This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Can you explain why you tore down our page on this subject. We are trying to raise the profile of this product and as the Collection Server experts within OpenText UK, we are curious as to your rationale. Look forward to hearing from you. Pwallace pivotal ( talk) 12:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Unless you have a really good reason for refactoring my report I suggest you revert yourself. – Lionel ( talk) 04:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Re your response to an IP, the context is [1]. See the IP's talk page also. Dougweller ( talk) 08:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Listen Johnuniq, try to understand.
The question is if it´s ok to use your own scientific work in Wikipeida.
The answer is Yes!<br /
For example, It will be impossible to incorporate pictures in Wikipedia if you can’t give away your own pictures and include your own work as a reference to the same pictures.
Wikipedia encyclopedia newer hide facts and links to references of that same correct information. If Johnuniq want to improve the articles and for some reason dosen´t want my report as a reference, Johnuniq must prove it wrong. Then Johnuniq must delete all the information, pictures and theories which I have contributed to in the galling, wear and Stress (mechanics) articles, because they are closely linkt to my research.
Do I promote my self, or do I promote a theory?? It´s clear I promote the theory not my work. But do you really think any researcher can write an scientific article which isn’t based on his or her own knowledge including research? -- Haraldwallin ( talk) 11:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Could you list Jagged85's edits on this article as edit blocks? Thx in advance Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 09:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [ [2]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 16:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Text posted was:
Your comments and opinions are most desired and requested at talk:e. — Cpiral Cpiral 20:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on your reversion of the previous editor's change to the hatnote? It seems to me that their edit was a good one, as it makes the difference between the two articles clear to the reader and, as the previous editor said, is consistent with Age of the Universe. Cheers! -- LWG talk 02:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
John, thank you for this reversion, which upheld the quality of the article. Cunard ( talk) 23:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
While responding today, I kept noting 'Semi-retarded' where 'semi-retired' was written on the top of my page. Wondered:'Did I do that?' 'If not me, I'll still let it stand. It's a fair comment' etc. Checked the code, no evidence for how 'Semi-retarded' got there. This evening, I return to the page and I see now 'semi-retired'. No one has altered the page so I was subject for a half hour to an optical illusion, or rather a visual projection of my real thoughts on myself for getting mixed up in these humongously silly pages where fairness has to be fought for with sysiphean tedium. Keep out of the IP area! Nishidani ( talk) 19:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that you substantially changed the text affecting the zodiac sign pages. I want to make you aware that there is full, extensive discussion concerning the structure and design of the astrology sign pages, and clear consensus in favour of utilising the text you have removed. If you have reasons why you dissaprove of the text please contribute to the discussion and explain those reasons so that those who are currently working on guidelines for structure and content on these pages can understand your objections. This would be useful. The relevant discussion is here. -- Zac Δ talk! 06:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
My recent edit to the exhumation subsection was recently reverted. I have undone that revision, but you reverted it. Why did I edit that way? Here:
"NEW YORK, March 23 -- Determined to right a historic wrong, a group that included authors, lawyers and a forensic pathologist called a news conference Friday to unveil a bold campaign to exhume a dead book. No, wait. To exhume a dead body. Well, that's what they said, anyway. But the more they talked about exhuming the body, the more it seemed like the point was reviving the sluggish sales of a nearly moribund book. Specifically, The Secret Life of Harry Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero, by William Kulash [sic] and Larry Sloman. Published in October, this door-stopper purports to reveal new and astounding elements of the great magician's life and death..."
-from Segal, David (March 24, 2007). "Why Not Just Hold a Seance?". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301850.html. Retrieved March 24, 2007. That is hostile to the biography, to the authors, and it clearly calls the book a door-stop, though the haec verba is "door-stopper"...which is the term we use in my family.
So, no, the edit stating the article is hostile to the book and the authors (as already cited with the citation of the article itself) and none of this is original research.
Let's actually read citations before we go round accusing editors. Djathink imacowboy 09:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Please give your opinion on regarding merging some articles at Talk:VIT University.-- Alokprasad84 ( talk) 17:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm trying to advance the cause of civility on the NPOV page. I've tried to state my perspective without trying to discount other people's opinions (I'm sure I haven't succeeded completely) so I've try to lay it out in a historical progression. I've put forth three suggestions which in my opinion do not offend anyone's sensibility and would satisfy 90% of my concerns with the page. Please consider each one on its own merit and let me know if you think they would be acceptable compromises. More than anything I'd like to return some spirit of rationality and common cause rather than continue to see two stringently divided camps.-- Factchk ( talk) 20:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. At first I was irritated to be singled out for trying to resolve the issue of personal attacks on an article discussion page. I was simply responding to others who began the issue there, refused to let it go, posted a list of my alleged personal attacks, and declared that the issue must be resolved before they will join me in discussion of the article.
Yet now I think I get it—and thank you for singling me out. By closely adhering to the guidelines, myself, I maintain my protection under them, swiftly report their violations, and not continually have to justify why I joined personal statements—at the very razor's edge of personal attacks—once they severely violated Wikipedia guidelines with blatant personal attacks on me.
I thank you for helping me learn my options now helping me keep steady in mind where and how to report things before they snowball into such web of catch22s.
Anyhow, what is, where is, or how does one create a noticeboard (one of your suggestions)?
Kusername ( talk) 21:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi John, you undid my revision [3] - I think 'establishment' doesn't capture that the entities negotiate and agree a connection. What do you think? I'm new to Security Associations and maybe it's not been well explained to me. -- Flexdream ( talk) 23:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Johnuniq. Yes rollback will be a useful tool to revert vandalism. I'll review Wikipedia:Rollback again too. Robert Brockway ( talk) 11:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cowboy 128 Cowboy128 ( talk) 04:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I was looking at this article, via the new user template:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_development
which I can't edit, and found it was full of text in Russian. That doesn't seem normal? Sirpastealot ( talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
My questions are not comments and they are not "off topic". They are VERY relevant. -- Filterbypass ( talk) 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It is hard to make out what the message is about, so I suppose that someone removed it because there has been a lot of activity at User talk:Jimbo Wales recently and much of it has been of a somewhat misguided nature with rants and provocative assertions (not your comment—other comments), so it was assumed your message was part of that. If it is addressed to Jimbo, it should say why (why ask Jimbo about Fauci or HIV?). If something is wanted, it should be made clearer (what is wanted?). Johnuniq ( talk) 01:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Are you a Faucist? That is, do you have a strong personal opinion about who should receive treatment for HIV infection and who should not?
I edited Wikipedia for many years—without incident—until I edited the HIV page. There is a big controversy within the HIV community about who should be treated and who should not be treated. Most lay people are unaware of this controversy and there is a group of users (and one checkuser) who want to keep it that way. Any mention of this controversy is ALWAYS sanitised from the pages of Wikipedia. My question stands. Is Jim Wales a Fuacist? Is part of Fauci’s 4.8 billion dollar per year budget ending up in WMFs coffers? Or is he simply oblivious to what is going on at Wikipedia? If he is oblivious, what does he intend to do to protect good faith editors from harassment? (I have no reason to believe that the two of you are anything but innocent in this matter. The problem is obviously higher up. The question is “how high up?” ) -- Filterbypass ( talk) 04:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard ( talk) 08:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I reverted sinebot's addition to the Stress talk page instead of that off-topic comment (which you reverted). I guess you probably figured that out. -- sciencewatcher ( talk) 00:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and did it. Five editors with strong preference for the previous version, versus an SPA, seems like consensus to me. Antandrus (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Occidental Petroleum". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 December 2011.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
12:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar has been nominated for merging with Template:Criticism of religion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Can you explain why you tore down our page on this subject. We are trying to raise the profile of this product and as the Collection Server experts within OpenText UK, we are curious as to your rationale. Look forward to hearing from you. Pwallace pivotal ( talk) 12:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Unless you have a really good reason for refactoring my report I suggest you revert yourself. – Lionel ( talk) 04:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Re your response to an IP, the context is [1]. See the IP's talk page also. Dougweller ( talk) 08:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Listen Johnuniq, try to understand.
The question is if it´s ok to use your own scientific work in Wikipeida.
The answer is Yes!<br /
For example, It will be impossible to incorporate pictures in Wikipedia if you can’t give away your own pictures and include your own work as a reference to the same pictures.
Wikipedia encyclopedia newer hide facts and links to references of that same correct information. If Johnuniq want to improve the articles and for some reason dosen´t want my report as a reference, Johnuniq must prove it wrong. Then Johnuniq must delete all the information, pictures and theories which I have contributed to in the galling, wear and Stress (mechanics) articles, because they are closely linkt to my research.
Do I promote my self, or do I promote a theory?? It´s clear I promote the theory not my work. But do you really think any researcher can write an scientific article which isn’t based on his or her own knowledge including research? -- Haraldwallin ( talk) 11:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Could you list Jagged85's edits on this article as edit blocks? Thx in advance Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 09:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [ [2]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 16:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Text posted was:
Your comments and opinions are most desired and requested at talk:e. — Cpiral Cpiral 20:32, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on your reversion of the previous editor's change to the hatnote? It seems to me that their edit was a good one, as it makes the difference between the two articles clear to the reader and, as the previous editor said, is consistent with Age of the Universe. Cheers! -- LWG talk 02:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
John, thank you for this reversion, which upheld the quality of the article. Cunard ( talk) 23:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
While responding today, I kept noting 'Semi-retarded' where 'semi-retired' was written on the top of my page. Wondered:'Did I do that?' 'If not me, I'll still let it stand. It's a fair comment' etc. Checked the code, no evidence for how 'Semi-retarded' got there. This evening, I return to the page and I see now 'semi-retired'. No one has altered the page so I was subject for a half hour to an optical illusion, or rather a visual projection of my real thoughts on myself for getting mixed up in these humongously silly pages where fairness has to be fought for with sysiphean tedium. Keep out of the IP area! Nishidani ( talk) 19:36, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I see that you substantially changed the text affecting the zodiac sign pages. I want to make you aware that there is full, extensive discussion concerning the structure and design of the astrology sign pages, and clear consensus in favour of utilising the text you have removed. If you have reasons why you dissaprove of the text please contribute to the discussion and explain those reasons so that those who are currently working on guidelines for structure and content on these pages can understand your objections. This would be useful. The relevant discussion is here. -- Zac Δ talk! 06:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
My recent edit to the exhumation subsection was recently reverted. I have undone that revision, but you reverted it. Why did I edit that way? Here:
"NEW YORK, March 23 -- Determined to right a historic wrong, a group that included authors, lawyers and a forensic pathologist called a news conference Friday to unveil a bold campaign to exhume a dead book. No, wait. To exhume a dead body. Well, that's what they said, anyway. But the more they talked about exhuming the body, the more it seemed like the point was reviving the sluggish sales of a nearly moribund book. Specifically, The Secret Life of Harry Houdini: The Making of America's First Superhero, by William Kulash [sic] and Larry Sloman. Published in October, this door-stopper purports to reveal new and astounding elements of the great magician's life and death..."
-from Segal, David (March 24, 2007). "Why Not Just Hold a Seance?". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301850.html. Retrieved March 24, 2007. That is hostile to the biography, to the authors, and it clearly calls the book a door-stop, though the haec verba is "door-stopper"...which is the term we use in my family.
So, no, the edit stating the article is hostile to the book and the authors (as already cited with the citation of the article itself) and none of this is original research.
Let's actually read citations before we go round accusing editors. Djathink imacowboy 09:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Please give your opinion on regarding merging some articles at Talk:VIT University.-- Alokprasad84 ( talk) 17:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm trying to advance the cause of civility on the NPOV page. I've tried to state my perspective without trying to discount other people's opinions (I'm sure I haven't succeeded completely) so I've try to lay it out in a historical progression. I've put forth three suggestions which in my opinion do not offend anyone's sensibility and would satisfy 90% of my concerns with the page. Please consider each one on its own merit and let me know if you think they would be acceptable compromises. More than anything I'd like to return some spirit of rationality and common cause rather than continue to see two stringently divided camps.-- Factchk ( talk) 20:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. At first I was irritated to be singled out for trying to resolve the issue of personal attacks on an article discussion page. I was simply responding to others who began the issue there, refused to let it go, posted a list of my alleged personal attacks, and declared that the issue must be resolved before they will join me in discussion of the article.
Yet now I think I get it—and thank you for singling me out. By closely adhering to the guidelines, myself, I maintain my protection under them, swiftly report their violations, and not continually have to justify why I joined personal statements—at the very razor's edge of personal attacks—once they severely violated Wikipedia guidelines with blatant personal attacks on me.
I thank you for helping me learn my options now helping me keep steady in mind where and how to report things before they snowball into such web of catch22s.
Anyhow, what is, where is, or how does one create a noticeboard (one of your suggestions)?
Kusername ( talk) 21:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi John, you undid my revision [3] - I think 'establishment' doesn't capture that the entities negotiate and agree a connection. What do you think? I'm new to Security Associations and maybe it's not been well explained to me. -- Flexdream ( talk) 23:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Johnuniq. Yes rollback will be a useful tool to revert vandalism. I'll review Wikipedia:Rollback again too. Robert Brockway ( talk) 11:00, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cowboy 128 Cowboy128 ( talk) 04:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello,
I was looking at this article, via the new user template:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_development
which I can't edit, and found it was full of text in Russian. That doesn't seem normal? Sirpastealot ( talk) 18:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
My questions are not comments and they are not "off topic". They are VERY relevant. -- Filterbypass ( talk) 22:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It is hard to make out what the message is about, so I suppose that someone removed it because there has been a lot of activity at User talk:Jimbo Wales recently and much of it has been of a somewhat misguided nature with rants and provocative assertions (not your comment—other comments), so it was assumed your message was part of that. If it is addressed to Jimbo, it should say why (why ask Jimbo about Fauci or HIV?). If something is wanted, it should be made clearer (what is wanted?). Johnuniq ( talk) 01:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)Are you a Faucist? That is, do you have a strong personal opinion about who should receive treatment for HIV infection and who should not?
I edited Wikipedia for many years—without incident—until I edited the HIV page. There is a big controversy within the HIV community about who should be treated and who should not be treated. Most lay people are unaware of this controversy and there is a group of users (and one checkuser) who want to keep it that way. Any mention of this controversy is ALWAYS sanitised from the pages of Wikipedia. My question stands. Is Jim Wales a Fuacist? Is part of Fauci’s 4.8 billion dollar per year budget ending up in WMFs coffers? Or is he simply oblivious to what is going on at Wikipedia? If he is oblivious, what does he intend to do to protect good faith editors from harassment? (I have no reason to believe that the two of you are anything but innocent in this matter. The problem is obviously higher up. The question is “how high up?” ) -- Filterbypass ( talk) 04:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi Johnuniq. You participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#Richard Arthur Norton copyright violations, in which a one-month topic ban on creating new articles and making page moves was imposed on Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk · contribs). The closing admin has asked for community input about whether to remove the topic ban or make it indefinite at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Richard Arthur Norton: Revisiting topic ban; Should it be removed or made indefinite?. Cunard ( talk) 08:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I reverted sinebot's addition to the Stress talk page instead of that off-topic comment (which you reverted). I guess you probably figured that out. -- sciencewatcher ( talk) 00:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and did it. Five editors with strong preference for the previous version, versus an SPA, seems like consensus to me. Antandrus (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Occidental Petroleum". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 30 December 2011.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
12:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Template:Criticism of Islam sidebar has been nominated for merging with Template:Criticism of religion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.