![]() | 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 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
No prob. Happens all the time, especially to me. :D miquonranger03 ( talk) 04:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know, Stuka115 did some considerable vandalism on the freedom of speech article... hope he is finished now!-- SasiSasi ( talk) 01:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC) I AM NEVER FINISHED BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU DENY ME MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH SO NOW I WILL BE A BURDEN TO YOU ALL!
Brian, hi, can I ask you for input on Talk:Anglin_Bay? StevenBlack ( talk) 00:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Brian. You made a comment on Talk:Royal_Flying_Corps about RFC Canada deserving its own article. You said you intended to create one but were too busy at the time, in July, to create it. Has your situation changed? Just curious... (BTW, I am a Queen's grad as well) Stephen Rasku ( talk) 19:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
AirshowBuzz sells things also:
http://www.airshowbuzz.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=794
However, selling things is not the primary purpose of either AirshowBuzz or AirshowStuff. All of the content on both sites is fully accessible for free. I fail to see why AirshowBuzz should be included and AirshowStuff should not.
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
For all of your work on the 410 Squadron article. TARTARUS talk 01:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC) |
Brian, why have you listed Wikipedia:Sandbox at WP:AfD? -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 08:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem, userbox looks better with your changes on. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski ( talk) 10:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Brian, You've just undone my contrib on the article Oradour-sur-Glane because, as you wrote, they were redundant sentence and comment. Comments should be left on talk page.
Redundant? Redundant with what? Comments should be left on talk page.? First the talk page are never read. Secondly, to contain some nearly revisionist details in an article is a heavy reproach, that would justify the suppression of the whole controversial passage and his rewriting. But in the meanwhile, and as I'm not expert enough to know exactly which lines to suppress and what to write instead, I thought that putting a warning was a good intermediate solution... Otherwise these lines will probably stay this way a very long time, exposing some nearly revisionist elements, without having the reader to be warned in any way, when revisionism suspicions, even partial, should call for an immediate action...
Cheers :-) Matthieu, 62.178.30.180 ( talk) 01:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for helping out with the OES article back in 2007 -- took me this long to come up with a barnStar. :-) --
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
18:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the issue of racism at Queen's University needs to be addressed. It should be put in wikipedia so it is well known and not ignored. I am more than willing to have someone rewrite it in a different manner but it must be addressed and not ignored. We can not move forward otherwise. It is relevant.
Hi, just wanted to point out that with this edit you introduced non-commercial reproduction content from http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/cfb_edmonton/history.html. According to the licence, http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/notices_e.asp, and Wikipedia:Non-free content the material can't be used on Wikipedia. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The Warrior appears to have de-camped. While I found his presentation inappropriate, I do think he may have a point about the importance of the Henry Report. I note that articles for several other universities deal with recent controversy. For e.g., an internal memorandum that expressed concern about undergraduate student satisfaction at Harvard [1], and controversy and court cases about affirmative action at Michigan [2].
Despite the placement of this in the "History" section of the Michigan article, I think that if we do add something to the Queen's article about Henry, it would be better to place it in its own section (possibly titled: "Henry Report." It would have to be written in a scrupulously neutral fashion. What do you think? Sunray ( talk) 19:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
That edit I made on the Jackson page or whatever it was was part of an experiment I am conducting to try and prove that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information. So far, the longest it has taken is 22 minutes for an editor to remove my edit, which truly proves it.
No problem! Collaboration works! - Ahunt ( talk) 17:25, 24 July 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 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() | 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 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
No prob. Happens all the time, especially to me. :D miquonranger03 ( talk) 04:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know, Stuka115 did some considerable vandalism on the freedom of speech article... hope he is finished now!-- SasiSasi ( talk) 01:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC) I AM NEVER FINISHED BITCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU DENY ME MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH SO NOW I WILL BE A BURDEN TO YOU ALL!
Brian, hi, can I ask you for input on Talk:Anglin_Bay? StevenBlack ( talk) 00:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Brian. You made a comment on Talk:Royal_Flying_Corps about RFC Canada deserving its own article. You said you intended to create one but were too busy at the time, in July, to create it. Has your situation changed? Just curious... (BTW, I am a Queen's grad as well) Stephen Rasku ( talk) 19:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
AirshowBuzz sells things also:
http://www.airshowbuzz.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=794
However, selling things is not the primary purpose of either AirshowBuzz or AirshowStuff. All of the content on both sites is fully accessible for free. I fail to see why AirshowBuzz should be included and AirshowStuff should not.
|
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
For all of your work on the 410 Squadron article. TARTARUS talk 01:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC) |
Brian, why have you listed Wikipedia:Sandbox at WP:AfD? -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 08:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
No problem, userbox looks better with your changes on. Regards, Piotr Mikołajski ( talk) 10:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Hey Brian, You've just undone my contrib on the article Oradour-sur-Glane because, as you wrote, they were redundant sentence and comment. Comments should be left on talk page.
Redundant? Redundant with what? Comments should be left on talk page.? First the talk page are never read. Secondly, to contain some nearly revisionist details in an article is a heavy reproach, that would justify the suppression of the whole controversial passage and his rewriting. But in the meanwhile, and as I'm not expert enough to know exactly which lines to suppress and what to write instead, I thought that putting a warning was a good intermediate solution... Otherwise these lines will probably stay this way a very long time, exposing some nearly revisionist elements, without having the reader to be warned in any way, when revisionism suspicions, even partial, should call for an immediate action...
Cheers :-) Matthieu, 62.178.30.180 ( talk) 01:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC).
Thanks for helping out with the OES article back in 2007 -- took me this long to come up with a barnStar. :-) --
SarekOfVulcan (
talk)
18:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the issue of racism at Queen's University needs to be addressed. It should be put in wikipedia so it is well known and not ignored. I am more than willing to have someone rewrite it in a different manner but it must be addressed and not ignored. We can not move forward otherwise. It is relevant.
Hi, just wanted to point out that with this edit you introduced non-commercial reproduction content from http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/cfb_edmonton/history.html. According to the licence, http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/notices_e.asp, and Wikipedia:Non-free content the material can't be used on Wikipedia. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
The Warrior appears to have de-camped. While I found his presentation inappropriate, I do think he may have a point about the importance of the Henry Report. I note that articles for several other universities deal with recent controversy. For e.g., an internal memorandum that expressed concern about undergraduate student satisfaction at Harvard [1], and controversy and court cases about affirmative action at Michigan [2].
Despite the placement of this in the "History" section of the Michigan article, I think that if we do add something to the Queen's article about Henry, it would be better to place it in its own section (possibly titled: "Henry Report." It would have to be written in a scrupulously neutral fashion. What do you think? Sunray ( talk) 19:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
That edit I made on the Jackson page or whatever it was was part of an experiment I am conducting to try and prove that Wikipedia is a reliable source of information. So far, the longest it has taken is 22 minutes for an editor to remove my edit, which truly proves it.
No problem! Collaboration works! - Ahunt ( talk) 17:25, 24 July 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 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |