![]() | This page 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. |
Martujn pls.. I beg u undo the deletion of my article i finnaly found reliable sources which i want to add pls martijn pls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiassociate ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Thank you for the review of my article K. P. Dandapani. I am new in wiki and am creating new articles and putting pictures too. I am expecting your support in future also. Please support me to develop more articles and it developments. Once again thanks for helping to move my article to the Article page. Mydreamsparrow ( talk) 19:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Thank you..... Mydreamsparrow ( talk) 20:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.....I think I have fixed all the points that you suggested. Is this OK now?( Csg45 ( talk) 22:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC))
Hi Martijn
You were kind enough to help me to submit 3/4 articles last night. First House, Ken Stubbs, Cantilena, Erendira.
I was hoping that you could take a look at the final piece - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ballads_(Ken_Stubbs_album)
Any comments would be very welcome.
Thanks
csg45 Csg45 ( talk) 06:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.....I think I have fixed all the points that you suggested. Is this OK now? Csg45 ( talk) 01:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining things. Problem now i think was that someone had already used username Tepi on Commons, so I had to use another and now can't unify accounts. Would it actually be possible to usurp the username lesion on en WP especially since there is one edit from that user in 2009 ? Thanks. lesion ( talk) 17:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
With the help of another Wikipedia volunteer and my wife, I have been able to get my article to render without the "failure to parse (lexing error)" errors and all of the opening reference tags and closing /reference tags have (apparently) been removed from the references section. Would it be possible for you to continue your review of my statistics-related article, or do I have to just resubmit it and go through the two weeks waiting period (or whatever it might be this time around)? Thanks for looking at my article earlier today, and for your part in getting it improved. HamiltonRoberts ( talk) 01:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that my article already exists on Wikiversity, and I am ready to accept your kind offer of help to get a scaled-down Rodger's method page included in Wikipedia that will contain a link to my original submission. My initial concern about this task is about Wikipedia's vigilance regarding copyright violations. Is any "copying and pasting" of sentences or paragraphs from the original version of the article permitted when creating the abbreviated Wikipedia page? I am not of the opinion that an author can "plagiarize" his/her own previous writing (though that opinion was a minority one at my college); so, of course, what matters is your copyright policy. Would anyone at Wikiversity or Wikipedia object to my "cutting and pasting" material from my original article and including it in the new page? Specifically, could I delete the entire "The Bottom Line on Rodger's Method" section from the Wikiversity article and rework it a bit in order to have it appear in the Wikipedia article instead? HamiltonRoberts ( talk) 19:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Martijn, I have incorporated a small amount of my original submission into the revised draft version of the Rodger's method page for Wikipedia, but added new material too. Overall, though, it is substantially briefer and now contains no formulas or matrices. Would you please give me your feedback on the current article when you have had a chance to review it. Thanks. HamiltonRoberts ( talk) 18:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Martijn, I did notice a couple of changes that you made to my article, and the fact that it is now a part of Wikipedia is feedback enough. I am sure that you are very much aware of how lucky I was to draw you as a reviewer of my original submission, but I want you to know that I, too, am highly aware of that fact! Thank you for being you. I have passed along to Bob Rodger the honor you have paid to him by including a link to a non-existent Wiki page about him. He turns 87 years old in June, and still has a brilliant mind. HamiltonRoberts ( talk) 23:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Martijn, Could you please direct me to information about the policies and procedures that pertain to undesired changes that other Wikipedians make to the article you approved yesterday. The changes that are displayed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rodger%27s_method&diff=next&oldid=532825461 were justified by claiming that they were needed to "remove editorial and crystal ball wording and source of unclear reliability." Within the next day or two, I can add additional material to the Wikiversity article that will unequivocally substantiate the truth of at least one statement of fact that has been removed. But does mathematical/statistical proof still get trumped and discounted as a "source of unclear reliability" that is not eligible for inclusion in a Wikipedia article simply because that evidence will be contained in an unpublished Wikiversity document? Seemingly, you did not think so, but will David Epstein's opinion on this particular issue be able to be determinative despite my objection because he is a Wikipedia administrator? I am certainly willing to provide the statistical proof that one of my deleted claims was a true statement, but find it distressing that this will likely make no difference in the face of an administrative fiat. What sort of appeal process exists to undo changes that Wikipedia administrators (not ordinary folk) make that significantly alter the meaning of what was originally written? If those changes are imposed by an administrator (as in my case) do I have any hope of reversing David Epstein's decisions? HamiltonRoberts ( talk) 07:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! My ".... will almost certainly be confirmed to be correct if and when ..." 'crystal ball' statement was, with hindsight, unfortunate; and not essential, so that can be rewritten so as to not be a problem. Perhaps David's completely changing the meaning of the final sentence in the paragraph immediately prior to my 'crystal ball' sentence can also be successfully negotiated; I hope so. But would you please specifically address the harder-to-resolve issue I have with David removing the summary statement about an extended line of (conclusive) evidence in the Wikiversity material which would "prove" the truth of the statement regarding three other post hoc procedures that he will not allow to appear within the Wikipedia article [presumably, only because that proof appears in a "source of unclear reliability"]. In your opinion, is he 'Wikipedially-correct' (on whatever grounds "unclear reliability" cover) about prohibiting me from making a mathematically true statement and precluding my simply noting the proof for that statement exists in a readily accessible document? [I fully concur with both of the sentiments attributed to Jimmy Wales on the page you referred me to: "(I am) perhaps anti-credentialist. To me the key thing is getting it right." I think "proof" rarely exists outside the realms of mathematics and logic -- but a mathematical proof in my Wikiversity article is, in this case, part of the process of "getting it right."] Although David did not appeal to it, does the Wikipedia ban on "original research" extend to including a mathematical proof within a Wikipedia article, or to merely pointing to the existence of such a proof that doesn't appear in an acceptable (which Wikiversity apparently isn't), published source? If so, or even if an appeal to "unclear reliability" is sufficient to justify David's action on this matter, that seems a serious perversion of the notion of trying to get things right. As I said last night, I find that prospect "distressing," and a middle-ground solution to this seems impossible, doesn't it? Either I get to make a true statement and point to the line of evidence supporting it (which in this case amounts to, rarely obtainable, proof), or I don't. [Alternatively, I would certainly be willing to put the mathematical/statistical proof in the Wikipedia (rather than Wikiversity) article if that would be permitted, but given your previous comments, that seems unlikely to be a possible solution.] HamiltonRoberts ( talk) 01:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you could help me to improve my article. Head Lice Hero is an independent company that is trademarked. I can include URL links with the detailed trademark information from the official US federal trademark database as references if that will help verify? As for secondary sources, I also have put in a NEWS 12 video that covers a story about head lice hero. It is on the Head Lice Hero website but was not produced by the creator. I also feel as though it is written from a neutral point of view. My First article was rejected for the same reasons you chose. However, the second time it was never said that it wasn't a neutral point of view or written like an advertisement. I feel as though I am getting conflicting answers. I am simply trying to describe the company not advertise it, please let me know what else I can do. Thanks so much, Headlicehero ( talk) 14:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
What does the article have to do with encyclopedia?
An advertisement?
Advertising or advertizing[1][2][3] is a form of communication for marketing and used to encourage or persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners; sometimes a specific group) to continue or take some new action. Most commonly, the desired result is to drive consumer behavior with respect to a commercial offering, although political and ideological advertising is also common. In Latin, ad vertere means “to turn the mind toward.” [1] The purpose of advertising may also be to reassure employees or shareholders that a company is viable or successful. Advertising messages are usually paid for by sponsors and viewed via various traditional media; including mass media such as newspaper, magazines, television commercial, radio advertisement, outdoor advertising or direct mail; or new media such as blogs, websites or text messages.
That's what this is according to Wikipedia..
Could you explain how this is an advertisement ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amisentertains ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for raising your concerns about the notability of this page back in 2008. The tag is still there 5 years later, so you may want to consider taking it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glen Keith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speyside ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Fundraising 2012/Translation/Drop down banner is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
De prioriteit voor deze pagina is hoog. De deadline voor het vertalen van deze pagina is 2013-01-27.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro?banner=B12_5C_Control_BU
This request will help us use a new style banner that we want to test in the top ten language.
If you have any question you can send an email to jseddonwikimedia.org or go to my user talk page:
Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 14:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)I don't want to start that fire again. I asked for the undeletion because the creator of the webcomic was attacking me on Twitter after I nominated Schlock Mercenary. I went into the Last Res0rt AFD, saw that good source that I found, and said "you know what, I was wrong to delete it". I feel having it re-nominated would be process for the sake of process. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
You replied to the second part of my comment at WP:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 15#Last Res0rt. I would appreciate a response to the first part. Thanks. Flatscan ( talk) 05:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your help moving Baber. Cheers, Azylber ( talk) 22:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I wonder why you keep on deleting the article regarding Mr. Hares Youssef. Please republish it ASAP since I had the message to improve until January 31st 2013.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeiboul ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
What about the article of Hares yousef which is on discussion. May I get your attention and advise on how to contribute to this subject!! In the discusion it is clearly stated that the person is notable but ill referenced. I do believe that this issue can be resolved easily if you republish the article for me to add/modify some references
Thanks -- Jeiboul ( talk) 14:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC) -- Jeiboul ( talk) 15:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
Many thanks for correctly fixing my attempt to update the Northamptonshire Music and Performing Arts Service page to note that it is now a trust. Unfortunately during the fixing the actual edits to the information I had made on the newly created Trust page seem to have been lost when the old Service page was renamed to the Trust page - and I can't seem to find any previous version of the Trust page that recorded my edits for me to fix them. Is there any way of finding the new text from my original Trust page from before the renaming?
(Technically speaking, the Trust is a new entity, so it wasn't totally incorrect to create a new page for it, but maybe I should have left some details on the old Service page saying it was now the Trust ... but either way might have been valid, and it seemed more appropriate to just move the information - oh well - I tried).
Thanks. Emalliab ( talk) 21:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Emalliab
Sorry but i dont seem to get it!Ms Hoekstra sorry to say that but your judgement concerning my Imeros Rodopis article on wikipedia is something relative you consider it as advertising well thats in your opinion i can bring you TONES of wikipedia articles that are written the same way and even more advertising as you claim! Thanks for your input by the way Fair and square!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantsios ( talk • contribs) 10:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Martijn, I previously noted that I had mentioned to him the honor you accorded R.S. Rodger by including a non-functional link to a biographical entry about him on the Rodger's method page you recently approved. I asked him to consider sending me some material about his life, and though he initially expressed some reservations about doing this, he obviously (as you will see) changed his mind. Wikipedia neophytes that we both are, I fully expect that the material he sent me violates some Wikipedia requirements and expectations for a biography of a living, notable person. When you return from your vacation, would you please review the material at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HamiltonRoberts/sandbox and give us your feedback about this initial draft. Is an autobiographical account permissible, or does virtually every statement need to be verifiable and backed up with published documents as is the case with other articles? If the latter is the case (which will be literally impossible to provide), I will delete all of this material and the link you created in the Rodger's method article; and simply thank you (on his behalf) for the honor you intended, and (on my behalf) for all the prior, and now current, help/information you have given me. HamiltonRoberts ( talk) 05:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Wikimedia Highlights, December 2012 is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
De prioriteit voor deze pagina is gemiddeld.
Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 08:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)![]() | This page 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. |
Martujn pls.. I beg u undo the deletion of my article i finnaly found reliable sources which i want to add pls martijn pls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiassociate ( talk • contribs) 15:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Thank you for the review of my article K. P. Dandapani. I am new in wiki and am creating new articles and putting pictures too. I am expecting your support in future also. Please support me to develop more articles and it developments. Once again thanks for helping to move my article to the Article page. Mydreamsparrow ( talk) 19:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Sure. Thank you..... Mydreamsparrow ( talk) 20:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.....I think I have fixed all the points that you suggested. Is this OK now?( Csg45 ( talk) 22:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC))
Hi Martijn
You were kind enough to help me to submit 3/4 articles last night. First House, Ken Stubbs, Cantilena, Erendira.
I was hoping that you could take a look at the final piece - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Ballads_(Ken_Stubbs_album)
Any comments would be very welcome.
Thanks
csg45 Csg45 ( talk) 06:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks.....I think I have fixed all the points that you suggested. Is this OK now? Csg45 ( talk) 01:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining things. Problem now i think was that someone had already used username Tepi on Commons, so I had to use another and now can't unify accounts. Would it actually be possible to usurp the username lesion on en WP especially since there is one edit from that user in 2009 ? Thanks. lesion ( talk) 17:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
With the help of another Wikipedia volunteer and my wife, I have been able to get my article to render without the "failure to parse (lexing error)" errors and all of the opening reference tags and closing /reference tags have (apparently) been removed from the references section. Would it be possible for you to continue your review of my statistics-related article, or do I have to just resubmit it and go through the two weeks waiting period (or whatever it might be this time around)? Thanks for looking at my article earlier today, and for your part in getting it improved. HamiltonRoberts ( talk) 01:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that my article already exists on Wikiversity, and I am ready to accept your kind offer of help to get a scaled-down Rodger's method page included in Wikipedia that will contain a link to my original submission. My initial concern about this task is about Wikipedia's vigilance regarding copyright violations. Is any "copying and pasting" of sentences or paragraphs from the original version of the article permitted when creating the abbreviated Wikipedia page? I am not of the opinion that an author can "plagiarize" his/her own previous writing (though that opinion was a minority one at my college); so, of course, what matters is your copyright policy. Would anyone at Wikiversity or Wikipedia object to my "cutting and pasting" material from my original article and including it in the new page? Specifically, could I delete the entire "The Bottom Line on Rodger's Method" section from the Wikiversity article and rework it a bit in order to have it appear in the Wikipedia article instead? HamiltonRoberts ( talk) 19:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Martijn, I have incorporated a small amount of my original submission into the revised draft version of the Rodger's method page for Wikipedia, but added new material too. Overall, though, it is substantially briefer and now contains no formulas or matrices. Would you please give me your feedback on the current article when you have had a chance to review it. Thanks. HamiltonRoberts ( talk) 18:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Martijn, I did notice a couple of changes that you made to my article, and the fact that it is now a part of Wikipedia is feedback enough. I am sure that you are very much aware of how lucky I was to draw you as a reviewer of my original submission, but I want you to know that I, too, am highly aware of that fact! Thank you for being you. I have passed along to Bob Rodger the honor you have paid to him by including a link to a non-existent Wiki page about him. He turns 87 years old in June, and still has a brilliant mind. HamiltonRoberts ( talk) 23:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Martijn, Could you please direct me to information about the policies and procedures that pertain to undesired changes that other Wikipedians make to the article you approved yesterday. The changes that are displayed at: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Rodger%27s_method&diff=next&oldid=532825461 were justified by claiming that they were needed to "remove editorial and crystal ball wording and source of unclear reliability." Within the next day or two, I can add additional material to the Wikiversity article that will unequivocally substantiate the truth of at least one statement of fact that has been removed. But does mathematical/statistical proof still get trumped and discounted as a "source of unclear reliability" that is not eligible for inclusion in a Wikipedia article simply because that evidence will be contained in an unpublished Wikiversity document? Seemingly, you did not think so, but will David Epstein's opinion on this particular issue be able to be determinative despite my objection because he is a Wikipedia administrator? I am certainly willing to provide the statistical proof that one of my deleted claims was a true statement, but find it distressing that this will likely make no difference in the face of an administrative fiat. What sort of appeal process exists to undo changes that Wikipedia administrators (not ordinary folk) make that significantly alter the meaning of what was originally written? If those changes are imposed by an administrator (as in my case) do I have any hope of reversing David Epstein's decisions? HamiltonRoberts ( talk) 07:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments! My ".... will almost certainly be confirmed to be correct if and when ..." 'crystal ball' statement was, with hindsight, unfortunate; and not essential, so that can be rewritten so as to not be a problem. Perhaps David's completely changing the meaning of the final sentence in the paragraph immediately prior to my 'crystal ball' sentence can also be successfully negotiated; I hope so. But would you please specifically address the harder-to-resolve issue I have with David removing the summary statement about an extended line of (conclusive) evidence in the Wikiversity material which would "prove" the truth of the statement regarding three other post hoc procedures that he will not allow to appear within the Wikipedia article [presumably, only because that proof appears in a "source of unclear reliability"]. In your opinion, is he 'Wikipedially-correct' (on whatever grounds "unclear reliability" cover) about prohibiting me from making a mathematically true statement and precluding my simply noting the proof for that statement exists in a readily accessible document? [I fully concur with both of the sentiments attributed to Jimmy Wales on the page you referred me to: "(I am) perhaps anti-credentialist. To me the key thing is getting it right." I think "proof" rarely exists outside the realms of mathematics and logic -- but a mathematical proof in my Wikiversity article is, in this case, part of the process of "getting it right."] Although David did not appeal to it, does the Wikipedia ban on "original research" extend to including a mathematical proof within a Wikipedia article, or to merely pointing to the existence of such a proof that doesn't appear in an acceptable (which Wikiversity apparently isn't), published source? If so, or even if an appeal to "unclear reliability" is sufficient to justify David's action on this matter, that seems a serious perversion of the notion of trying to get things right. As I said last night, I find that prospect "distressing," and a middle-ground solution to this seems impossible, doesn't it? Either I get to make a true statement and point to the line of evidence supporting it (which in this case amounts to, rarely obtainable, proof), or I don't. [Alternatively, I would certainly be willing to put the mathematical/statistical proof in the Wikipedia (rather than Wikiversity) article if that would be permitted, but given your previous comments, that seems unlikely to be a possible solution.] HamiltonRoberts ( talk) 01:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if you could help me to improve my article. Head Lice Hero is an independent company that is trademarked. I can include URL links with the detailed trademark information from the official US federal trademark database as references if that will help verify? As for secondary sources, I also have put in a NEWS 12 video that covers a story about head lice hero. It is on the Head Lice Hero website but was not produced by the creator. I also feel as though it is written from a neutral point of view. My First article was rejected for the same reasons you chose. However, the second time it was never said that it wasn't a neutral point of view or written like an advertisement. I feel as though I am getting conflicting answers. I am simply trying to describe the company not advertise it, please let me know what else I can do. Thanks so much, Headlicehero ( talk) 14:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
What does the article have to do with encyclopedia?
An advertisement?
Advertising or advertizing[1][2][3] is a form of communication for marketing and used to encourage or persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners; sometimes a specific group) to continue or take some new action. Most commonly, the desired result is to drive consumer behavior with respect to a commercial offering, although political and ideological advertising is also common. In Latin, ad vertere means “to turn the mind toward.” [1] The purpose of advertising may also be to reassure employees or shareholders that a company is viable or successful. Advertising messages are usually paid for by sponsors and viewed via various traditional media; including mass media such as newspaper, magazines, television commercial, radio advertisement, outdoor advertising or direct mail; or new media such as blogs, websites or text messages.
That's what this is according to Wikipedia..
Could you explain how this is an advertisement ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amisentertains ( talk • contribs) 19:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for raising your concerns about the notability of this page back in 2008. The tag is still there 5 years later, so you may want to consider taking it to the Notability Noticeboard or AfD. Best wishes, Boleyn ( talk) 19:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glen Keith, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speyside ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Fundraising 2012/Translation/Drop down banner is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
De prioriteit voor deze pagina is hoog. De deadline voor het vertalen van deze pagina is 2013-01-27.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro?banner=B12_5C_Control_BU
This request will help us use a new style banner that we want to test in the top ten language.
If you have any question you can send an email to jseddonwikimedia.org or go to my user talk page:
Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 14:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)I don't want to start that fire again. I asked for the undeletion because the creator of the webcomic was attacking me on Twitter after I nominated Schlock Mercenary. I went into the Last Res0rt AFD, saw that good source that I found, and said "you know what, I was wrong to delete it". I feel having it re-nominated would be process for the sake of process. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:20, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
You replied to the second part of my comment at WP:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 15#Last Res0rt. I would appreciate a response to the first part. Thanks. Flatscan ( talk) 05:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your help moving Baber. Cheers, Azylber ( talk) 22:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
I wonder why you keep on deleting the article regarding Mr. Hares Youssef. Please republish it ASAP since I had the message to improve until January 31st 2013.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeiboul ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
What about the article of Hares yousef which is on discussion. May I get your attention and advise on how to contribute to this subject!! In the discusion it is clearly stated that the person is notable but ill referenced. I do believe that this issue can be resolved easily if you republish the article for me to add/modify some references
Thanks -- Jeiboul ( talk) 14:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC) -- Jeiboul ( talk) 15:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
Many thanks for correctly fixing my attempt to update the Northamptonshire Music and Performing Arts Service page to note that it is now a trust. Unfortunately during the fixing the actual edits to the information I had made on the newly created Trust page seem to have been lost when the old Service page was renamed to the Trust page - and I can't seem to find any previous version of the Trust page that recorded my edits for me to fix them. Is there any way of finding the new text from my original Trust page from before the renaming?
(Technically speaking, the Trust is a new entity, so it wasn't totally incorrect to create a new page for it, but maybe I should have left some details on the old Service page saying it was now the Trust ... but either way might have been valid, and it seemed more appropriate to just move the information - oh well - I tried).
Thanks. Emalliab ( talk) 21:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Emalliab
Sorry but i dont seem to get it!Ms Hoekstra sorry to say that but your judgement concerning my Imeros Rodopis article on wikipedia is something relative you consider it as advertising well thats in your opinion i can bring you TONES of wikipedia articles that are written the same way and even more advertising as you claim! Thanks for your input by the way Fair and square!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantsios ( talk • contribs) 10:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Martijn, I previously noted that I had mentioned to him the honor you accorded R.S. Rodger by including a non-functional link to a biographical entry about him on the Rodger's method page you recently approved. I asked him to consider sending me some material about his life, and though he initially expressed some reservations about doing this, he obviously (as you will see) changed his mind. Wikipedia neophytes that we both are, I fully expect that the material he sent me violates some Wikipedia requirements and expectations for a biography of a living, notable person. When you return from your vacation, would you please review the material at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HamiltonRoberts/sandbox and give us your feedback about this initial draft. Is an autobiographical account permissible, or does virtually every statement need to be verifiable and backed up with published documents as is the case with other articles? If the latter is the case (which will be literally impossible to provide), I will delete all of this material and the link you created in the Rodger's method article; and simply thank you (on his behalf) for the honor you intended, and (on my behalf) for all the prior, and now current, help/information you have given me. HamiltonRoberts ( talk) 05:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
U ontvangt deze melding omdat u zich heeft opgegeven als vertaler voor het Nederlands op Meta. De pagina Wikimedia Highlights, December 2012 is beschikbaar voor vertaling. Vertaal deze alstublieft hier:
De prioriteit voor deze pagina is gemiddeld.
Uw hulp wordt enorm op prijs gesteld. Met vertalers zoals u is Meta een echte meertalige gemeenschap.
Bedankt!
Vertalingenbeheerders van Meta, 08:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)