Hello! I have read through all the materials, and I hope that I am submitting this question to you appropriately. I have a question with which I hope you can help.
I submitted my first Wikipedia page submission in November, and found out yesterday that it was rejected. I have a quick question for you about resubmitting it.
Question: did I not cite the references correctly technically so that they could be accessed?
This is the page: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Marvin_Megee
The page is about a unique Mayor in Missouri. I included 14 references to support the facts, which included:
5 references from US newspapers (reference #s 4, 6, 7, 8, 9)
5 references from US television investigations/reports from two states (reference #s 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
2 references from a county election office (reference #s 1, 2)
1 reference from a state organization (reference #3)
1 reference from a state law
All of the references are objective, third-party references (from newspapers, tv reports, county and state offices).
I looked at several examples of other Mayors to make sure I was citing references correctly (like /info/en/?search=Allen_Joines), but I worry that I did not format the references where you could see them.
Thank you for any help you can give me so that I can resubmit the page!
Stewarmd11 ( talk) 15:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Michelle Stewarmd11 ( talk) 15:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your feedback! I really appreciate it. I will make the changes and resubmit. I appreciate that you took the time to review it and help me think through ways to improve the page. Thank you. Stewarmd11 ( talk) 18:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Did you come across "Diamant", the Dutch user and (I think) administrator? We just got word that he died 16 November 2013. He was only 13 years of age.
Sad.
The Banner talk 21:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Doctor. Many of the "keep" comments on the Chess.com AFD do not comport with policy. Textbook examples they are of "what not to argue" at AFD. Will the closing admin take that into account?:
1. MaxBrowne: a. Size or popularity does not demonstrate notability WP:RANK WP:POPULARITY, b. Norwegian source is a trivial mention, not substantial coverage c. This is not Canvassing, WP:CANVASS. The admin was not notified in order to sway debate one way. Also, the nominator in question never demonstrated any anti- chess.com sentiment or any deletionist tendencies. In fact, the nominator is a self-identified inclusionist. There is no evidence that anyone was selected because of some pre-disposition to delete. Furthermore, bringing up “Canvassing” focuses on the contributor, not the content, and is only raised as a distraction from the real issue, namely, whether the subject has been substantially covered in multiple reliable sources.
2. Rhodendrites: These sources do not demonstrate notability. As another editor already said, Notability does not mean trivial or fleeting coverage in multiple sources. There is a name for that. WP:MILL. Also, the USCF article does not confer notability, as it is more like a blurb about one action. If that conferred notability it only stands to reason that the other site mentioned in the blurb is also notable.
3. Q6637p: a. Makes the argument to avoid “It’s notable.” b. To bolster this notability, Q6637a reverentially cites a New York Times article which is the epitome of trival coverage. This user clearly does not grasp notability requirements in Wikipedia.
4. Sjkkalle: Same as #2, “totality of sources . . . is non-trivial.” does not comform to policy. As another user succinctly put, “WP:GNG states "has received significant coverage in reliable sources " (plural) - it does not say "has received trivial coverage in a lot of sources.”
5. 2Awwsome: Relies on the cavassing issue, and “It’s notable” without explaining why.
6. Sun Creator: Admits that the sources do not demonstrate notability but argues “Ignore all rules,” saying what would the press think that Wikipedia does not have a Chess.com article? Since this “vote” concedes the subject is not notable and only concludes “keep” on spurious non-policy grounds, this “vote” might as well be for deletion.
7. Epicgenius: “It’s notable.” See arguments to avoid. Concedes it’s “just barely” anway.
8. Cobblet: Easily summed up as “Other stuff exists,” why single out Chess.com. Invalid reasoning puts forth no policy based justification for keeping this article. Also, the members saying that “Wiki_brah” has been singlehandedly responsible for this article having been deleted many times are engaging in sensationalism without evidence. Sheldon Wong67 ( talk) 21:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, I am confused as to why our article submission was declined by you. Our sources are all "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." aren't they?
Thanks for your help.
Liz LizOnehub ( talk) 16:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Saw your no not vote. While certainly you are entitled to your opinion, I am somewhat surprised by it. Did you look through the list of sources I posted as part of the RFC? Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
What do you think? Ladyof Shalott 19:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if these two might go along? De728631 ( talk) 00:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed, as an admin involved with DYKs, could you please post a reminder during the review to check the article. I went thru my review which you told me was bad, and while the links were a bit off as you told me, I found the language was pretty much acceptable. Not too great, but it wasn't bad. However, I've noticed that the article Cobrapost, which hit DYK yesterday, had awful English. I have rewritten only one line but I feel it needs a massive bit of copyediting to have hit the main page. Thank you, for helping out. Cheers, -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 05:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't see Demiurge's proposal (I'm only sporadically active in the behind-the-scenes of DYK), but anything that improves quality and quality control is fine with me. We rely a bit much on the kindness of strangers like Yngvadottir, and on the QPQ review process, where too often writers whose skills are lacking (in English prose, in citations, in plagiarism checks, in OR, in the particular subject matter) review articles and just OK it without doing what I think needs to be done. I do not believe in the "it meets the requirements so it should go to the front page" mentality: it bypasses basic editing, for instance, which should be a given for any article. In general, if something is written in acceptable Indian English (or US English, or BEV, or whatever) it shouldn't be excluded for that reason, of course. And now for Cobrapost. Drmies ( talk) 15:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
For quite some time I am trying to keep Sol (Laptop) and Ubuntu (operating system). At the last article user Rezonansowy is thwarting that all the time. The article Sol is a bit different, because that article is filled with promo by the company founder/owner. At least, I have the strong idea the author DSNR and founder David M. Snir are identical.
I start getting angry here, but they keep going on. Advice needed... The Banner talk 11:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) To The Banner, you are treading very closely (and probably in fact violated) WP:OUTING. Deal with sourcing, or pov, or whatever other policies, but attempting to out the coi will only lead to a ban for yourself. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate your input at Talk:Gun Control Act of 1968#removing the Alleged Nazi connections section. GabrielF ( talk) 19:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for calling my attention to Wikipedia's copyright issues with respect to the page on Martin Drenthen. I've no problem with the removal of the page, but would be happy to re-launch the page more appropriately formatted. Do I just re-create the page? Or does it need to be cleared by the admins first. Thanks for your help, and for your work on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsmyth123 ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for your reply. I'll look into it before reposting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsmyth123 ( talk • contribs) 07:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
On 20 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Encyclopedia of the Dead, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Danilo Kiš's final work, the 1983 collection The Encyclopedia of the Dead, helped make him one of the most important figures for the post-Yugoslav generation of writers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Encyclopedia of the Dead. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 14:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Drmies. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Gautam Krishna to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 16:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK that on a phone (mine at least) that prod is covered by a simple "this article has issues"? That seems less than adequate to me. Ladyof Shalott 03:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Dr. An IP has been repeatedly posting what he claims is the full name and other personal details about pornstar Lisa Ann, but has been equally repeatedly reverted because of the source being p*ss poor (apparently some kind of user contributed scandal site). This time he posted on Talk:Lisa Ann, and also gave the claimed full name in the edit summary. So could you pls take a look at these two diffs to see if a revdel is needed? ( diff #1, the IP's post, diff #2, my revert). I can add that posting her full name has been discussed on the talk page of the article, but rejected. Thomas.W talk to me 21:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC) (And sorry about your grandma', I know what it feels like to lose a really good one...)
Hi Drmies, the David Horvitz page continues to be vandalized. Do you have authority to give it some kind of protection? This is a little bit above what I grok about Wikipedia process, so direct me elsewhere if needs be. Also, I made a good faith edit adding many citations and pruning excess. I did that a few months ago. It seems that good faith edit was reverted. I didn't save the text as I figured it was a new start for the article. Is there any way to recover that, or is it a revesion permanent and non-recoverable? Thanks. -- Theredproject ( talk) 02:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I probably can't be considered "around" for Wikipedia purposes -- Caught in landslide, no escape from reality. (Hopefully you read this before it's reverted as a copyvio.) NE Ent 03:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:COIN#Michael Mic Neumann. You were involved in a prior discussion about that user. -- Lexein ( talk) 10:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of giving up Wikipedia recently. The angst and vitriol were just wearing. Your continued level-headed editing have made me re-consider. Thanks! Capitalismojo ( talk) 20:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you watch TLC? What kind of learning can this promote? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 05:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Holiday Cheer | ||
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS |
The edits that have been made to the article which I am writing on the history of Conjunto Sonora Matancera are, in the main, unwarranted. I have included references supporting the argument I am making. Where I haven't done so is simply because this information is common knowledge. Alan1-11-1951 ( talk) 19:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
There are other examples of fine writing by the same author for you to read if you dare.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
What is Wikipedia? -- Rs chen 7754 01:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Best wishes | |
for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Drmies, I've noticed you've added a lot of info to the Onfim article. However, your inline-citations do not follow the wikipedia short citation guidelines ( WP:CITESHORT). See Help:Shortened footnotes for complete the complete guide. The commas and page syntax makes it much clearer to the reader, that's all.
-- CyberXRef talk 20:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Drmies. Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wicks Steve? There's a drawer full of socks, notably one who predictably had to invoke WP:OWN in removing sources from the article, that's causing trouble. The explanation by the suspected sockmaster was: "Removed unnecessary references, as each mention the school in its own article." Maybe WP:DUCK would apply to some of them? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 22:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings and salutations. I wanted to let you know I made this edit to your post at Talk:Gun control. Please feel free to revert for any reason you see fit. Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 04:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Holiday Cheer | ||
Victuallers
talkback is wishing Dr. Mies Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote
WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. -
Vic/Roger inspired by this - you could do the same |
She thinks quite a lot of herself and has a slew of meat (sock?) puppets to help her. Unlike Dickinson, she's hardly reclusive.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
What the heck is going on in there? Is it some kind of feminist convention? Look at the latest non-citation citation added by ... some other feministic literature prof type. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
There's further reading at User talk:JamesBWatson#Martha Nell Smith. For what it's worth, I am disappointed in an English professor who doesn't even attempt at all to work with Wikipedia's citation style. Dougweller, this should properly have been marked as further reading. It is a collection of things that supposedly touch upon the subject of the article. Interestingly, it excludes such publications as Christensen 2007 which devotes an entire chapter to "Digital Dickinson" and says quite a lot about the Dickinson Electronic Archives throughout the book. For starters, it gives the names of the people who run the site, which our article doesn't have. We're missing even such basic information.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite magazine}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)It's sad to see that the person has received more editor attention than the WWW site. For the record, in this case I'd have had no objection to just zapping the biography back to a stub and concentrating upon the article about the DEA. The latter is the more informative and generally useful subject for the overall readership, and we tell readers next to nothing about it. Readers are better served by our telling them all about a WWW site that is one facet of Dickinson scholarship than they are by our telling them all of the fiddling details of every program ever that one such scholar has been associated with. We're suffering from the disease of putting everything in the form of biographies again. Yes, I know, Doktoro. It's a biography of an English Professor, and we want those in order to fill the English Professor Vacuum here on this talk page. Nonetheless. ☺
Uncle G ( talk) 00:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Drmies and assorted talk page stalkers,
Could you take a peek? There's this new editor who has 37 edits to that page in less than a week, and zero to anything else on Wikipedia. The user seems to think that hyper-indignation and verbosity are very persuasive. It would be nice if an uninvolved editor (not me) could hat some endless discussions, and gently instruct the new editor on the purpose of article talk pages. Feel free to trout me if I have behaved poorly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome, Xanthomelanoussprog. I like to spread holiday cheer, my way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Epicgenius (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Epicgenius ( talk) 02:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Sportsguy17/Happy Holidays 2013
What is the threshold a username or their edits must exceed to be considered for redaction? There were two users banned recently for hate speech names, and I was wondering if those would qualify. EvergreenFir ( talk) 05:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) - I'd say probably per WP:REVDEL. Those are so pejorative, that I'd be appalled if they said it was OK to not revdel it. Those are grossly offensive usernames. Sportsguy17 ( T • C) 22:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
How can you revert a talking page? Do we have to send only good comments? Where is free encyclopedia? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Soghomon_Tehlirian&oldid=587454731&diff=prev -- Kafkasmurat ( talk) 01:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers
Ah! Santa is getting help from the Bishfish? Lucky him/her! Drmies ( talk) 22:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas | |
Wishing a you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year from Edinburgh. Blethering Scot 17:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC) |
I've closed this. I'm delaying immediately implementing in order to give you (or whemever else) a chance to listify based upon your (and others') comments. - jc37 18:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy Holidays | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season. Hope are having a wonderful time! Hafspajen ( talk) 22:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC) |
Drmies, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
I have noticed that Thiyya article has been redirected to Ezhava, There are Ezhava thiyya and Thiyya groups, to resolve disambiguation can we setup WP:MOSDAB page. Also, I support the decision to remove thiyya wiki article published in 2012 because it was Ezhava thiyya and a separate article not needed when we have got Ezhava article already, but the one redirected on 24th December 2013 was Thiyya (not Ezhava Thiyya) . Would you please place back the article in WP main stream. irajeevwiki talk 06:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
You recently deleted sourced content from IBM and the Holocaust while pointing to the WP:PLOT policy, however, it does not appear that you have read it. The relevant part says: "articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." This is exactly what the article had until you deleted it. While I agree that the long quotes should be removed or paraphrased, you deleted the most important parts of the book that have in fact received broader coverage. Viriditas ( talk) 07:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Dougweller (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.
Dougweller ( talk) 09:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello again Drmies, hope you are enjoying life to the hilt. :-) Kvenland's true ruler has alerted me to Leavitt Bulldog where good breeding always helps, see also Olde English Bulldogge, perhaps you might also be interested in helping there, even though you've shamefully switched from soggy doggy to youneek youneekorn for your talkpageGreetz. And now for Something Completely Different, it's wiki-flashback time... voila!
unk. | ʍaunus | specific editor [1] is mis-using the power of TW |
(+) | Ryan Vesey | TW-AP, or at the very least, TW-BL |
# | TParis | Or tie TW to RB |
(+) | TCN7JM | TW-AP I would not oppose... tied to RB is too steep (shouldn't need that to auto-CSD-tag a spam-article) |
+ | Snowolf | TW is implemented via common.js/vector.js, which any admin can remove TW from |
+ | Drmies | TW is waaaay too easy for such editors and invites snark and damage (I don't care how we implement the solution) |
(+) | Salvidrim | RB too *wimpy* (TW is more powerful than RB... not as potentially-destructive as AWB though), TW-AP should be same as AWB-AP, and TW-AP should replace/ditch RB |
# | Cabe6403 | TW-auto-CSD-tag-feature *not* tied to anything special, but TW-revert-feature tied to RB, (( and presumably TW-super-features tied to AWB-style TW-AP )) |
+ | Scottywong | TW-BL is easiest, and no additional bureaucracy required |
+ | Lukeno94 | agree |
+ | Salvidrim | agree (change from above), and the .js Twinkle-settings page can be admin-salted to enforce the BL, I guess? |
+ | AutomaticStrikeout | agree |
+ | TCN7JM | agree (change from above) |
+ | Ryan Vesey | agree (change from above), and we don't even need an RfC if the TW-devs will implement the TW-BL in the code |
+ | King of Hearts | TW-BL used to exist, why did it get removed in the first place? |
WP:CONSENSUS says... nine votes for TW-BL, two votes for TW-at-least-partially-tied-to-RB (aka TW-whitelist... two or three pro-TW-BL folks specifically were unhappy with this as too WP:BURO), one abstain, zero opposes. This was back in April... was action taken, to implement the TW-BL of some sort?
p.s. For my motivation here, there is a currently-stalled redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted current proposal with which I am involved and for which it might constitute
WP:CANVASSING were I to mention it to the eleven folks here. So consider this question about TW decisions of April 2013 one of idle curiosity, please. :-) p.p.s. I know canvassing applies to mainspace-and-article-talkpage content-disputes, as well as to RfA voting and AfD voting and such things... where else might it apply, or not apply, in wikipedia-policy-related-and-wiki-tool-related-discussions possibly involving bangvotes, specifically, when talking about implementation details of blacklists and whitelists and approval-processes and all that jazz? Thanks.
74.192.84.101 (
talk)
15:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)
~
TheGeneralUser
(talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Drmies, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Would you be interested in warning Kafkasmurat against
battleground statements made on article talk pages?
"Article consists of hate speech by Armenians. Genocide or Nazis has nothing to do with Pan- Turkism. These may be mentioned but shouldn't invade the article. "Armenian view on Pan Turkism" would be suitable title for these." --Kafkasmurat (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC) [2] -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
This bit about "regular quotes or fucking quotes" made me laugh out loud. Thanks, I needed that. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm finally doing some work on our article about Roekiah. Question: what would a good translation of "De vertolkster van de hoofdrol Nji Roekiah gaf spel te zien dat bij ieder waardeering kan vinden." be? Our friend Google gives "The performer of the leading Nji Roekiah showed that you can find. Appreciation for every game", which makes absolutely no sense. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if this is OK to do, or the correct way to do it, but I imagine you'll tell me if I do it wrong. ;-)
Would you do a review of the Assault weapon article? I think it could use a lot of improvement, but my progress there is slooow. "The guys" seem to respect and/or trust you way more than me (I am working on it).
Thanks.
PS: If you want to see a source nightmare, check out the Mayors Against Illegal Guns article. I've been slogging through it, standardizing citations, finding archived URLs for broken links, trying to understand how to take what's there and make the article better. (It's in serious need of updating.) - Thanks again. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 23:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a minor edit war going on here, which I'm involved in, over the image in the infobox (no one is anywhere near 3RR though). I am curious to know if you agree that the image [3] is better than the one in [4]. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 08:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you protected the above page for 6 months due to sockpuppetry (the protection expired last month). Would you happen to remember the parties/behaviour involved with the sockpuppetry? I've had to make multiple reverts on this and related articles (e.g. The Biggest Loser: No Excuses, The Biggest Loser: Second Chances, etc.) due to several editors ( 189.71.226.175, 189.81.56.43, 189.71.241.51, BobJohnTom) colour-warring over the presentation of the tables in each article (generally changing text to make it difficult to read) and was wondering if the cases were related. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 20:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I feel compelled to bring this to the attention of the talk page lurkers here, it is so spectacular an example of recentist dren.
Uncle G ( talk) 13:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Hope you are having a wonderful time!!!! Hope the New year will bring more Wikihappiness to you. Hafspajen ( talk) 19:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC) |
Just popped in to say hi, and that I hope things are going well for you. I did a little reading, all kinds of retiring and stepping down and controversy....too much for me to get involved, and I seldom come to Wikipedia logged in anymore. Anyway, try not to drink too much tonight, and by all means, try not to drink too little. You still owe me a beer or two, hoping to collect on that some day.
I set up a home studio again (I play several instruments), construction has kept me busy. Been itching to do something truly creative, need to learn some video skills, etc. Always learning new things. If I create anything worthy of YouTube, I will send you a link. You like Psychobilly, right? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
You beat me, and I'm 7 hours ahead of you! Just back from a party with 10 people and 5 nationalities: my wife (American), the hosts (Lebanese), two Syrian couples, and a French couple. Heard some music I hadn't heard since I was a student (Rare Earth, Get ready, long version). Going to bed now, before my body realizes all the stuff I have eaten and drunk... Will get to your question on my talk tomorrow. Gezondheid, Geluk en Succes in 2014! -- Randykitty ( talk) 04:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Remember my interaction ban with Pete/Skyring? I'm feeling frustrated and restricted by his actions again. Two recent instances, but both on the same topic, the very contentious issue of the naming of Soccer in Australia. I've been a major contributor to discussions there. He hasn't. But he has recently decided to get involved.
Firstly, there was this. He began a new thread immediately after a post of mine at the end of the previous one. His topic wasn't really a new one, it was really about exactly the same matter as the previous one that I had been contributing to, and many others before it. I could have made a quite informative response to his initial post, correcting a false claim he had made and pointing him at some better information, but because of the interaction ban, I chose to hold back. In his post he explicitly asks "supporters of the current title" to respond. Well, I'm one of them, and I have some answers, but...
Now we have this. It's not immediately after a post of mine (there's one in between), but the indenting and content makes it obvious that he is responding to what I had said two posts earlier. It contains an accusation of "a lot of egotism" being invested in the discussion. He avoided saying whose ego, but given where his post sits... I again feel very restricted.
I don't like the line he has started to push on this topic. It's based on a common misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the linguistic situation in part of Australia he's not familiar with (and it's where I live, so I am). I'm certain that some displaying that lack of knowledge are doing so quite deliberately because it's one of those inconvenient truths that very much diminishes their case. Obviously it's not appropriate to discuss details further here. I would normally try to clarify the situation for such editors.
So, how do I proceed? I reckon he's pushing the boundaries of the envelope yet again, but that's for others to make formal judgement on. I'm sure that, if challenged, he will again argue that it was just a mistake, a misunderstanding, and that the policy wasn't clear, and that he just forgot, and, well, you've seen it all before. Even if it was an "innocent" mistake, he seems to make an awful lot of them, and that's a competence issue (and he's no novice here). My problem is that I feel that almost anything I post on those pages now is going to be, at least in some part, a response to what he has posted. (Just as his posts were to my comments.) That's interaction. And it's banned. Where do I (we?) go from here? HiLo48 ( talk) 07:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
[5]. I'm inclined to let it go, particularly because it says such nice things about me and my "ilk", but I thought I'd ask for other opinions, and this page is so much more pleasant than WP:ANI.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there Drmies-- I just nominated Bacon as a Good Article, and I'm telling you because you are a major contributor to the bacon article. I did a little cleanup with User:Ross Hill and I submitted it. Thanks for the contributions :) Newyorkadam ( talk) 20:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
P.S. I like the unicorn :)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Association of European Border Regions, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 21:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You have reviewed the above page for me and commented that I require more references.
Here is the link: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Olivier_Brousse
I have included the following references, are these not relevant or sufficient?
^ http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=24174979&privcapId=26419589 Jump up ^ http://www.bfmtv.com/economie/olivier-brousse-la-grande-saur-sera-bientot-retour-551172.html Jump up ^ http://www.lejdd.fr/Economie/Entreprises/Actualite/Environnement-la-naissance-du-geant-Saur-attendra-499011 Jump up ^ http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x10yoq5_l-invitee-de-l-economie-avec-olivier-brousse_news Jump up ^ http://plus.lefigaro.fr/tag/olivier-brousse Jump up ^ http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2013/02/04/la-direction-de-la-saur-est-remaniee-alors-que-le-groupe-doit-vite-etre-recapitalise_1826668_3234.html Jump up ^ http://www.boursorama.com/actualites/olivier-brousse-president-executif-du-groupe-saur-dans-le-grand-journal--2-juillet-1-4-b53af2561fb2ed9af36ce7ac11a16871 Jump up ^ http://www.lesechos.fr/05/04/2013/LesEchos/21411-084-ECH_rachat-de-la-saur-----les-trois-offres-assurent-un-ancrage-francais--.htm Jump up ^ http://www.menaeconomicforum.com/mef2/portfolio/6494/ Jump up ^ http://www.actu-environnement.com/ae/news/fp2e-eau-brousse-13010.php4 Jump up ^ http://www.aspeninstitute.org/leadership-programs/henry-crown-fellowship-program/lists-fellows/2006-great-xpectations-class Jump up ^ http://baltimore.citybizlist.com/article/connex-becomes-largest-public-transportation-company-north-america-0 Jump up ^ http://www.legrain2sel.com/olivier-brousse-president-executif-du-groupe-saur-interviewe-par-bfm-business-dans-le-grand-journal-14008/ Jump up ^ http://www.arabnews.com/kingdom-seen-regional-water-management-hub Jump up ^ http://www.globalwaterintel.com/news/2013/27/saur-poised-renaissance-following-debt-agreement.html Jump up ^ http://www.waterwastewaterasia.com/detail.php?tid=1088 Jump up ^ http://www.fp2e.org/Site/FP2E/Organisation/bureau.php
Thanks
Laura
LauraGeaves ( talk) 16:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
| |
Hello Drmies: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Wes Mᴥuse 21:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
|
I always mess this up, so...
Can somebody move User:Vejlefjord/St. Aug's Abbey (Draft) on top of St Augustine's Abbey while preserving both histories? Bgwhite ( talk) 00:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If you have a moment, take a look at this and tell me if you think he violated his topic ban. The precise wording of the ban is near the bottom of this section. If you don't feel like weighing in, that's okay, too. I'm going to bed.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 04:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Identity_Fusion
Identity fusion is not a neologism. It is theoretically-derived and empirically-validated psychological construct introduced first to the academic literature on personality and social psychological science in 2009 (reference 1; Swann et al., 2009). The identity fusion construct is the central focus of what is known as identity fusion theory, a novel theory about the nature of the self developed by academic experts in the fields of psychology and anthropology (reference 4; Swann et al., 2012). The identity fusion construct and theory engages with other psychological constructs and theories that have Wikipedia articles (e.g., ‘social identity’ and ‘social identity theory’), but fusion is sufficiently different from other theories and constructs to warrant separate status.
Research on identity fusion has been conducted by world-renowned academic researchers with interdisciplinary expertise in areas of psychology, anthropology, and cognitive science (search for the CVs of any of the first authors of articles on fusion in the references and this fact will be abundantly clear). Qualitative and quantitative studies of identity fusion number in the dozens across the references cited. Many of these studies appear in psychology’s most well-respected and most widely distributed and read academic journals (i.e., Psychological Review; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). The academic peer review process for journals like these is extremely rigorous and most submitted articles are rejected. That research on identity fusion has repeatedly appeared in these journals suggests that the identity fusion construct, and the growing body of research on the topic described in this Wikipedia submission, is a topic worthy of publication on the Wikipedia site as well.
To address drmies comments: The identity fusion construct has a specific meaning in self and group psychology that makes it’s usage extremely notable. As already noted, the identity fusion construct was introduced in the academic literature in 2009, so the claim that fusion is a ‘recently coined phrase’ is wrong. It’s also unclear on what the relevance or criteria is for drmies’ claim that identity fusion is “written up by a limited group of scholars”. By my count, 19 different authors have been involved in research articles on the topic of identity fusion. By what standard does this constitute ‘limited’? Furthermore, drmies’ claims identity fusion has ‘not gained widespread acceptance’. Acceptance by whom? The academic articles on fusion cited in reference 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 17, and 21 have all been accepted by various academic experts who referee their respective academic journals. By any scientific standard, research on identity fusion has gained ‘widespread acceptance’.
In sum, the article submitted here references primary sources at a level consistent with articles that appear in peer-reviewed science journals, is clearly written, and presents a rigorous treatment of a validated and important scientific construct and theory. Please reconsider the current determination of ‘decline’.
Awg22 ( talk) 18:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Awg22
It works. And Norwegians are crazy. Word of the year (Norway)? Hafspajen ( talk) 19:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of your personal opinions on gun control, and your !vote on the RFC, but with the aid of some new blood the discussion may have taken a new turn. While I am not trying (but perhaps hoping ;)) to change your opinion or !vote, I would appreciate any mentorship you could provide in terms of building consensus. (hoping to avoid going down the path we are seeing with MilesMoney at ANI) The sections starting at "current state of the article" and below (particularly the proposed text by myself, and the proposal by Scolaire) would be the area of most interest I think. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Wohhhoho, and a bottle of rum. Nice of you to pop up when calling you. Hafspajen ( talk) 20:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC) |
What, yours have 64 entries. But basically dont know how to archive, so thats it. And I hate that bot Sagaciousphil has that comes every second week and spoils everything. No bot for me. But I don't know how to do it myself... Hafspajen ( talk) 21:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hafspajen ( talk) 00:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
This one's yours. I removed the A7 tag as well as the template mess that I couldn't (didn't want to take the time?) fix. I'm assuming he's notable because your other Wikipedia seems to think so.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Re
[6] -- whom who are you to be editing another editor's comments?
NE Ent
03:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help encouraging some archiving! It will help save me from getting repetitive strain injury when scrolling through the lovely Hafspajen's talk page! Now, while I'm here I'll just have a little scout round and see if I there's anything else I can pinch ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC) |
I see from your edit to my user page that the "assume good faith" adage seems to be close to your heart. Would you mind looking over some of the recent contributions from Lukeno94, particularly those made to my talkpage, to the "Pointer" section on his own talkpage and to the administrators' incident board, and see if he lives up to your ideals in this respect. Jaggee ( talk) 13:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
As for my ideals, well, I used to have one single rule: never to eat at McDonalds. And then I had kids. So I'm sorry to see you got off to a rough start, if a start it was, and I hope you can forgive and forget. Luke, play nice please. BMK, take it easy--those Yankee manners are a bit abrasive to my southern eye. Drmies ( talk) 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Please do keep posting, though, more grist for the mill. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
In other news, I forgot to buy dishwasher detergent, so don't be surprised if I'm absent for the next eruption of bad temper. I do have a suggestion: step away. Make a sandwich. Read a good story. Then come back to this joint. Drmies ( talk) 19:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The entry I created for Crescent Cymbals has been deleted. This is a cymbal company, same as Paiste, Sabian, Bosphorus, and numerous others that have an entry on wikipedia. The original submission is a work in progress that I intend to update as I acquire more information about the company.
I'm at a loss as to why Bosphorus Cymbals entry is preserved yet this one is deleted -- *I* created the Bosphorus Cymbals entry, so I'm at a loss as to why one is deemed "OK" and the other is not.
Please allow the page or elaborate EXACTLY what's wrong with it. I urge you to compare my entry to Bosphorus Cymbals and reconsider. Thanks, Mike BigMikeATL ( talk) 02:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)BigMikeATL
Hi Doc. I left a few comments at the DYK nom page. No big deal. Happy New Year! Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 10:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
User:BabbaQ does a blanket revert of a month of edits made by several users to the article without even having participated on the Talk page since May and gives no further rationale than "changing back to neutral version." He removed several changes that had nothing to do with the contentious issue, including info on Yohio's appearances music videos. How the hell can you side with his reverts..? This has nothing to do with BRD, it's about a rash editor who hasn't even from the outset ever explained his actions or properly participated in the discussion. Kiruning ( talk) 13:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Same general posts on the WICL page (see the IP after my latest revert). The IP used is the same network and same location used by Zimmermanh1997 (and his merry band of annoying sockpuppets). You previously semi-protected the WICL for 6 months, looks like it's time for a year. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I copy paste out of my sandbox to hide the idiot errors I made to get to a final product. Since the whole "preserve the history" thing is about authorship/copyright, it doesn't matter if I copy my drivel from my sandbox to where ever, right? It's only if I'm translocating someone else's fine prose that moving the history is important. NE Ent 02:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello! I have read through all the materials, and I hope that I am submitting this question to you appropriately. I have a question with which I hope you can help.
I submitted my first Wikipedia page submission in November, and found out yesterday that it was rejected. I have a quick question for you about resubmitting it.
Question: did I not cite the references correctly technically so that they could be accessed?
This is the page: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Marvin_Megee
The page is about a unique Mayor in Missouri. I included 14 references to support the facts, which included:
5 references from US newspapers (reference #s 4, 6, 7, 8, 9)
5 references from US television investigations/reports from two states (reference #s 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
2 references from a county election office (reference #s 1, 2)
1 reference from a state organization (reference #3)
1 reference from a state law
All of the references are objective, third-party references (from newspapers, tv reports, county and state offices).
I looked at several examples of other Mayors to make sure I was citing references correctly (like /info/en/?search=Allen_Joines), but I worry that I did not format the references where you could see them.
Thank you for any help you can give me so that I can resubmit the page!
Stewarmd11 ( talk) 15:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Michelle Stewarmd11 ( talk) 15:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your feedback! I really appreciate it. I will make the changes and resubmit. I appreciate that you took the time to review it and help me think through ways to improve the page. Thank you. Stewarmd11 ( talk) 18:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Did you come across "Diamant", the Dutch user and (I think) administrator? We just got word that he died 16 November 2013. He was only 13 years of age.
Sad.
The Banner talk 21:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Doctor. Many of the "keep" comments on the Chess.com AFD do not comport with policy. Textbook examples they are of "what not to argue" at AFD. Will the closing admin take that into account?:
1. MaxBrowne: a. Size or popularity does not demonstrate notability WP:RANK WP:POPULARITY, b. Norwegian source is a trivial mention, not substantial coverage c. This is not Canvassing, WP:CANVASS. The admin was not notified in order to sway debate one way. Also, the nominator in question never demonstrated any anti- chess.com sentiment or any deletionist tendencies. In fact, the nominator is a self-identified inclusionist. There is no evidence that anyone was selected because of some pre-disposition to delete. Furthermore, bringing up “Canvassing” focuses on the contributor, not the content, and is only raised as a distraction from the real issue, namely, whether the subject has been substantially covered in multiple reliable sources.
2. Rhodendrites: These sources do not demonstrate notability. As another editor already said, Notability does not mean trivial or fleeting coverage in multiple sources. There is a name for that. WP:MILL. Also, the USCF article does not confer notability, as it is more like a blurb about one action. If that conferred notability it only stands to reason that the other site mentioned in the blurb is also notable.
3. Q6637p: a. Makes the argument to avoid “It’s notable.” b. To bolster this notability, Q6637a reverentially cites a New York Times article which is the epitome of trival coverage. This user clearly does not grasp notability requirements in Wikipedia.
4. Sjkkalle: Same as #2, “totality of sources . . . is non-trivial.” does not comform to policy. As another user succinctly put, “WP:GNG states "has received significant coverage in reliable sources " (plural) - it does not say "has received trivial coverage in a lot of sources.”
5. 2Awwsome: Relies on the cavassing issue, and “It’s notable” without explaining why.
6. Sun Creator: Admits that the sources do not demonstrate notability but argues “Ignore all rules,” saying what would the press think that Wikipedia does not have a Chess.com article? Since this “vote” concedes the subject is not notable and only concludes “keep” on spurious non-policy grounds, this “vote” might as well be for deletion.
7. Epicgenius: “It’s notable.” See arguments to avoid. Concedes it’s “just barely” anway.
8. Cobblet: Easily summed up as “Other stuff exists,” why single out Chess.com. Invalid reasoning puts forth no policy based justification for keeping this article. Also, the members saying that “Wiki_brah” has been singlehandedly responsible for this article having been deleted many times are engaging in sensationalism without evidence. Sheldon Wong67 ( talk) 21:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi Drmies, I am confused as to why our article submission was declined by you. Our sources are all "third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." aren't they?
Thanks for your help.
Liz LizOnehub ( talk) 16:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Saw your no not vote. While certainly you are entitled to your opinion, I am somewhat surprised by it. Did you look through the list of sources I posted as part of the RFC? Gaijin42 ( talk) 18:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
What do you think? Ladyof Shalott 19:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm wondering if these two might go along? De728631 ( talk) 00:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed, as an admin involved with DYKs, could you please post a reminder during the review to check the article. I went thru my review which you told me was bad, and while the links were a bit off as you told me, I found the language was pretty much acceptable. Not too great, but it wasn't bad. However, I've noticed that the article Cobrapost, which hit DYK yesterday, had awful English. I have rewritten only one line but I feel it needs a massive bit of copyediting to have hit the main page. Thank you, for helping out. Cheers, -- Rsrikanth05 ( talk) 05:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I didn't see Demiurge's proposal (I'm only sporadically active in the behind-the-scenes of DYK), but anything that improves quality and quality control is fine with me. We rely a bit much on the kindness of strangers like Yngvadottir, and on the QPQ review process, where too often writers whose skills are lacking (in English prose, in citations, in plagiarism checks, in OR, in the particular subject matter) review articles and just OK it without doing what I think needs to be done. I do not believe in the "it meets the requirements so it should go to the front page" mentality: it bypasses basic editing, for instance, which should be a given for any article. In general, if something is written in acceptable Indian English (or US English, or BEV, or whatever) it shouldn't be excluded for that reason, of course. And now for Cobrapost. Drmies ( talk) 15:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
For quite some time I am trying to keep Sol (Laptop) and Ubuntu (operating system). At the last article user Rezonansowy is thwarting that all the time. The article Sol is a bit different, because that article is filled with promo by the company founder/owner. At least, I have the strong idea the author DSNR and founder David M. Snir are identical.
I start getting angry here, but they keep going on. Advice needed... The Banner talk 11:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) To The Banner, you are treading very closely (and probably in fact violated) WP:OUTING. Deal with sourcing, or pov, or whatever other policies, but attempting to out the coi will only lead to a ban for yourself. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I would appreciate your input at Talk:Gun Control Act of 1968#removing the Alleged Nazi connections section. GabrielF ( talk) 19:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for calling my attention to Wikipedia's copyright issues with respect to the page on Martin Drenthen. I've no problem with the removal of the page, but would be happy to re-launch the page more appropriately formatted. Do I just re-create the page? Or does it need to be cleared by the admins first. Thanks for your help, and for your work on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsmyth123 ( talk • contribs) 05:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for your reply. I'll look into it before reposting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wordsmyth123 ( talk • contribs) 07:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
On 20 December 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Encyclopedia of the Dead, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Danilo Kiš's final work, the 1983 collection The Encyclopedia of the Dead, helped make him one of the most important figures for the post-Yugoslav generation of writers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Encyclopedia of the Dead. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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. |
Gatoclass ( talk) 14:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Drmies. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Gautam Krishna to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 16:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
DYK that on a phone (mine at least) that prod is covered by a simple "this article has issues"? That seems less than adequate to me. Ladyof Shalott 03:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Dr. An IP has been repeatedly posting what he claims is the full name and other personal details about pornstar Lisa Ann, but has been equally repeatedly reverted because of the source being p*ss poor (apparently some kind of user contributed scandal site). This time he posted on Talk:Lisa Ann, and also gave the claimed full name in the edit summary. So could you pls take a look at these two diffs to see if a revdel is needed? ( diff #1, the IP's post, diff #2, my revert). I can add that posting her full name has been discussed on the talk page of the article, but rejected. Thomas.W talk to me 21:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC) (And sorry about your grandma', I know what it feels like to lose a really good one...)
Hi Drmies, the David Horvitz page continues to be vandalized. Do you have authority to give it some kind of protection? This is a little bit above what I grok about Wikipedia process, so direct me elsewhere if needs be. Also, I made a good faith edit adding many citations and pruning excess. I did that a few months ago. It seems that good faith edit was reverted. I didn't save the text as I figured it was a new start for the article. Is there any way to recover that, or is it a revesion permanent and non-recoverable? Thanks. -- Theredproject ( talk) 02:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I probably can't be considered "around" for Wikipedia purposes -- Caught in landslide, no escape from reality. (Hopefully you read this before it's reverted as a copyvio.) NE Ent 03:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:COIN#Michael Mic Neumann. You were involved in a prior discussion about that user. -- Lexein ( talk) 10:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking of giving up Wikipedia recently. The angst and vitriol were just wearing. Your continued level-headed editing have made me re-consider. Thanks! Capitalismojo ( talk) 20:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you watch TLC? What kind of learning can this promote? — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 05:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Holiday Cheer | ||
Michael Q. Schmidt talkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - MQS |
The edits that have been made to the article which I am writing on the history of Conjunto Sonora Matancera are, in the main, unwarranted. I have included references supporting the argument I am making. Where I haven't done so is simply because this information is common knowledge. Alan1-11-1951 ( talk) 19:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
There are other examples of fine writing by the same author for you to read if you dare.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 00:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
What is Wikipedia? -- Rs chen 7754 01:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Best wishes | |
for the holidays and 2014 from a warmer place than where you probably are ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 11:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Drmies, I've noticed you've added a lot of info to the Onfim article. However, your inline-citations do not follow the wikipedia short citation guidelines ( WP:CITESHORT). See Help:Shortened footnotes for complete the complete guide. The commas and page syntax makes it much clearer to the reader, that's all.
-- CyberXRef talk 20:41, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey Drmies. Would you take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wicks Steve? There's a drawer full of socks, notably one who predictably had to invoke WP:OWN in removing sources from the article, that's causing trouble. The explanation by the suspected sockmaster was: "Removed unnecessary references, as each mention the school in its own article." Maybe WP:DUCK would apply to some of them? Thanks, Cunard ( talk) 22:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Greetings and salutations. I wanted to let you know I made this edit to your post at Talk:Gun control. Please feel free to revert for any reason you see fit. Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 04:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Holiday Cheer | ||
Victuallers
talkback is wishing Dr. Mies Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote
WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas and a
Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. -
Vic/Roger inspired by this - you could do the same |
She thinks quite a lot of herself and has a slew of meat (sock?) puppets to help her. Unlike Dickinson, she's hardly reclusive.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
What the heck is going on in there? Is it some kind of feminist convention? Look at the latest non-citation citation added by ... some other feministic literature prof type. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
There's further reading at User talk:JamesBWatson#Martha Nell Smith. For what it's worth, I am disappointed in an English professor who doesn't even attempt at all to work with Wikipedia's citation style. Dougweller, this should properly have been marked as further reading. It is a collection of things that supposedly touch upon the subject of the article. Interestingly, it excludes such publications as Christensen 2007 which devotes an entire chapter to "Digital Dickinson" and says quite a lot about the Dickinson Electronic Archives throughout the book. For starters, it gives the names of the people who run the site, which our article doesn't have. We're missing even such basic information.
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite magazine}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)It's sad to see that the person has received more editor attention than the WWW site. For the record, in this case I'd have had no objection to just zapping the biography back to a stub and concentrating upon the article about the DEA. The latter is the more informative and generally useful subject for the overall readership, and we tell readers next to nothing about it. Readers are better served by our telling them all about a WWW site that is one facet of Dickinson scholarship than they are by our telling them all of the fiddling details of every program ever that one such scholar has been associated with. We're suffering from the disease of putting everything in the form of biographies again. Yes, I know, Doktoro. It's a biography of an English Professor, and we want those in order to fill the English Professor Vacuum here on this talk page. Nonetheless. ☺
Uncle G ( talk) 00:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello Drmies and assorted talk page stalkers,
Could you take a peek? There's this new editor who has 37 edits to that page in less than a week, and zero to anything else on Wikipedia. The user seems to think that hyper-indignation and verbosity are very persuasive. It would be nice if an uninvolved editor (not me) could hat some endless discussions, and gently instruct the new editor on the purpose of article talk pages. Feel free to trout me if I have behaved poorly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
You are welcome, Xanthomelanoussprog. I like to spread holiday cheer, my way. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Epicgenius (
talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Epicgenius ( talk) 02:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Sportsguy17/Happy Holidays 2013
What is the threshold a username or their edits must exceed to be considered for redaction? There were two users banned recently for hate speech names, and I was wondering if those would qualify. EvergreenFir ( talk) 05:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) - I'd say probably per WP:REVDEL. Those are so pejorative, that I'd be appalled if they said it was OK to not revdel it. Those are grossly offensive usernames. Sportsguy17 ( T • C) 22:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
How can you revert a talking page? Do we have to send only good comments? Where is free encyclopedia? https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Soghomon_Tehlirian&oldid=587454731&diff=prev -- Kafkasmurat ( talk) 01:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Season's greetings from Santa and her little helpers
Ah! Santa is getting help from the Bishfish? Lucky him/her! Drmies ( talk) 22:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Christmas | |
Wishing a you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year from Edinburgh. Blethering Scot 17:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC) |
I've closed this. I'm delaying immediately implementing in order to give you (or whemever else) a chance to listify based upon your (and others') comments. - jc37 18:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy Holidays | ||
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season. Hope are having a wonderful time! Hafspajen ( talk) 22:48, 24 December 2013 (UTC) |
Drmies, I hope you have a Merry Christmas and hope your day is full of the true spirit of the day. Plus, good food, good family and good times. :) Have a Great Day! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Spread the joy of Christmas by adding {{subst:User:Neutralhomer/MerryChristmas}} to their talk page with a friendly message. |
I have noticed that Thiyya article has been redirected to Ezhava, There are Ezhava thiyya and Thiyya groups, to resolve disambiguation can we setup WP:MOSDAB page. Also, I support the decision to remove thiyya wiki article published in 2012 because it was Ezhava thiyya and a separate article not needed when we have got Ezhava article already, but the one redirected on 24th December 2013 was Thiyya (not Ezhava Thiyya) . Would you please place back the article in WP main stream. irajeevwiki talk 06:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
You recently deleted sourced content from IBM and the Holocaust while pointing to the WP:PLOT policy, however, it does not appear that you have read it. The relevant part says: "articles on works of non-fiction, including documentaries, research books and papers, religious texts, and the like, should contain more than a recap or summary of the works' contents. Such articles should be expanded to have broader coverage." This is exactly what the article had until you deleted it. While I agree that the long quotes should be removed or paraphrased, you deleted the most important parts of the book that have in fact received broader coverage. Viriditas ( talk) 07:02, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Dougweller (
talk) is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.
Dougweller ( talk) 09:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello again Drmies, hope you are enjoying life to the hilt. :-) Kvenland's true ruler has alerted me to Leavitt Bulldog where good breeding always helps, see also Olde English Bulldogge, perhaps you might also be interested in helping there, even though you've shamefully switched from soggy doggy to youneek youneekorn for your talkpageGreetz. And now for Something Completely Different, it's wiki-flashback time... voila!
unk. | ʍaunus | specific editor [1] is mis-using the power of TW |
(+) | Ryan Vesey | TW-AP, or at the very least, TW-BL |
# | TParis | Or tie TW to RB |
(+) | TCN7JM | TW-AP I would not oppose... tied to RB is too steep (shouldn't need that to auto-CSD-tag a spam-article) |
+ | Snowolf | TW is implemented via common.js/vector.js, which any admin can remove TW from |
+ | Drmies | TW is waaaay too easy for such editors and invites snark and damage (I don't care how we implement the solution) |
(+) | Salvidrim | RB too *wimpy* (TW is more powerful than RB... not as potentially-destructive as AWB though), TW-AP should be same as AWB-AP, and TW-AP should replace/ditch RB |
# | Cabe6403 | TW-auto-CSD-tag-feature *not* tied to anything special, but TW-revert-feature tied to RB, (( and presumably TW-super-features tied to AWB-style TW-AP )) |
+ | Scottywong | TW-BL is easiest, and no additional bureaucracy required |
+ | Lukeno94 | agree |
+ | Salvidrim | agree (change from above), and the .js Twinkle-settings page can be admin-salted to enforce the BL, I guess? |
+ | AutomaticStrikeout | agree |
+ | TCN7JM | agree (change from above) |
+ | Ryan Vesey | agree (change from above), and we don't even need an RfC if the TW-devs will implement the TW-BL in the code |
+ | King of Hearts | TW-BL used to exist, why did it get removed in the first place? |
WP:CONSENSUS says... nine votes for TW-BL, two votes for TW-at-least-partially-tied-to-RB (aka TW-whitelist... two or three pro-TW-BL folks specifically were unhappy with this as too WP:BURO), one abstain, zero opposes. This was back in April... was action taken, to implement the TW-BL of some sort?
p.s. For my motivation here, there is a currently-stalled redacted redacted redacted redacted redacted current proposal with which I am involved and for which it might constitute
WP:CANVASSING were I to mention it to the eleven folks here. So consider this question about TW decisions of April 2013 one of idle curiosity, please. :-) p.p.s. I know canvassing applies to mainspace-and-article-talkpage content-disputes, as well as to RfA voting and AfD voting and such things... where else might it apply, or not apply, in wikipedia-policy-related-and-wiki-tool-related-discussions possibly involving bangvotes, specifically, when talking about implementation details of blacklists and whitelists and approval-processes and all that jazz? Thanks.
74.192.84.101 (
talk)
15:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)
~
TheGeneralUser
(talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi Drmies, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Would you be interested in warning Kafkasmurat against
battleground statements made on article talk pages?
"Article consists of hate speech by Armenians. Genocide or Nazis has nothing to do with Pan- Turkism. These may be mentioned but shouldn't invade the article. "Armenian view on Pan Turkism" would be suitable title for these." --Kafkasmurat (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC) [2] -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 21:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
This bit about "regular quotes or fucking quotes" made me laugh out loud. Thanks, I needed that. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm finally doing some work on our article about Roekiah. Question: what would a good translation of "De vertolkster van de hoofdrol Nji Roekiah gaf spel te zien dat bij ieder waardeering kan vinden." be? Our friend Google gives "The performer of the leading Nji Roekiah showed that you can find. Appreciation for every game", which makes absolutely no sense. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 08:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if this is OK to do, or the correct way to do it, but I imagine you'll tell me if I do it wrong. ;-)
Would you do a review of the Assault weapon article? I think it could use a lot of improvement, but my progress there is slooow. "The guys" seem to respect and/or trust you way more than me (I am working on it).
Thanks.
PS: If you want to see a source nightmare, check out the Mayors Against Illegal Guns article. I've been slogging through it, standardizing citations, finding archived URLs for broken links, trying to understand how to take what's there and make the article better. (It's in serious need of updating.) - Thanks again. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 23:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
There's a minor edit war going on here, which I'm involved in, over the image in the infobox (no one is anywhere near 3RR though). I am curious to know if you agree that the image [3] is better than the one in [4]. Lukeno52 (tell Luke off here) (legitimate alternate account of Lukeno94) 08:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that you protected the above page for 6 months due to sockpuppetry (the protection expired last month). Would you happen to remember the parties/behaviour involved with the sockpuppetry? I've had to make multiple reverts on this and related articles (e.g. The Biggest Loser: No Excuses, The Biggest Loser: Second Chances, etc.) due to several editors ( 189.71.226.175, 189.81.56.43, 189.71.241.51, BobJohnTom) colour-warring over the presentation of the tables in each article (generally changing text to make it difficult to read) and was wondering if the cases were related. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ Speak 20:55, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I feel compelled to bring this to the attention of the talk page lurkers here, it is so spectacular an example of recentist dren.
Uncle G ( talk) 13:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Hope you are having a wonderful time!!!! Hope the New year will bring more Wikihappiness to you. Hafspajen ( talk) 19:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC) |
Just popped in to say hi, and that I hope things are going well for you. I did a little reading, all kinds of retiring and stepping down and controversy....too much for me to get involved, and I seldom come to Wikipedia logged in anymore. Anyway, try not to drink too much tonight, and by all means, try not to drink too little. You still owe me a beer or two, hoping to collect on that some day.
I set up a home studio again (I play several instruments), construction has kept me busy. Been itching to do something truly creative, need to learn some video skills, etc. Always learning new things. If I create anything worthy of YouTube, I will send you a link. You like Psychobilly, right? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
You beat me, and I'm 7 hours ahead of you! Just back from a party with 10 people and 5 nationalities: my wife (American), the hosts (Lebanese), two Syrian couples, and a French couple. Heard some music I hadn't heard since I was a student (Rare Earth, Get ready, long version). Going to bed now, before my body realizes all the stuff I have eaten and drunk... Will get to your question on my talk tomorrow. Gezondheid, Geluk en Succes in 2014! -- Randykitty ( talk) 04:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Remember my interaction ban with Pete/Skyring? I'm feeling frustrated and restricted by his actions again. Two recent instances, but both on the same topic, the very contentious issue of the naming of Soccer in Australia. I've been a major contributor to discussions there. He hasn't. But he has recently decided to get involved.
Firstly, there was this. He began a new thread immediately after a post of mine at the end of the previous one. His topic wasn't really a new one, it was really about exactly the same matter as the previous one that I had been contributing to, and many others before it. I could have made a quite informative response to his initial post, correcting a false claim he had made and pointing him at some better information, but because of the interaction ban, I chose to hold back. In his post he explicitly asks "supporters of the current title" to respond. Well, I'm one of them, and I have some answers, but...
Now we have this. It's not immediately after a post of mine (there's one in between), but the indenting and content makes it obvious that he is responding to what I had said two posts earlier. It contains an accusation of "a lot of egotism" being invested in the discussion. He avoided saying whose ego, but given where his post sits... I again feel very restricted.
I don't like the line he has started to push on this topic. It's based on a common misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the linguistic situation in part of Australia he's not familiar with (and it's where I live, so I am). I'm certain that some displaying that lack of knowledge are doing so quite deliberately because it's one of those inconvenient truths that very much diminishes their case. Obviously it's not appropriate to discuss details further here. I would normally try to clarify the situation for such editors.
So, how do I proceed? I reckon he's pushing the boundaries of the envelope yet again, but that's for others to make formal judgement on. I'm sure that, if challenged, he will again argue that it was just a mistake, a misunderstanding, and that the policy wasn't clear, and that he just forgot, and, well, you've seen it all before. Even if it was an "innocent" mistake, he seems to make an awful lot of them, and that's a competence issue (and he's no novice here). My problem is that I feel that almost anything I post on those pages now is going to be, at least in some part, a response to what he has posted. (Just as his posts were to my comments.) That's interaction. And it's banned. Where do I (we?) go from here? HiLo48 ( talk) 07:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
[5]. I'm inclined to let it go, particularly because it says such nice things about me and my "ilk", but I thought I'd ask for other opinions, and this page is so much more pleasant than WP:ANI.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 18:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi there Drmies-- I just nominated Bacon as a Good Article, and I'm telling you because you are a major contributor to the bacon article. I did a little cleanup with User:Ross Hill and I submitted it. Thanks for the contributions :) Newyorkadam ( talk) 20:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam
P.S. I like the unicorn :)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Association of European Border Regions, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot ( talk) 21:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You have reviewed the above page for me and commented that I require more references.
Here is the link: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Olivier_Brousse
I have included the following references, are these not relevant or sufficient?
^ http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=24174979&privcapId=26419589 Jump up ^ http://www.bfmtv.com/economie/olivier-brousse-la-grande-saur-sera-bientot-retour-551172.html Jump up ^ http://www.lejdd.fr/Economie/Entreprises/Actualite/Environnement-la-naissance-du-geant-Saur-attendra-499011 Jump up ^ http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x10yoq5_l-invitee-de-l-economie-avec-olivier-brousse_news Jump up ^ http://plus.lefigaro.fr/tag/olivier-brousse Jump up ^ http://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2013/02/04/la-direction-de-la-saur-est-remaniee-alors-que-le-groupe-doit-vite-etre-recapitalise_1826668_3234.html Jump up ^ http://www.boursorama.com/actualites/olivier-brousse-president-executif-du-groupe-saur-dans-le-grand-journal--2-juillet-1-4-b53af2561fb2ed9af36ce7ac11a16871 Jump up ^ http://www.lesechos.fr/05/04/2013/LesEchos/21411-084-ECH_rachat-de-la-saur-----les-trois-offres-assurent-un-ancrage-francais--.htm Jump up ^ http://www.menaeconomicforum.com/mef2/portfolio/6494/ Jump up ^ http://www.actu-environnement.com/ae/news/fp2e-eau-brousse-13010.php4 Jump up ^ http://www.aspeninstitute.org/leadership-programs/henry-crown-fellowship-program/lists-fellows/2006-great-xpectations-class Jump up ^ http://baltimore.citybizlist.com/article/connex-becomes-largest-public-transportation-company-north-america-0 Jump up ^ http://www.legrain2sel.com/olivier-brousse-president-executif-du-groupe-saur-interviewe-par-bfm-business-dans-le-grand-journal-14008/ Jump up ^ http://www.arabnews.com/kingdom-seen-regional-water-management-hub Jump up ^ http://www.globalwaterintel.com/news/2013/27/saur-poised-renaissance-following-debt-agreement.html Jump up ^ http://www.waterwastewaterasia.com/detail.php?tid=1088 Jump up ^ http://www.fp2e.org/Site/FP2E/Organisation/bureau.php
Thanks
Laura
LauraGeaves ( talk) 16:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
| |
Hello Drmies: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Wes Mᴥuse 21:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
|
I always mess this up, so...
Can somebody move User:Vejlefjord/St. Aug's Abbey (Draft) on top of St Augustine's Abbey while preserving both histories? Bgwhite ( talk) 00:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If you have a moment, take a look at this and tell me if you think he violated his topic ban. The precise wording of the ban is near the bottom of this section. If you don't feel like weighing in, that's okay, too. I'm going to bed.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 04:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Identity_Fusion
Identity fusion is not a neologism. It is theoretically-derived and empirically-validated psychological construct introduced first to the academic literature on personality and social psychological science in 2009 (reference 1; Swann et al., 2009). The identity fusion construct is the central focus of what is known as identity fusion theory, a novel theory about the nature of the self developed by academic experts in the fields of psychology and anthropology (reference 4; Swann et al., 2012). The identity fusion construct and theory engages with other psychological constructs and theories that have Wikipedia articles (e.g., ‘social identity’ and ‘social identity theory’), but fusion is sufficiently different from other theories and constructs to warrant separate status.
Research on identity fusion has been conducted by world-renowned academic researchers with interdisciplinary expertise in areas of psychology, anthropology, and cognitive science (search for the CVs of any of the first authors of articles on fusion in the references and this fact will be abundantly clear). Qualitative and quantitative studies of identity fusion number in the dozens across the references cited. Many of these studies appear in psychology’s most well-respected and most widely distributed and read academic journals (i.e., Psychological Review; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). The academic peer review process for journals like these is extremely rigorous and most submitted articles are rejected. That research on identity fusion has repeatedly appeared in these journals suggests that the identity fusion construct, and the growing body of research on the topic described in this Wikipedia submission, is a topic worthy of publication on the Wikipedia site as well.
To address drmies comments: The identity fusion construct has a specific meaning in self and group psychology that makes it’s usage extremely notable. As already noted, the identity fusion construct was introduced in the academic literature in 2009, so the claim that fusion is a ‘recently coined phrase’ is wrong. It’s also unclear on what the relevance or criteria is for drmies’ claim that identity fusion is “written up by a limited group of scholars”. By my count, 19 different authors have been involved in research articles on the topic of identity fusion. By what standard does this constitute ‘limited’? Furthermore, drmies’ claims identity fusion has ‘not gained widespread acceptance’. Acceptance by whom? The academic articles on fusion cited in reference 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12, 17, and 21 have all been accepted by various academic experts who referee their respective academic journals. By any scientific standard, research on identity fusion has gained ‘widespread acceptance’.
In sum, the article submitted here references primary sources at a level consistent with articles that appear in peer-reviewed science journals, is clearly written, and presents a rigorous treatment of a validated and important scientific construct and theory. Please reconsider the current determination of ‘decline’.
Awg22 ( talk) 18:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Awg22
It works. And Norwegians are crazy. Word of the year (Norway)? Hafspajen ( talk) 19:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I am aware of your personal opinions on gun control, and your !vote on the RFC, but with the aid of some new blood the discussion may have taken a new turn. While I am not trying (but perhaps hoping ;)) to change your opinion or !vote, I would appreciate any mentorship you could provide in terms of building consensus. (hoping to avoid going down the path we are seeing with MilesMoney at ANI) The sections starting at "current state of the article" and below (particularly the proposed text by myself, and the proposal by Scolaire) would be the area of most interest I think. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Wohhhoho, and a bottle of rum. Nice of you to pop up when calling you. Hafspajen ( talk) 20:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC) |
What, yours have 64 entries. But basically dont know how to archive, so thats it. And I hate that bot Sagaciousphil has that comes every second week and spoils everything. No bot for me. But I don't know how to do it myself... Hafspajen ( talk) 21:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hafspajen ( talk) 00:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
This one's yours. I removed the A7 tag as well as the template mess that I couldn't (didn't want to take the time?) fix. I'm assuming he's notable because your other Wikipedia seems to think so.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 22:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Re
[6] -- whom who are you to be editing another editor's comments?
NE Ent
03:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your help encouraging some archiving! It will help save me from getting repetitive strain injury when scrolling through the lovely Hafspajen's talk page! Now, while I'm here I'll just have a little scout round and see if I there's anything else I can pinch ... SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC) |
I see from your edit to my user page that the "assume good faith" adage seems to be close to your heart. Would you mind looking over some of the recent contributions from Lukeno94, particularly those made to my talkpage, to the "Pointer" section on his own talkpage and to the administrators' incident board, and see if he lives up to your ideals in this respect. Jaggee ( talk) 13:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
As for my ideals, well, I used to have one single rule: never to eat at McDonalds. And then I had kids. So I'm sorry to see you got off to a rough start, if a start it was, and I hope you can forgive and forget. Luke, play nice please. BMK, take it easy--those Yankee manners are a bit abrasive to my southern eye. Drmies ( talk) 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Please do keep posting, though, more grist for the mill. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
In other news, I forgot to buy dishwasher detergent, so don't be surprised if I'm absent for the next eruption of bad temper. I do have a suggestion: step away. Make a sandwich. Read a good story. Then come back to this joint. Drmies ( talk) 19:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
The entry I created for Crescent Cymbals has been deleted. This is a cymbal company, same as Paiste, Sabian, Bosphorus, and numerous others that have an entry on wikipedia. The original submission is a work in progress that I intend to update as I acquire more information about the company.
I'm at a loss as to why Bosphorus Cymbals entry is preserved yet this one is deleted -- *I* created the Bosphorus Cymbals entry, so I'm at a loss as to why one is deemed "OK" and the other is not.
Please allow the page or elaborate EXACTLY what's wrong with it. I urge you to compare my entry to Bosphorus Cymbals and reconsider. Thanks, Mike BigMikeATL ( talk) 02:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)BigMikeATL
Hi Doc. I left a few comments at the DYK nom page. No big deal. Happy New Year! Δρ.Κ. λόγος πράξις 10:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
User:BabbaQ does a blanket revert of a month of edits made by several users to the article without even having participated on the Talk page since May and gives no further rationale than "changing back to neutral version." He removed several changes that had nothing to do with the contentious issue, including info on Yohio's appearances music videos. How the hell can you side with his reverts..? This has nothing to do with BRD, it's about a rash editor who hasn't even from the outset ever explained his actions or properly participated in the discussion. Kiruning ( talk) 13:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Same general posts on the WICL page (see the IP after my latest revert). The IP used is the same network and same location used by Zimmermanh1997 (and his merry band of annoying sockpuppets). You previously semi-protected the WICL for 6 months, looks like it's time for a year. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I copy paste out of my sandbox to hide the idiot errors I made to get to a final product. Since the whole "preserve the history" thing is about authorship/copyright, it doesn't matter if I copy my drivel from my sandbox to where ever, right? It's only if I'm translocating someone else's fine prose that moving the history is important. NE Ent 02:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)