and I'm afraid it's easy for discomfort with the topic of mathematics to turn into discomfort with editors who are associated with it. So, as a project, we need to be aware of the image we project. One important thing we should do is to participate with the broader community of editors on the community talk pages like the village pump and WP:ANI, especially for discussions that are not directly about mathematics articles or project business. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed my reference tweaks and disambiguation changes in addition to adding unsourced information. Did you mean to do this? I'm uncertain why you would consider reference and grammar repair whitewashing? The information you added about someone else decrypting the statue hadn't been in the article before and you didn't provide any sort of a reference to back up the claim you were making. Shell babelfish 22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |