![]() | This page 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. |
I hadn't heard from Nexus for a while, but a quick glance at their homepage reveals a rather profound interest in conspiracy theories, alternative health and other whackiness. I do not regard it as a useful source. JFW | T@lk 01:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I forgot to ask you. Any reason why you never added the information from Beaches of The Big Island (1985) to the article? You said you were going to on the talk page. :-) Viriditas ( talk) 11:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Do you believe you might be interested in this image? Best,-- Mbz1 ( talk) 05:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Funny, took me some seconds to find the source. Do you have an explanation as for why you merely helped the other editor avoid an edit war (while almost dragging me into one) instead of what I did? I mean, other than having a personal bias against that statement (or editors supporting it)? Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 17:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Michal. I've upload ones per your recommendation. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 15:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, files File:Maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais, underside 01.jpg and File:Maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais, side view 01.jpg were deleted, because they were under CC-BY-NC-3.0 licenses. Images at Wikimedia Commons have to require commercial use. "Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses are not accepted."
I have found another acceptable images:
-- Snek01 ( talk) 14:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If you will need to rotate some image, that is already on commons, add one of these to the image page
{{rotate|90}} {{rotate|180}} {{rotate|270}}
and the image will be rotated by a bot. -- Snek01 ( talk) 22:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | On August 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maize weevil, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
whale meat at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
I have replaced this in the suggestions as there's an unresolved neutrality tag on the article; if you could address any remaining issues with whoever placed the tag as soon as possible that would be great. Regards, Espresso Addict ( talk) 21:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, sure, we can remove the POV tag for now... :) Malick78 ( talk) 09:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
y did you not like my pie entry....totally accurate and i sited it....what is your problem..meanie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxride924 ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Anna,
just read about the invitation to ask for help if needed. Here is my question:
What do is your advice to solve this controversy?
Facts: (there is an interesting collection of german authentic recipes that I denoted as empirical examples in some articels) (My point of view: it is empirical material, page not big enough to be commercial, not connected to any exceptional advantages for the author/owner of that page, absolutely important for wikipedia user to know about) (Point of view of another Wiki-User: the url I linked to is spam)
Dear Barek,
in regard to your spam declaration for bobbinis-kitchen.com/quarkkeulchen:
please would you be so kind to explain to me the difference between the empiric example (see url above) and http://www.recipe-recipes-message-board.com/forum/view_topic.php?forum_id=98&id=1276 that is still denoted as a sample on the article quarkkeulchen and not declared as spam??
I do not understand where the linking to a webpage of noncommercial extent like bobinis-kitchen.com/quarkkeulchen breaks the rules of linking. Especially, when the content of this webpage is definetly "scientifical" and not just entertainment or business.
As far as wikipedia declared, there are anyway no exceptional advantages that any webpage could get by beeing linked to by a wikipedia article.
I would appreciate if we could undo the spam declaration for bobbinis-kitchen.com.
Regards Bonzothedog
Thank you!
Regards Bonzothedog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzothedog ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly this is it! Thank you Anna! Now Barek sended me a warning. I have declared in one discussion belonging to article quarkkeulchen that I do not understand the difference he makes between my linking and the linking of others to the same kind of webinfo and undid his change in this specific one case... before I had linked to about 5 pages on the same url. I'm just interested in cooking at the moment and especially deal with the german cuisine at the moment, I am german.. This Url in my eyes represented the best example for a german cuisine documentation 2010 so I linked to it.
I don't think the treatment of my linking is fair in regard to all the other links. Do you think there is a way to convince Barek that he makes a severe mistake? Great support!!! Have a nice day!
![]() | On 14 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Callophrys sheridanii, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
hello, thanks for Callophrys sheridanii. i noticed it from DYK. could you tidy the distribution section? thanks. =) - Shootbamboo ( talk) 02:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why you would list the reason for this not being an article as "already exists," when a "gurn" is an entirely different thing.
Like it or not, and however unsuitable you think this is to define, the duck face is referred to in articles all over the internet. The fact that it's talked about THAT much provides enough reason for it being here. The reason you listed is illegitimate. Too bad!
Maybe ya should think about the fact that it's a term used in conversation and that you're linking it w/ something it's not. My professors in college might have been right about this site GeorgeLoomis3 ( talk) 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not the same thing as a "gurn." In fact I'm not sure where to start in this reply because it's so incredibly unlike a gurn. Only similarity is both involve human faces. If you asked most Americans what "duck face" is, I'm positive that more would know that term than they would "gurn." Not sure why "gurn" would need a page over this... If you do a google search and see how "duck face" is talked about, it kind of needs a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLoomis3 ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay; I mentioned on my talk page that I would provide a direct link to the discussion I was starting at WP:ELN, here's the link: WP:ELN#bobbinis-kitchen.com. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 18:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Why did you call me Grapebowels? I mean, are you referring to me? It should had been Grapebowl not Grapebowels. If you were referring to me, would you like to please fix it? Grapebowl ( talk) 21:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.
69.181.249.92 (
talk)
23:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
I hadn't heard from Nexus for a while, but a quick glance at their homepage reveals a rather profound interest in conspiracy theories, alternative health and other whackiness. I do not regard it as a useful source. JFW | T@lk 01:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I forgot to ask you. Any reason why you never added the information from Beaches of The Big Island (1985) to the article? You said you were going to on the talk page. :-) Viriditas ( talk) 11:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Do you believe you might be interested in this image? Best,-- Mbz1 ( talk) 05:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Funny, took me some seconds to find the source. Do you have an explanation as for why you merely helped the other editor avoid an edit war (while almost dragging me into one) instead of what I did? I mean, other than having a personal bias against that statement (or editors supporting it)? Hearfourmewesique ( talk) 17:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Michal. I've upload ones per your recommendation. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 15:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, files File:Maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais, underside 01.jpg and File:Maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais, side view 01.jpg were deleted, because they were under CC-BY-NC-3.0 licenses. Images at Wikimedia Commons have to require commercial use. "Media licensed under non-commercial only licenses are not accepted."
I have found another acceptable images:
-- Snek01 ( talk) 14:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
If you will need to rotate some image, that is already on commons, add one of these to the image page
{{rotate|90}} {{rotate|180}} {{rotate|270}}
and the image will be rotated by a bot. -- Snek01 ( talk) 22:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | On August 10, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Maize weevil, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
whale meat at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!
I have replaced this in the suggestions as there's an unresolved neutrality tag on the article; if you could address any remaining issues with whoever placed the tag as soon as possible that would be great. Regards, Espresso Addict ( talk) 21:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, sure, we can remove the POV tag for now... :) Malick78 ( talk) 09:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
y did you not like my pie entry....totally accurate and i sited it....what is your problem..meanie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxride924 ( talk • contribs) 00:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Anna,
just read about the invitation to ask for help if needed. Here is my question:
What do is your advice to solve this controversy?
Facts: (there is an interesting collection of german authentic recipes that I denoted as empirical examples in some articels) (My point of view: it is empirical material, page not big enough to be commercial, not connected to any exceptional advantages for the author/owner of that page, absolutely important for wikipedia user to know about) (Point of view of another Wiki-User: the url I linked to is spam)
Dear Barek,
in regard to your spam declaration for bobbinis-kitchen.com/quarkkeulchen:
please would you be so kind to explain to me the difference between the empiric example (see url above) and http://www.recipe-recipes-message-board.com/forum/view_topic.php?forum_id=98&id=1276 that is still denoted as a sample on the article quarkkeulchen and not declared as spam??
I do not understand where the linking to a webpage of noncommercial extent like bobinis-kitchen.com/quarkkeulchen breaks the rules of linking. Especially, when the content of this webpage is definetly "scientifical" and not just entertainment or business.
As far as wikipedia declared, there are anyway no exceptional advantages that any webpage could get by beeing linked to by a wikipedia article.
I would appreciate if we could undo the spam declaration for bobbinis-kitchen.com.
Regards Bonzothedog
Thank you!
Regards Bonzothedog —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzothedog ( talk • contribs) 22:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Exactly this is it! Thank you Anna! Now Barek sended me a warning. I have declared in one discussion belonging to article quarkkeulchen that I do not understand the difference he makes between my linking and the linking of others to the same kind of webinfo and undid his change in this specific one case... before I had linked to about 5 pages on the same url. I'm just interested in cooking at the moment and especially deal with the german cuisine at the moment, I am german.. This Url in my eyes represented the best example for a german cuisine documentation 2010 so I linked to it.
I don't think the treatment of my linking is fair in regard to all the other links. Do you think there is a way to convince Barek that he makes a severe mistake? Great support!!! Have a nice day!
![]() | On 14 August, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Callophrys sheridanii, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project ( nominate) 00:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
hello, thanks for Callophrys sheridanii. i noticed it from DYK. could you tidy the distribution section? thanks. =) - Shootbamboo ( talk) 02:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't know why you would list the reason for this not being an article as "already exists," when a "gurn" is an entirely different thing.
Like it or not, and however unsuitable you think this is to define, the duck face is referred to in articles all over the internet. The fact that it's talked about THAT much provides enough reason for it being here. The reason you listed is illegitimate. Too bad!
Maybe ya should think about the fact that it's a term used in conversation and that you're linking it w/ something it's not. My professors in college might have been right about this site GeorgeLoomis3 ( talk) 04:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not the same thing as a "gurn." In fact I'm not sure where to start in this reply because it's so incredibly unlike a gurn. Only similarity is both involve human faces. If you asked most Americans what "duck face" is, I'm positive that more would know that term than they would "gurn." Not sure why "gurn" would need a page over this... If you do a google search and see how "duck face" is talked about, it kind of needs a page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLoomis3 ( talk • contribs) 04:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay; I mentioned on my talk page that I would provide a direct link to the discussion I was starting at WP:ELN, here's the link: WP:ELN#bobbinis-kitchen.com. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 18:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Why did you call me Grapebowels? I mean, are you referring to me? It should had been Grapebowl not Grapebowels. If you were referring to me, would you like to please fix it? Grapebowl ( talk) 21:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.
69.181.249.92 (
talk)
23:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)