Welcome!
Hello, Kefo77, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --
Ynhockey (
Talk) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem :) keep up the editing and I hope that you will become a great contributing member in the community. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, Kefo77.
Regarding the Egypt article, you really didn't have anything to do about it.
I was not reverting your edit, if that was how it looked. The actual edits for which I wanted an answer for (at least in respect to the Christian pop. if not the Muslim numbers) was this one.
I simply feel that
- A: one single source, if not including several sources, is unlikely to be accurate enough (even if it's the World Factbook, because the CIA collects some of its data from the countries themselves, and in that case, the Egyptian government can be considered politically biased)
- B: my sourcing is inclusive of common estimates: the Church estimates are 20%, the CIA says 10%, and people often admit somewhere in the middle, 15%—so either way, it appears to be fair enough
- C: if some of those IPs look at the article's discussion page, then they will say that I explicitly said that there is no such accurate source that is bang-on the numbers—the last census is now decades old
I am simply clarifying that the burden of proof is not on you—it is on those who radically alter the numbers without examining the full issue. Thus, I have no problem with you reverting to the current revision if disruptive patterns continue—those edits will only give us a reason to ask for temporary protection until there is an explanation or any apparent motive.
...Feel free to ask me if you need anything at all—I'm glad to help.
Happy editing, ~ Troy ( talk) 18:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I am against the IP edit that you have correctly reverted as well. The source explicitly says 10-20%—not 10%, not 15%, and not 20%.
- If anything like that happens again without reasonable explaination, I will once again (*sigh*) revert it and explain the exact same thing on the article's talk page.
- Again, I still feel that your edit complies as the previous IP edits did not, which is why I had to explain my edit again.
You're doing a great work on Egypt's 2008 Olympics article. Please keep the good work. What's your resources so others can help? Is there still any unmentioned athletes?
WisamFarouk ( talk) 02:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for editing the Archery page and keeping it up to date!
Can you make sure that you bold the people and their scores if they win, and add then to the next tier of the tree (to show they advance)
Thanks!
Elpasi ( talk) 02:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's much better to make the list of players collapsible. The article is much more concise that way. Besides, the table looks visually inconsistent with the rest of the article specially with your choice of colors.
Speaking of the colors, are red, white and black chosen in reference to the flag colors? Anyway, how do you feel about making the list collapsible?
The only problem is that when I tried to do so, the bgcolor tag didn't work. Please try fixing that if you can. WisamFarouk ( talk) 12:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I am posting to ask you to consider withdrawing your RfA. The request will with most likely be closed soon as WP:NOTNOW, but I did not want to close it without allowing you to withdraw it yourself. While your contributions are valued by all of us, there are some minimal requirements that are usually expected to be fulfilled and I am afraid that you will not meet those, as the current opposes show. Regards So Why 19:46, 20 October 2008 (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) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Kefo77, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --
Ynhockey (
Talk) 15:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
No problem :) keep up the editing and I hope that you will become a great contributing member in the community. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 20:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry, Kefo77.
Regarding the Egypt article, you really didn't have anything to do about it.
I was not reverting your edit, if that was how it looked. The actual edits for which I wanted an answer for (at least in respect to the Christian pop. if not the Muslim numbers) was this one.
I simply feel that
- A: one single source, if not including several sources, is unlikely to be accurate enough (even if it's the World Factbook, because the CIA collects some of its data from the countries themselves, and in that case, the Egyptian government can be considered politically biased)
- B: my sourcing is inclusive of common estimates: the Church estimates are 20%, the CIA says 10%, and people often admit somewhere in the middle, 15%—so either way, it appears to be fair enough
- C: if some of those IPs look at the article's discussion page, then they will say that I explicitly said that there is no such accurate source that is bang-on the numbers—the last census is now decades old
I am simply clarifying that the burden of proof is not on you—it is on those who radically alter the numbers without examining the full issue. Thus, I have no problem with you reverting to the current revision if disruptive patterns continue—those edits will only give us a reason to ask for temporary protection until there is an explanation or any apparent motive.
...Feel free to ask me if you need anything at all—I'm glad to help.
Happy editing, ~ Troy ( talk) 18:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I am against the IP edit that you have correctly reverted as well. The source explicitly says 10-20%—not 10%, not 15%, and not 20%.
- If anything like that happens again without reasonable explaination, I will once again (*sigh*) revert it and explain the exact same thing on the article's talk page.
- Again, I still feel that your edit complies as the previous IP edits did not, which is why I had to explain my edit again.
You're doing a great work on Egypt's 2008 Olympics article. Please keep the good work. What's your resources so others can help? Is there still any unmentioned athletes?
WisamFarouk ( talk) 02:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for editing the Archery page and keeping it up to date!
Can you make sure that you bold the people and their scores if they win, and add then to the next tier of the tree (to show they advance)
Thanks!
Elpasi ( talk) 02:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's much better to make the list of players collapsible. The article is much more concise that way. Besides, the table looks visually inconsistent with the rest of the article specially with your choice of colors.
Speaking of the colors, are red, white and black chosen in reference to the flag colors? Anyway, how do you feel about making the list collapsible?
The only problem is that when I tried to do so, the bgcolor tag didn't work. Please try fixing that if you can. WisamFarouk ( talk) 12:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi there, I am posting to ask you to consider withdrawing your RfA. The request will with most likely be closed soon as WP:NOTNOW, but I did not want to close it without allowing you to withdraw it yourself. While your contributions are valued by all of us, there are some minimal requirements that are usually expected to be fulfilled and I am afraid that you will not meet those, as the current opposes show. Regards So Why 19:46, 20 October 2008 (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) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)