Welcome!
Hello, HalfDome, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -
Mailer Diablo
15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
May I know which is the article in question that was deleted? - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello! ---I monitor Education userboxes and found your contribution a little redundant. If you combine User_PhD and Economics as Favourite Subject you contrive the message. Otherwise, we may end up having duplicate degree/subject all over the place, and that's not pleasant. Louie 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about this hasty reply; I've just come home from vacation. I'll look into the graph and your complaints. If there is a valid argument, while this is Wikipedia and we could handle it ourselves, I will recommend taking a a consensus-driven path. I have to go unpack now and will check this out in more detail later. — ßott e siηi (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see my response here. Waggers 11:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Well done, I think that's a much better (and geographically neutral) phrasing. Concensus at last! Waggers 11:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I guess that this edit was yours? I am just leaving you a message here to point to the guidelines I was following in my subsequent edits, i.e. Wikipedia:Categorization and the various formatting/style guidelines are on or linked to from Wikipedia:Manual of Style. thanks Martin 14:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
please have a look at Talk:Upskirt. I strongly object to characterise my action as "name calling". there are weasel words. it needs cites, you are right, but the weasel words are there as well. they need to go.-- ExpImp talk con 21:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not engage in personal attacks. Dragons flight 05:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[2] William M. Connolley 07:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
HalfDome, I wanted to appologize for being a bit smug. My wikistress level is pretty high and I'm just worn out by all the trolling and POV pushers (see Raul's first law of Wikipedia). It just seems like it is getting worse around here and I did not properly assume good faith with my responce. I did make some changes to your recent edits but I think you'll be ok with them. Morphh (talk) 1:52, 06 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is At What Cost?, Cornell. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At What Cost?, Cornell (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At What Cost?, Cornell (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
{{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, HalfDome, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -
Mailer Diablo
15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
May I know which is the article in question that was deleted? - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello! ---I monitor Education userboxes and found your contribution a little redundant. If you combine User_PhD and Economics as Favourite Subject you contrive the message. Otherwise, we may end up having duplicate degree/subject all over the place, and that's not pleasant. Louie 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about this hasty reply; I've just come home from vacation. I'll look into the graph and your complaints. If there is a valid argument, while this is Wikipedia and we could handle it ourselves, I will recommend taking a a consensus-driven path. I have to go unpack now and will check this out in more detail later. — ßott e siηi (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see my response here. Waggers 11:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Well done, I think that's a much better (and geographically neutral) phrasing. Concensus at last! Waggers 11:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I guess that this edit was yours? I am just leaving you a message here to point to the guidelines I was following in my subsequent edits, i.e. Wikipedia:Categorization and the various formatting/style guidelines are on or linked to from Wikipedia:Manual of Style. thanks Martin 14:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
please have a look at Talk:Upskirt. I strongly object to characterise my action as "name calling". there are weasel words. it needs cites, you are right, but the weasel words are there as well. they need to go.-- ExpImp talk con 21:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Please do not engage in personal attacks. Dragons flight 05:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
[2] William M. Connolley 07:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
HalfDome, I wanted to appologize for being a bit smug. My wikistress level is pretty high and I'm just worn out by all the trolling and POV pushers (see Raul's first law of Wikipedia). It just seems like it is getting worse around here and I did not properly assume good faith with my responce. I did make some changes to your recent edits but I think you'll be ok with them. Morphh (talk) 1:52, 06 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is At What Cost?, Cornell. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At What Cost?, Cornell (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. -- Erwin85Bot ( talk) 01:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At What Cost?, Cornell (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
{{u| Sdkb}} talk 06:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)