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. |
Welcome!
Hello, CWenger/Archives/2011, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask a question at the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome, and good luck!
Kirill Lokshin 01:22, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
CMBJ, why did you remove the 'Events controversy' section of this article? It is very important. A subsection over judging controversies (in gymnastics at least) should be added also. Cwenger ( talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cwenger, thanks for your note - until (and unless) a page is created, a redirect is more useful to readers than a blank page - if the redirect does not exist, then anyone typing "Project 119" into Wikipedia won't know what it relates to. Neıl ☄ 13:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what exactly is a hyphenation expert? I'm trying to figure out if I'm one :) - Mgcsinc ( talk) 04:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 23:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to adopt you!~
Qwerp
Qwertus ·
_Contact Me_·
_Talkback_· 01:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
How do I adopt you...I dont get it??????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.183.81 ( talk) 00:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Caffieinebooost (
talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying
calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{ subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I've seen your merge proposal of the two above-mentioned articles. However History of Hydro-Québec is itself a longer version of Hydro-Québec's history section. At 148K, Hydro-Québec is way too long and should be shortened. Bouchecl ( talk) 15:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Just so you know, if you haven't already, you have enough edits to request the abiltiy to use AutoWikiBrowser (563 mainspace) [1]. You can do so by adding "{{AWBUser|your username}} ~~~~~" to the bottom of the users list on this page.:) ~ Qwerp Qwertus · Contact Me · 04:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI - You might be interested in applying for the reviewer userright. I'm not sure if you've heard much about it, but you can read a quick summary about it below (taken from the pending changes page)
What it Is
| ||
---|---|---|
Becoming a reviewerIf you meet the criteria below, then ask! Add your name to the list of requests at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer.
If you have rollback or autopatrolled rights, you are a good candidate for reviewer rights as well – the level of trust is similar. Administrators automatically have reviewer rights. Purpose of reviewingThe purpose of reviewing is to catch and filter out obvious vandalism and obviously inappropriate edits on articles under pending changes protection, a special kind of protection that permits anonymous and newly registered editors to submit edits to articles that would otherwise be semi- or fully protected under one or more of the criteria listed in the protection policy. Reviewing process
Articles with pending changes are marked as such in watchlists and recent changes. In addition, there is a special page, Special:OldReviewedPages, which lists all articles with pending changes. Clicking on [Pending changes] will return the diff between the latest accepted revision and the last revision to the page. If you find an article with pending changes in another way, you can access the history and select the diff between the latest accepted revision (accepted revisions are marked) and the last revision. Most of the time, you should be able to complete the process from the diff alone, while in more complex cases you may have to check the recent history. You should not accept the new revision if in analyzing the diff you find that:
Removal of content ('blanking') should also be examined. If this is vandalism the new revision should not be accepted, but blanking can be perfectly legitimate. If you find no reason not to accept the new revision, then accept it from the reviewing screen; accepting doesn't prevent you from later editing the article to address concerns you may still have. Otherwise, if you think there are reasons not to accept the new revision, then you should edit the article to address the concerns:
Step-by-step "how-to" for reviewing multiple editsNote: When reviewing multiple edits, bear in mind there may have been a good edit that has been removed by subsequent vandalism. Do not rely solely on what you see in the "pending review" page.
Editing pages with pending editsIf you edit a page with pending edits, there will be a note mentioning this between the page title and edit window, you can click to show the diff between the latest accepted revision and the last revision, and review pending edits. There is an option to accept the new revision you will save below the edit summary at the right of "watch this page". Be sure to have reviewed pending changes before clicking it. If you don't click it, after saving the software will ask if you want to accept the new revision.
Unaccepting (reversing an action to accept)Unaccepting is reversing an action to accept, manual or automatic (hence you cannot unaccept a revision which has not been previously accepted). You should generally not unaccept revisions, except to undo yourself if you realize you have made a mistake. If you have concerns with an accepted revision, then edit the article to address the concerns. If you think a revision should not have been accepted, you may discuss the issue with the reviewer if you feel this is needed. Automatically accepted revisions should generally not be unaccepted, even if they were vandalism, because there is no benefit in doing so (it only removes the [automatically accepted] tag appended to it in the history). |
You would almost certainly be approved and you can find pages that need reviewing at Special:OldReviewedPages. Also - congrats on getting rollback permissions! ~ Qwerp Qwertus Talk ツ 03:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Jujutacular talk 03:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The Exemplary Adoptee Barnstar | ||
Congratulations! You've graduated from the adoption program! You graduated! - thanks for being such a great adoptee and I wish you good luck in your future endeavors, maybe you might even consider adopting someone. Happy editing! ~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC) |
So should this be ok
"Popular culture
Toast can also be used as a reference to the heightened sexual appeal of a person. A clear example of this would be as follows:
The expression, "I wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating toast" is used to indicate a person one would like to sleep with, even if that person left crumbs in the sheets." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt6986 ( talk • contribs) 14:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
So if i add urban dictionary as i previously had done for the source then this would be ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt6986 ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
"Act of Leon Trotsky" is nonsensical. This is clearly a mistranslation of "akt" the Polish word for nude. Even if I'm wrong about this, I don't see how it could possibly constitute vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.24.175 ( talk) 14:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I received a warning for correcting erroneous information on two album pages. This name was attached to it. Is this the place to discuss the matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.53.86 ( talk) 23:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar. I felt partially responsible since it was my ARV that initially got them the block (I tried to rollback the edit you did). After investigating a bit though it seemed legitimate. Trying to make up for it I guess. Thanks again. Shadowjams ( talk) 05:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It's funny, you say on your userpage that you don't put two spaces after a full stop and yet you reverted my edit where I cleaned out double spaces while reverting a vandalism. Slightsmile ( talk) 21:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Note about that page, I undid your edit and tagged it for speedy deletion as a G7 (author blanked). Be sure to double check the page history on newer articles like that. Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 02:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Im very sory for making vandalism, and i will now stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow336 ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Cwenger. I was the one who made the edit to the Grammatical case article that you just reverted. My reason for that edit was that the translation given in the article looked like a machine translation. My edit was an attempt to correct that. PRH ( talk) 21:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. My very first vandal visitor! 28bytes ( talk) 02:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank U for saving Wikipage “western Orissa” from vandalism by IP 115.113.112.98 on dated 25.09.2010. In the past also, there had been attempts by some over jealous persons, presumably from Eastern (Coastal) Orissa, to distort / erase, few sentences/ some chaps/ entire article pertaining to Western Orissa, Sambalpur, Sambalpur district, Sambalpuri language, Sundergarh, Sundergarh district and other districts of Western Orissa, some of which were reverted. After all Wikipedia is a store house of knowledge and information, from which the entire human race can benefit. I feel that, filling up of edit summary should be made mandatory for saving page after editing otherwise saving page should be made impossible. This step will control vandalism to some extent. Thank you again. K arundhati ( talk) 15:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Dude, I am not sure why my edit on my home-boy Devin Hester was "unconstructive." It is true information about Devin and I even put in a citation to support the edit. Let's bring it back, shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 ( talk) 00:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Cwenger. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ron Furmanek, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Grammy nominated is an assertion of importance. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Cwenger. – CWenger ( talk) 21:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Please leave a comment here. — bender235 ( talk) 01:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with your edit, but I can understand it and I can live with it. Bearian ( talk) 21:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Sharron Angle appears to have brought up Second Amendment remedies on three occasions. One of them was quoted in the article. I stuck the other two in. This makes the section unwieldy, but I feel that the newfound prominence and morbid context caused by this whole mess make it important that we give a fair and accurate account. Was that a run-on? Anyway, the three are different enough that removing any one of them would give readers a wrong idea of what Angle has been saying.
I am not fond of the woman at all, so in the interests of fairness, could you take a look? -- Kiz o r 11:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
CWenger; Clearly Wikipedia editors should not be involved in the business of determining which scientific articles are valid and which are not, should they? If a paper in a peer-reviewed journal says bromelain in pineapple induces labor then certainly it meets the threshold for saying it "has been reported". – CWenger ( talk) 23:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Objectively, there are no good sources that say bromelain induces pregnancy, i.e., sources from reputable universities or published in respected journals. For the possible anti-inflammatory effect, all the references are from in vitro or early-stage animal work. If sufficiently supported with qualified references, the language could be developed to make the case for preliminary evidence of an anti-inflammatory effect.
See for example [2] and [3] -- Zefr ( talk) 00:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
International Court of Justice Opinion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_territory#The_West_Bank
In July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered an Advisory Opinion on the 'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory'. The Court observed that under customary international law as reflected in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land Annexed in the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
The State of Israel raised a number of exceptions and objections,[24] but the Court found them unpersuasive. The Court ruled that territories had been occupied by the Israeli Defense Forces in 1967, during the conflict between Israel and Jordan, and that subsequent events in those territories had done nothing to alter the situation. 'All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.'
Here's your source, would you revert your revert please. Keith-264 ( talk) 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for taking your time with two previous intemperate edits. I applaud your contribution to this community. Here is why I think it is balanced to include the rent control anecdote. It is a fact that I often find libertarians do not know. ASU gives a vision of morality rooted in voluntary, non-compulsory cooperation that many find compelling, so it is relevant to point out that in his own life he used the power of the state to override his own contract. This is particularly so given the morally-inflected uses to which this book is put. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maresuke369 ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The column deals with the fact that the SI prefix terms (kilobyte etc.) are sometimes used for multiples of 1024 rather than the SI-standard 1000. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi- You may want to take a look at the Scott Walker disambigution page. You have several people with that name including Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Would Gov Walker be the primary topic? Thank you- RFD ( talk) 11:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is not counting !votes. It is based on the strength of the arguments presented. In this case, the support case was weak and did not show that this usage was the common world wide view. I suspect that the suggestion in the discussion that several articles might be needed could be the better choice. Add to that the fact that fatigues is now a dab page and this was not getting moved at this time. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Your continuous drone on the subject of Google hits applicable to some American TV personality who is here today, gone tomorrow, is really wearing thin. I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS for a start and then get into your head that quantity of Google hits means absolutely nothing in encyclopaedic terms. They might mean something to teenage pop fans who are arguing about the popularity of this current track over that one but do you really want to pursue the juvenile route to argue your case? The only way to disambiguate between two famous people of the same name is to have a disambiguation page with links to both articles, as per WP:CONSENSUS. Dearie me. -- 86.146.96.56 ( talk) 21:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I am confused why you removed a sourced section from Scott Walker (politician) as "removing biased sentences". [4] I am not sure what section of WP:BLP you feel it violated. Please let me know. Midlakewinter ( talk) 22:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Please restore the information, per the cite I provided on my talk page. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC) (on his break)
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. |
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. |
Welcome!
Hello, CWenger/Archives/2011, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask a question at the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome, and good luck!
Kirill Lokshin 01:22, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
CMBJ, why did you remove the 'Events controversy' section of this article? It is very important. A subsection over judging controversies (in gymnastics at least) should be added also. Cwenger ( talk) 00:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Cwenger, thanks for your note - until (and unless) a page is created, a redirect is more useful to readers than a blank page - if the redirect does not exist, then anyone typing "Project 119" into Wikipedia won't know what it relates to. Neıl ☄ 13:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, what exactly is a hyphenation expert? I'm trying to figure out if I'm one :) - Mgcsinc ( talk) 04:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 23:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd be happy to adopt you!~
Qwerp
Qwertus ·
_Contact Me_·
_Talkback_· 01:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
How do I adopt you...I dont get it??????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.60.183.81 ( talk) 00:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Caffieinebooost (
talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying
calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{ subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I've seen your merge proposal of the two above-mentioned articles. However History of Hydro-Québec is itself a longer version of Hydro-Québec's history section. At 148K, Hydro-Québec is way too long and should be shortened. Bouchecl ( talk) 15:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello! Just so you know, if you haven't already, you have enough edits to request the abiltiy to use AutoWikiBrowser (563 mainspace) [1]. You can do so by adding "{{AWBUser|your username}} ~~~~~" to the bottom of the users list on this page.:) ~ Qwerp Qwertus · Contact Me · 04:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
FYI - You might be interested in applying for the reviewer userright. I'm not sure if you've heard much about it, but you can read a quick summary about it below (taken from the pending changes page)
What it Is
| ||
---|---|---|
Becoming a reviewerIf you meet the criteria below, then ask! Add your name to the list of requests at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer.
If you have rollback or autopatrolled rights, you are a good candidate for reviewer rights as well – the level of trust is similar. Administrators automatically have reviewer rights. Purpose of reviewingThe purpose of reviewing is to catch and filter out obvious vandalism and obviously inappropriate edits on articles under pending changes protection, a special kind of protection that permits anonymous and newly registered editors to submit edits to articles that would otherwise be semi- or fully protected under one or more of the criteria listed in the protection policy. Reviewing process
Articles with pending changes are marked as such in watchlists and recent changes. In addition, there is a special page, Special:OldReviewedPages, which lists all articles with pending changes. Clicking on [Pending changes] will return the diff between the latest accepted revision and the last revision to the page. If you find an article with pending changes in another way, you can access the history and select the diff between the latest accepted revision (accepted revisions are marked) and the last revision. Most of the time, you should be able to complete the process from the diff alone, while in more complex cases you may have to check the recent history. You should not accept the new revision if in analyzing the diff you find that:
Removal of content ('blanking') should also be examined. If this is vandalism the new revision should not be accepted, but blanking can be perfectly legitimate. If you find no reason not to accept the new revision, then accept it from the reviewing screen; accepting doesn't prevent you from later editing the article to address concerns you may still have. Otherwise, if you think there are reasons not to accept the new revision, then you should edit the article to address the concerns:
Step-by-step "how-to" for reviewing multiple editsNote: When reviewing multiple edits, bear in mind there may have been a good edit that has been removed by subsequent vandalism. Do not rely solely on what you see in the "pending review" page.
Editing pages with pending editsIf you edit a page with pending edits, there will be a note mentioning this between the page title and edit window, you can click to show the diff between the latest accepted revision and the last revision, and review pending edits. There is an option to accept the new revision you will save below the edit summary at the right of "watch this page". Be sure to have reviewed pending changes before clicking it. If you don't click it, after saving the software will ask if you want to accept the new revision.
Unaccepting (reversing an action to accept)Unaccepting is reversing an action to accept, manual or automatic (hence you cannot unaccept a revision which has not been previously accepted). You should generally not unaccept revisions, except to undo yourself if you realize you have made a mistake. If you have concerns with an accepted revision, then edit the article to address the concerns. If you think a revision should not have been accepted, you may discuss the issue with the reviewer if you feel this is needed. Automatically accepted revisions should generally not be unaccepted, even if they were vandalism, because there is no benefit in doing so (it only removes the [automatically accepted] tag appended to it in the history). |
You would almost certainly be approved and you can find pages that need reviewing at Special:OldReviewedPages. Also - congrats on getting rollback permissions! ~ Qwerp Qwertus Talk ツ 03:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Jujutacular talk 03:47, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
The Exemplary Adoptee Barnstar | ||
Congratulations! You've graduated from the adoption program! You graduated! - thanks for being such a great adoptee and I wish you good luck in your future endeavors, maybe you might even consider adopting someone. Happy editing! ~ Qwerp ♫ ♪ ツ 22:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC) |
So should this be ok
"Popular culture
Toast can also be used as a reference to the heightened sexual appeal of a person. A clear example of this would be as follows:
The expression, "I wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating toast" is used to indicate a person one would like to sleep with, even if that person left crumbs in the sheets." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt6986 ( talk • contribs) 14:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
So if i add urban dictionary as i previously had done for the source then this would be ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt6986 ( talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
"Act of Leon Trotsky" is nonsensical. This is clearly a mistranslation of "akt" the Polish word for nude. Even if I'm wrong about this, I don't see how it could possibly constitute vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.204.24.175 ( talk) 14:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I received a warning for correcting erroneous information on two album pages. This name was attached to it. Is this the place to discuss the matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.53.86 ( talk) 23:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the barnstar. I felt partially responsible since it was my ARV that initially got them the block (I tried to rollback the edit you did). After investigating a bit though it seemed legitimate. Trying to make up for it I guess. Thanks again. Shadowjams ( talk) 05:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
It's funny, you say on your userpage that you don't put two spaces after a full stop and yet you reverted my edit where I cleaned out double spaces while reverting a vandalism. Slightsmile ( talk) 21:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Note about that page, I undid your edit and tagged it for speedy deletion as a G7 (author blanked). Be sure to double check the page history on newer articles like that. Allmightyduck What did I do wrong? 02:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Im very sory for making vandalism, and i will now stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadow336 ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Cwenger. I was the one who made the edit to the Grammatical case article that you just reverted. My reason for that edit was that the translation given in the article looked like a machine translation. My edit was an attempt to correct that. PRH ( talk) 21:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. My very first vandal visitor! 28bytes ( talk) 02:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank U for saving Wikipage “western Orissa” from vandalism by IP 115.113.112.98 on dated 25.09.2010. In the past also, there had been attempts by some over jealous persons, presumably from Eastern (Coastal) Orissa, to distort / erase, few sentences/ some chaps/ entire article pertaining to Western Orissa, Sambalpur, Sambalpur district, Sambalpuri language, Sundergarh, Sundergarh district and other districts of Western Orissa, some of which were reverted. After all Wikipedia is a store house of knowledge and information, from which the entire human race can benefit. I feel that, filling up of edit summary should be made mandatory for saving page after editing otherwise saving page should be made impossible. This step will control vandalism to some extent. Thank you again. K arundhati ( talk) 15:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Dude, I am not sure why my edit on my home-boy Devin Hester was "unconstructive." It is true information about Devin and I even put in a citation to support the edit. Let's bring it back, shall we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 ( talk) 00:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello Cwenger. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Ron Furmanek, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Grammy nominated is an assertion of importance. Thank you. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Cwenger. – CWenger ( talk) 21:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Please leave a comment here. — bender235 ( talk) 01:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree with your edit, but I can understand it and I can live with it. Bearian ( talk) 21:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Sharron Angle appears to have brought up Second Amendment remedies on three occasions. One of them was quoted in the article. I stuck the other two in. This makes the section unwieldy, but I feel that the newfound prominence and morbid context caused by this whole mess make it important that we give a fair and accurate account. Was that a run-on? Anyway, the three are different enough that removing any one of them would give readers a wrong idea of what Angle has been saying.
I am not fond of the woman at all, so in the interests of fairness, could you take a look? -- Kiz o r 11:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
CWenger; Clearly Wikipedia editors should not be involved in the business of determining which scientific articles are valid and which are not, should they? If a paper in a peer-reviewed journal says bromelain in pineapple induces labor then certainly it meets the threshold for saying it "has been reported". – CWenger ( talk) 23:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Objectively, there are no good sources that say bromelain induces pregnancy, i.e., sources from reputable universities or published in respected journals. For the possible anti-inflammatory effect, all the references are from in vitro or early-stage animal work. If sufficiently supported with qualified references, the language could be developed to make the case for preliminary evidence of an anti-inflammatory effect.
See for example [2] and [3] -- Zefr ( talk) 00:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
International Court of Justice Opinion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_territory#The_West_Bank
In July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered an Advisory Opinion on the 'Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory'. The Court observed that under customary international law as reflected in Article 42 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land Annexed in the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 October 1907, territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, and the occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.
The State of Israel raised a number of exceptions and objections,[24] but the Court found them unpersuasive. The Court ruled that territories had been occupied by the Israeli Defense Forces in 1967, during the conflict between Israel and Jordan, and that subsequent events in those territories had done nothing to alter the situation. 'All these territories (including East Jerusalem) remain occupied territories and Israel has continued to have the status of occupying Power.'
Here's your source, would you revert your revert please. Keith-264 ( talk) 20:19, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I apologize for taking your time with two previous intemperate edits. I applaud your contribution to this community. Here is why I think it is balanced to include the rent control anecdote. It is a fact that I often find libertarians do not know. ASU gives a vision of morality rooted in voluntary, non-compulsory cooperation that many find compelling, so it is relevant to point out that in his own life he used the power of the state to override his own contract. This is particularly so given the morally-inflected uses to which this book is put. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maresuke369 ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The column deals with the fact that the SI prefix terms (kilobyte etc.) are sometimes used for multiples of 1024 rather than the SI-standard 1000. -- Cybercobra (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi- You may want to take a look at the Scott Walker disambigution page. You have several people with that name including Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin. Would Gov Walker be the primary topic? Thank you- RFD ( talk) 11:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is not counting !votes. It is based on the strength of the arguments presented. In this case, the support case was weak and did not show that this usage was the common world wide view. I suspect that the suggestion in the discussion that several articles might be needed could be the better choice. Add to that the fact that fatigues is now a dab page and this was not getting moved at this time. Vegaswikian ( talk) 03:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Your continuous drone on the subject of Google hits applicable to some American TV personality who is here today, gone tomorrow, is really wearing thin. I suggest you read WP:CONSENSUS for a start and then get into your head that quantity of Google hits means absolutely nothing in encyclopaedic terms. They might mean something to teenage pop fans who are arguing about the popularity of this current track over that one but do you really want to pursue the juvenile route to argue your case? The only way to disambiguate between two famous people of the same name is to have a disambiguation page with links to both articles, as per WP:CONSENSUS. Dearie me. -- 86.146.96.56 ( talk) 21:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I am confused why you removed a sourced section from Scott Walker (politician) as "removing biased sentences". [4] I am not sure what section of WP:BLP you feel it violated. Please let me know. Midlakewinter ( talk) 22:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Please restore the information, per the cite I provided on my talk page. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC) (on his break)
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. |