![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Hi JohnBlackburne, Mistakefinder and Philipxd have recently re-edited the Republic of China (1912-49) article, including a massive deletion without an edit summary by Philipxd [1], and changing the lead paragraphs. Mistakefinder also added a tag on top [2] wanting to merge Republic of China (1912-49) into History of the Republic of China, which, makes little sense.-- Thomasettaei ( talk) 05:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, What is the problem? why do not you let me do change. You're interfering to my user page. There are thousands of people's biography. Do not bother going to come.--Can Koray 21:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cankoray ( talk • contribs)
Thank you!--Can Koray 22:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cankoray ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for uploading File:Android ruby screenshot.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 05:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Since you are (or have been) one of the main contributors/maintainers of the Abba article, I'd like to request your opinion on a dispute about the proper handling of sales figures in the article's lead.
The dispute is at Talk:ABBA#Sales and your input would be very much appreciated. -- Kmhkmh ( talk) 15:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi John. The latest WikiWidgets discussion has been archived. My last reply to you was lengthy so I'm not sure if you got a chance to read it, if you read it and didn't find time to reply, or if you read it and decided not to reply, either because you agreed or because you got tired of discussing ( Warnock's dilemma). Throughout the three cycles of discussion, some users have supported the project, others have opposed it, and others haven't expressed their opinion clearly. The implementation has improved a lot during the discussions, so I think that some users that opposed it first, may agree now. But of course I don't know that, and I don't want to annoy everyone by asking them to review the whole discussion. Instead, I thought that you, by having participated in the discussion the most, and by having been mostly on the opposing side, may adequately represent the opposition. I think that if you agree that the latest implementation addresses the key concerns well enough, then requesting the necessary edits to the MediaWiki namespace would be justified. And if you don't, then I really can't think of any further improvements to the implementation, so that would be it for the project in the English Wikipedia. So what do you think? Have the accessibility, performance and security concerns been adequately addressed, taking into account my last reply? Should I request the edits to the MediaWiki namespace and get the project started in the English Wikipedia? In any case, thanks. -- Felipe ( talk) 11:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Rather than the reversion done by non-chemists. See the talk page at that article. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 ( talk) 00:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know whether you noticed or not but since you commented at the ICM category deletion debate last month, a new list is up at here. You said with pretty confidence at the discussion that it is "nowhere near being a defining category". "Nowhere near" is a pretty strong assertion and re-reading the entire discussion you used the strongest wording among the five deletion voters.
While you didn't mentioned anything about your background there in the discussion I see from your user page (where random people first visit on first interaction) that you have one user box (and its corresponding category) saying that you are professionally involved in Mathematics and another saying that you are a volunteer of the Wiki maths project. That is two user boxes related to things Maths among total 10. And no other delete voters have either of the two boxes up on their user page.
Today some text was added to the list (not by me) that being an invited speaker at an ICM is "the equivalent, in this community, of an induction to a hall of fame." which was published in Nature.
This wide discrepancy between a top scientific journal and an editor who claims professional expertise on their user page, compels me to question your competency on the subject matter. Solomon 7968 18:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi thanks for noticing the page is currently broken. I am actively testing this page for implementation of wikidata items to the template. Please excuse the error for a few days as I am creating the correct links to the data. Julialturner ( talk) 04:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there John, I noticed that you reverted ARF6 and RREB1 recently and wanted to give a little context. We (Gene Wiki Project) have been using these to test and demonstrate the conversion of the gene infoboxes to the use of data in wikidata. These genes were picked specifically because they are relatively obscure and receive very low traffic. The conversion is very nearly complete. It would be beneficial to our efforts if you could leave them up as we finish the conversion as they are very useful both for debugging and for anchoring discussions. If you are passionate that they remain untouched until the templates are error free we can try to work differently - but this would be a bit harder. One of the tricks here is getting the wikidata calls to work in a way that the template can be placed on the appropriate page and just work because of the interwiki link between the article and the associated item in wikidata. Its hard to test that without being on the article itself. Preview can clearly be used for debugging, but it is really handy to be able to point people at a live example. For more context about our work, please see Original Gene Wiki Portal and recent efforts in wikidata by the ProteinBoxBot. Thanks very much -- Benjamin Good ( talk) 04:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say your signature is clever.
—
GrammarFascist
contribs
talk
02:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm finding my way around rather than finding a directory first. This is how I found the link to where this is written, by clicking 'New section' for the first time. You may delete this immediately upon reading it. Is it a correct process for transferring information? If it is, then I may use the same process to contact people who've mentioned me in remarks recently. All is well and thank you for trying to educate me via that last email, but I did not find what you indicated. I'll work on it later. Sudaama90 ( talk) 07:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for raising the issue about the prominence of the award. I would agree that the award is certainly not major. One cannot put an entirely objective metric on these things, but I don't think it improper to say that it is of the same order as awards in applied mathematics given by SIAM (e.g. see [3]). However, being very recent, it has not received much exposure. The JDE is certainly a very well-respected journal (at least by those who work on differential equations, as I do) and Elsevier is a huge scientific publisher (so the award is quite real), but one could certainly argue that this alone does not warrant an encyclopedic entry. Stablenode ( talk) 14:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Rather than just undoing my edit on the China page about water supply and sanitation infractructure, I would very much appreciate it if you could enter a discussion about it with me here: /info/en/?search=Talk:China#Information_about_water_supply_and_sanitation_infrastructure As I said there, water supply and infractructure is not primarily an environmental issue but it is primarily about providing access to services for people. Hence I disagree with your deletion. Can we at least talk about it on the talk page of the China article? EvMsmile ( talk) 01:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
EvMsmile ( talk) 01:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help. The intent was given in August on the talk page.If you know a better way to achieve the objective discussed on the Council House talk page please make the corrections. Whats the problem: there have been mergers in the past- council estate, council estate and who knows what else. The correct title for the content is Public housing in the United Kingdom. The article is tagged with multiple problems, it is political dynamite and very UK specific. Within that page there is a sizeable portion of text that is needed in the Council House article that was part of a previous merger- and even more references in the edit history. What I need is to rename the article but to clone the edit history! I haven't time to do further edits to day so I will leave it to you to try your better method. (Last time I saw the Move tool in action- it took 3 weeks to pick up the pieces!)-- Clem Rutter ( talk) 09:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your revert of my edit to Six-dimensional space, can we delete the Plücker section or agree to my version? The current information is wrong. See also my entry to the talk page. Aaichert ( talk) 08:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
JohnBlackburne Wishing you a joyous Christmas and a prosperous new year! BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 17:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC) |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Hi JohnBlackburne, Mistakefinder and Philipxd have recently re-edited the Republic of China (1912-49) article, including a massive deletion without an edit summary by Philipxd [1], and changing the lead paragraphs. Mistakefinder also added a tag on top [2] wanting to merge Republic of China (1912-49) into History of the Republic of China, which, makes little sense.-- Thomasettaei ( talk) 05:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, What is the problem? why do not you let me do change. You're interfering to my user page. There are thousands of people's biography. Do not bother going to come.--Can Koray 21:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cankoray ( talk • contribs)
Thank you!--Can Koray 22:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cankoray ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for uploading File:Android ruby screenshot.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 05:06, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi! Since you are (or have been) one of the main contributors/maintainers of the Abba article, I'd like to request your opinion on a dispute about the proper handling of sales figures in the article's lead.
The dispute is at Talk:ABBA#Sales and your input would be very much appreciated. -- Kmhkmh ( talk) 15:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi John. The latest WikiWidgets discussion has been archived. My last reply to you was lengthy so I'm not sure if you got a chance to read it, if you read it and didn't find time to reply, or if you read it and decided not to reply, either because you agreed or because you got tired of discussing ( Warnock's dilemma). Throughout the three cycles of discussion, some users have supported the project, others have opposed it, and others haven't expressed their opinion clearly. The implementation has improved a lot during the discussions, so I think that some users that opposed it first, may agree now. But of course I don't know that, and I don't want to annoy everyone by asking them to review the whole discussion. Instead, I thought that you, by having participated in the discussion the most, and by having been mostly on the opposing side, may adequately represent the opposition. I think that if you agree that the latest implementation addresses the key concerns well enough, then requesting the necessary edits to the MediaWiki namespace would be justified. And if you don't, then I really can't think of any further improvements to the implementation, so that would be it for the project in the English Wikipedia. So what do you think? Have the accessibility, performance and security concerns been adequately addressed, taking into account my last reply? Should I request the edits to the MediaWiki namespace and get the project started in the English Wikipedia? In any case, thanks. -- Felipe ( talk) 11:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Rather than the reversion done by non-chemists. See the talk page at that article. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 ( talk) 00:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know whether you noticed or not but since you commented at the ICM category deletion debate last month, a new list is up at here. You said with pretty confidence at the discussion that it is "nowhere near being a defining category". "Nowhere near" is a pretty strong assertion and re-reading the entire discussion you used the strongest wording among the five deletion voters.
While you didn't mentioned anything about your background there in the discussion I see from your user page (where random people first visit on first interaction) that you have one user box (and its corresponding category) saying that you are professionally involved in Mathematics and another saying that you are a volunteer of the Wiki maths project. That is two user boxes related to things Maths among total 10. And no other delete voters have either of the two boxes up on their user page.
Today some text was added to the list (not by me) that being an invited speaker at an ICM is "the equivalent, in this community, of an induction to a hall of fame." which was published in Nature.
This wide discrepancy between a top scientific journal and an editor who claims professional expertise on their user page, compels me to question your competency on the subject matter. Solomon 7968 18:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi thanks for noticing the page is currently broken. I am actively testing this page for implementation of wikidata items to the template. Please excuse the error for a few days as I am creating the correct links to the data. Julialturner ( talk) 04:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi there John, I noticed that you reverted ARF6 and RREB1 recently and wanted to give a little context. We (Gene Wiki Project) have been using these to test and demonstrate the conversion of the gene infoboxes to the use of data in wikidata. These genes were picked specifically because they are relatively obscure and receive very low traffic. The conversion is very nearly complete. It would be beneficial to our efforts if you could leave them up as we finish the conversion as they are very useful both for debugging and for anchoring discussions. If you are passionate that they remain untouched until the templates are error free we can try to work differently - but this would be a bit harder. One of the tricks here is getting the wikidata calls to work in a way that the template can be placed on the appropriate page and just work because of the interwiki link between the article and the associated item in wikidata. Its hard to test that without being on the article itself. Preview can clearly be used for debugging, but it is really handy to be able to point people at a live example. For more context about our work, please see Original Gene Wiki Portal and recent efforts in wikidata by the ProteinBoxBot. Thanks very much -- Benjamin Good ( talk) 04:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say your signature is clever.
—
GrammarFascist
contribs
talk
02:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm finding my way around rather than finding a directory first. This is how I found the link to where this is written, by clicking 'New section' for the first time. You may delete this immediately upon reading it. Is it a correct process for transferring information? If it is, then I may use the same process to contact people who've mentioned me in remarks recently. All is well and thank you for trying to educate me via that last email, but I did not find what you indicated. I'll work on it later. Sudaama90 ( talk) 07:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for raising the issue about the prominence of the award. I would agree that the award is certainly not major. One cannot put an entirely objective metric on these things, but I don't think it improper to say that it is of the same order as awards in applied mathematics given by SIAM (e.g. see [3]). However, being very recent, it has not received much exposure. The JDE is certainly a very well-respected journal (at least by those who work on differential equations, as I do) and Elsevier is a huge scientific publisher (so the award is quite real), but one could certainly argue that this alone does not warrant an encyclopedic entry. Stablenode ( talk) 14:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Rather than just undoing my edit on the China page about water supply and sanitation infractructure, I would very much appreciate it if you could enter a discussion about it with me here: /info/en/?search=Talk:China#Information_about_water_supply_and_sanitation_infrastructure As I said there, water supply and infractructure is not primarily an environmental issue but it is primarily about providing access to services for people. Hence I disagree with your deletion. Can we at least talk about it on the talk page of the China article? EvMsmile ( talk) 01:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
EvMsmile ( talk) 01:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help. The intent was given in August on the talk page.If you know a better way to achieve the objective discussed on the Council House talk page please make the corrections. Whats the problem: there have been mergers in the past- council estate, council estate and who knows what else. The correct title for the content is Public housing in the United Kingdom. The article is tagged with multiple problems, it is political dynamite and very UK specific. Within that page there is a sizeable portion of text that is needed in the Council House article that was part of a previous merger- and even more references in the edit history. What I need is to rename the article but to clone the edit history! I haven't time to do further edits to day so I will leave it to you to try your better method. (Last time I saw the Move tool in action- it took 3 weeks to pick up the pieces!)-- Clem Rutter ( talk) 09:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your revert of my edit to Six-dimensional space, can we delete the Plücker section or agree to my version? The current information is wrong. See also my entry to the talk page. Aaichert ( talk) 08:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
JohnBlackburne Wishing you a joyous Christmas and a prosperous new year! BoringHistoryGuy ( talk) 17:59, 23 December 2015 (UTC) |