Thanks for categorization. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 01:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Mindmatrix - At the risk of being seen as an upward delegator, I'd appreciate your maybe taking a look at the section of Canadian Do Not Call List entitled "Regulatory Guides". My guess is that the whole section is linkspam since each of the 3 links and the two citations lead to various commercial websites and press releases. The editor who created the section seems to have duplicated it on other pages as well. If you agree/advise, I'd be happy to do the edit and take whatever heat results. TypicalEh ( talk) 04:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
HOPE (band) looks pretty borderline to me, too, but it does contain claims (albeit unreferenced ones) about airplay on MuchEast and a spot on the Vans Warped Tour. And according to the discography, while they started in 1992 they're still active and recording today. So I've tagged it for notability and references, but strictly speaking it's not immediately speediable. For what it's worth, though, my actual expertise in Canadian music being made in this decade extends much more toward "what middle-aged or almost middle-aged farts who used to be young rock club hipsters are into" rather than "what the kids like" :-) Bearcat ( talk) 17:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyone wanna talk to this guy?? you can do so here! User: Mikon8er March, 1st, 2009, 5:18 PM.
This guy is starting to piss me off! What is " StatCan" anyway, whoever they are, the are wrong about the population of Mississauga! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikon8er ( talk • contribs)
Well done on summarising the options, rationales, and what should be the resulting conclusion. It is clear, precise, and I hope will help. I am astonished at the people who say, well I've never heard of the town but I know some politician who has that name so it should be a dab. ??? Why on earth would someone link to or look to Georgina for some particular person? I don't particularly care if this particular article is dabbed or not but the arguments against it are appalling and would be a horrible precedent. DoubleBlue ( talk) 15:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. As you were the last person to revert my edit of the introductory paragraph of the Bloc Quebecois entry, I wonder if you would be so kind as to review the relevant discussion section as I have subsequently added some additional material. Your comments and help in resolving this matter would be appreciated. Thank you. Pinkythecorgi ( talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, it actually screws up the infobox formatting to add the reference directly to the population figure — it was causing the infobox to display the population as "21,957?UNIQ10a5,580,121dfa5-ref-00,000,000-QINU?" instead of just "21,957". There's a separate entry field in the infobox for population reference tags. Bearcat ( talk) 20:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
i would just like to say thanks for your babysitting of the emoticon article. I've been reverting vandalism on that article off and on for a couple of years now, it is nice to have help. Wrs1864 ( talk) 01:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram ( talk) 06:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't remember if I put in that wording about "the portion" re the Islands, but there's a terminological tangle going on, with "bilateral" aspects that need resolving; maybe you have the patience to work it out. Y'see, while the CEC and EPA ecoregion systems are identical, which is to say they are the same system, the names for the units that span the border differ from one side of the border to the other, and the Americans don't use the term "Ecozone", which is Environment Canada's and I gather also used in the wider world beyond North America (in the CEC's system, that is; this discussion so far excludes the WWF region system, which is parallel, has different boundaries, and a whole different set of names/hierarchies). In other words, while Canadian ecologists and Environment Canada define the Pacific Maritime Ecozone as spanning the adjoining American states, the corresponding Level II Ecoregion in the US is Marine West Coast Forest, which is currently Wiki-wise only a section-heading on List of ecoregions in the United States (EPA). Now part of the wiki-issue is that while the Canadian article is focussed on the one Level (Level II = Ecozones) the U.S. articles are by Level II Ecoregions, which there are not articles for their Canadian co-respondents. That, however, is more similar to the ecoregion level in list of WWF ecoregions in Canada; in that system the equivalent Level II system, though not by that name, is defined differently and they do not neatly align with each other, i.e. the one system to the other. So, again avoiding getting into a WWF <-> CEC/EPA further-confusion problem, simply within the CEC/EPA system he have different terminologies, and they're difficult to merge. We went through this with what is now Western Cordillera (North America), which integrates the Canadian and US topographic/toponymic systems, without OR, or trying not to do OR, but even there Physiographic regions of the United States has different sub-names very different from one side of the border to the other; similarly North Cascades and Canadian Cascades are the asme (the latter is s redirect to the former, both are topographic system names, though have respective ecoregion names in both systems North Cascades (ecoregion) and note Cascades (ecoregion) and Coast Range (ecoregion) - note also Canadian Rockies (ecoregion) - with different boundaries on all three same-named but different-types of regions........); Pacific Coast Ranges vs Pacific Mountain System (not sure there are the same landform, but with two different names on eith either side of the Strait of Juan de Fuca/Dixon Entrance and/or 49th Parallel...OK, OK, now I'm getting distracted by the difference between toponymy, physiogeographic regions, and ecoregions/ecozones - oh, and note geology has yet another system, again with national-terminology differences. Complicating all this is that the geologists as well as the ecologists often use mountain-range toponymic/topographic to name their units, likewise physical geographers, though those usually but not always coincide with the toponymies (BCGNIS/GNIS/CGNDB basically); in the case of the ecoregion people, they've created what seem like mountain-range names such as Boreal Cordillera and Taiga Cordillera which are not even physiographic objects, much less are they official toponymies as such e.g. Muskwa Ranges, Stikine Plateau, and when they do use an official toponymy they mis-apply it, e.g. Fraser Basin and Plateau complex (that's a WWF not CEC/EPA item though); the WWF "ecozone"-level counterpart to British Columbia mainland coastal forests, which doesn't include teh islands that Pacific Maritime Ecozone does, they call Western Cordillera ("western" here meaning hte Coast Mountains and Cascade Range; but the normative use of "Western Cordillera" is everything from Colorado and Alberta westward..... So unsuccessfuly avoiding all those, or trying to but not quite doing it, let's just talk about the CEC/EPA system and trying to "resolve" it. Should, for instance Pacific Maritime Ecozone be maintained separately as Maritime West Coast Forest? Or should the one article refer to the other? Except that the latter is, as noted, currently only a section heading; and the corresponding linked items on List of ecoregions in the United States do not have a parallel hierarchy on the Canadian side of the system.
It's a mess huh? Thing is, we can't get into trying to integrate the two systems, because that's original research. Got much teh same problem with the physiogeographic regions and the geologic zones. I think if we did a similar analysis of any soils system/nomenclature on either side of the border we'd find much the same problem, I know it exists with botanical/biological regions. Note also Biogeoclimatic zones of British Columbia, which si the BC Ministry of Forests system, which is about ecoregions but doesn't use the same terminology and the term "biogeoclimatic zone" is not used in the US......All of this has been on my wiki-mind for quite a while; if there's some tartness in various edits to ecoregion articles and talkpages its' because of my frustration with the needless complexity of it, and how it's not globalized to start with, and how freely and carelessly it coopts and simultaneously redefines and confluses terms from teh toponymy, phsiogeography and geology (and more). Coherent it's not (neither am I but at least I try to make sense....). Skookum1 ( talk) 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Song of the Free, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Song of the Free. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. billinghurst ( talk) 01:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi; I reverted the most recent vandal attacks on this page, and then saw some more garble where the word "features" should be, but even that's an incomplete sentence; trying to sort out where to revert from, I discovered that a number of the refs were also vandalized in various ways; there's nowhere to easily revert from, as more material was added since and in the process between the various vandal edits, which are all from different IPs and IP-domains. I see you're the "founder" of the article, and maybe (one hopes) are more familiar (than I) with the refs and the meaning of the vandalized passages before they were garble-hacked. Would you mind cleaning it up, I just got in the door and have a backlog of "burning issues" as it is..... Skookum1 ( talk) 21:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mind matrix, Thank you for helping me to put together article Colonel Samuel Smith Park. Today I put a list of Toronto swimming pools ( List of Toronto Swimming Pools). My thinking was that it is a starting point for new section about city of Toronto (the same way as List of Toronto parks). Would you consider that new article is just a directory and has to be deleted or a starting point for new section? Thanks a lot, DreamGYM ( talk) 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I asked somewhere (can't find it now) what category Conservation Areas should go under, and apparently the decision was to go with Category II. Don't get thrown off by the "national" parks title though -- all provincial parks are Category II as well. -- Padraic 15:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm new on Wikipedia, so forgive me for my lack of knowledge on navigating this site. I saw that you reverted nearly all of my edits. We spent a couple weeks going through all the guidelines and policies, and it said external links were ok, especially if the link has information which can be added to the article. Somewhere along the line, we either made a mistake by placing it in the wrong area, or Wikipedia does not allow external links to "credible" and "valuable" information. Our news stories are credible, they offer unique content which can be used on Wikipedia, and they are distributed across Google News, Yahoo News, Microsoft's Website, and AOL. Can you help explain what we are doing wrong? Or, guide us to the proper ways to submit this information in link pattern? Newsoxy ( talk) 05:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I check on on Burnaby's talk page you support renaming the main article from Burnaby, British Columbia to Burnaby and I was wondering I propose the nominated categories for 5 Burnaby related categories to be renamed and I did so if you want to check the categories go to today's Categories for discussion to match the main article title and let you if you could support renaming those categories click on this link that is located above. Steam5 ( talk) 04:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ya, I came here for apologized for the categories for discussion on Friday, cause I was too eagered for opposing users for renaming, Anyway, we won't talk about the past so that's done. So I came here to talk to you for the nominated requested move on Victoriaville, Quebec to rename Victoriaville and I did. If you want more about a requested move to Victoriaville go to Victoriaville's talk page. for more info. Steam5 ( talk) 23:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thanks for cleaning up the work on Canada–Kazakhstan relations, we need more editors like you. Cheers - Marcusmax( speak) 23:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC) |
Given that the OMB has released three or four high profile cases in the last month or so, this page may see further efforts at turning it into an advocacy piece. -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 16:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I've applied a temporary "new and unregistered users" protection to the page to keep this from spiralling out of control. (This won't prevent you or Skeezix from being able to edit the article, obviously.) Bearcat ( talk) 17:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I came here to apologize for the categories for discussion a few weeks ago, now I came back to talk to you for a "friendly notice" about this requested move is to rename and move from Swift Current, Saskatchewan to Swift Current so if you want more info on this requested move, click on this talk page and I will meet you at the Swift Current's talk page. Steam5 ( talk) 00:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I am puzzled by the objectionable approach you have taken to sequester, remove, or change any sections on multiple pages when they reference the Oak Ridges Independence movement. Please clarify why you have done this and taken a very non objective stance on this issue. You may claim that it is because it was not cited, however many sections of those pages have vast swaths of on information that are not cited and you choose to only remove those specific sections. Why have you done this? Outback the koala ( talk) 22:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I have set up the 'requested move' of the article, rather than the copy/paste. I forget that there is a process sometimes. :-( Alaney2k ( talk) 20:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe you have been bias instead of thorough in your research. The very proof is that not a single distribution will boot on a Dreamcast. We have had the best coders review and burn these various distributions - none have worked. I provided proof of different factions in the world of Dreamcast, apparently you did not check this out either. The new 5.0 distribution has been posted in various Dreamcast sites in which some have asked the question "did anyone have luck getting this to work?". NetBSD needs to prove that it does work by having a distribution that can be downloaded, burned and then bootable from a Dreamcast. It seems that the NetBSD Organization is lacking in R&D like Ford and GM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeeman3 ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
So if the edit on the Aurora page was fine, what would be a proper or more wildly accepted summary of the edit made? Thanks for commenting on this by the way, I haven't been sure about this. Outback the koala ( talk) 00:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mindmatrix/2009! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as being in need of a little attention or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see talk:Croome collection |
. -- Kudpung ( talk) 13:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you please express your concerns on the talk page so other folks know how to repsond to the tag? Thanks. Wiggy! ( talk) 19:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the name should exist as a redirect at all, if it wouldn't be admissible in the article under BLP. It's not just about the categories, because the redirect, and hence the name, would also be visible to anybody who ever clicked on "What links here" whether the categories were present or not. Bearcat ( talk) 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Re User talk:Ivan sus77#Awards, While I wasn't crazy about the formatting, I don't see those as violating WP:EL and WP:NOT. There was a small discussion about these the other day and a few of these type of additions that were completely out of place were removed. It isn't a bad idea to have an "Awards" section in some of these articles but it could be formatted much better. In any case, the editor who added these is new to wikipedia and was clearly trying to add good content. I do not believe him to be a "spammer" and I think your comment on his talk page may come across as overly harsh. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello MindMatrix,
You have reverted my contributions to Wikipedia, thinking that they are a spam. But they are not.
Please, allow me to explain myself. I was in no way attempting to 'spam' or clutter those articles, but was only trying to provide every program's description with a list of rightful awards, as neatly as possible, without marring the overall design of the articles. Should you have a different view on how such a list is to be implemented (objectionable links, grouping, whatnot), please describe it for me to follow it thereafter. If I may, software.informer.com keeps every program's awards all in one place - would it be proper to use its pages as substitutes for complete lists of awards?
I myself am of the opinion that these awards (at least, most of them) can actually assist users in adequate comparison of similar programs - providing them with compact qualitative descriptions. Ivan sus77 ( talk) 12:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
>if they have a webpage about this project, include those, but generic links to the developer/designer websites is not appropriate
They do have webpages about these projects but they are total flash sites (an annoying trend in design sites) so you can't link to the content directly. That's why I linked to the generic sites. What are the alternatives? Seems like it's better to have a link than non at all. Your thoughts? Landskippy ( talk) 03:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I’m looking to add free-licensed photographs of the various season residences of MTV’s The Real World to the articles for those seasons, so I’m contacting editors whom it appears may live in or near those cities. Do you live in or near Key Haven, and if so, would you be able to take some high-quality pics of the Key West residence, and upload them here if I give you the location? If not, do you know anyone who can? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 14:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Concerning this edit: Why does it matter whether it's inclusive when a set containing just one point has probability zero? It's the same cdf and the same probability distribution either way.
Also one should use "nowiki" when writing half-open intervals in this notation, lest a bot come along, or a mathematically illiterate Wikipedian, and "fix" the "incorrect" punctuation. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not know if you are a native English speaker. However, The word it's is only a contraction for the words it is. It is not a possessive, such as John's book. As for the so-called debate on the placement of quotation marks (relative to commas and periods) in American English, there is none (and I only correct American English articles). The Catholic Church (and its forcing Galileo to recant) did not make Galileo wrong. The fact that some computer code-writers at Wikipedia reject the English language does not make them correct, either. As you acknowledge, certain people reject all of the style sheets of the English language. That certainly doesn't make them correct either. The English language is not determined by computer logic code. If you are in need of some good English grammar books I can refer you to them. I used to teach college English in Boston; what about you? -- Onesius ( talk) 00:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Onesius ( talk · contribs) continues on his insistence that he is right and we are wrong about punctuation and quotation marks, is it worth doing anything more? Dougweller ( talk) 06:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen that you have converted the rest of the table on the List of Major League Baseball Players with 4000 Total bases that I was working on. I saw your edit summary and found out that you used something called "wiki formatting". Is this tool something that only administrators can use? If not, can I use it?? Can you please tell me? I've converting them the hard way and was trying to find a way to do it more easily. Thanks. Jonathansuh ( talk) 18:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see that one...well, if a reference could be found I suppose it would help, but "the first Valentine sent in America" still seems excessively trivial. Adam Bishop ( talk) 16:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mindmatrix. I was frankly amused, and almost disappointed and annoyed, at your claim that my research on Italy containing 70% of the world's culture is 'bogus', on the Italy talk page.
Firstly, what do you mean by bogus?
Secondly, if you really do think that it is 'bogus', then look it up anywhere on the internet, and you'll have countless sources proving that it is true.
Reply
-- Theologiae ( talk) 16:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you asked me to give sources, no problem Mindmatrix. Not all sources prove that Italy contains exactly 70% of the world's culture, yet there are many which prove that Italy contains the vastest amount of art and architecture.
To see, go on:
So, rather than writing 'Italy contains 70% of the world's culture', I would write 'Italy contains one of the richest collections of art, history and culture in the world'.
Reply
-- Theologiae ( talk) 18:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Could you have an eye on the Microcredit article? As soon as the semi protection wore off the old IP was back and beginning the same old game of "spamming" the article lead with Khan, while ignoring the discussion page and other authors. regards, -- Kmhkmh ( talk) 20:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Care to elaborate on your summary "Uh, no" reversion that took away my carefully-crafted layman's conceptual description of Benford's Law, one that might help people gain an intuitive grasp easier than a proof of the logarithmic relationships underlying scaling? You cannot claim the example is mathematically incorrect. Perhaps it was not formal or encyclopedic in tone, but as an editor, it is your job to edit such content as needed. 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.219.236 ( talk)
Hi, what's wrong with the external link i add? Emile Barker, 01:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. There is a request to move Amaretto to Amaretto (liqueur). See Talk:Amaretto. -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering if you'd read my comment at Talk:List of cities by time of continuous habitation... Pasquale ( talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your sensitive improvements to my Coloured hat page, and related article headers. Your contributions are kindly received. Neuralwarp ( talk) 10:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Mindmatrix, What did I write that was incorrect? Did the integrity commissioner not conclude his 16 month investigation in November? I do not know what your problem is with what I wrote. If you were to read what is on the Eddie Francis page and were well enough educated in the poltics of Windsor you'd realize that everything on the page is biased and candy coated without providing the complete story of the mayor's tenure. By invlving yourself in the manner in which you deny a neutral but more widely accurate listing of events, you are doing a disservice to the purpose of Wikipedia.
How am I to provide an accurate portrait? (Epicvision (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicvision ( talk • contribs)
The image I selected is used in another Wikipedia article. So it is not "non-free." See Troll Doll.
Thanks -- 71.80.121.0 ( talk) 17:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mindmatrix,
I don't understand why my contribution of the original italian text of Leonardo da Vinci on the Vitruvian Man is deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Vitruvian_Man&diff=prev&oldid=329448669 Should be pleased with your answer. Best regards, Rob ten Berge 82.75.23.125 ( talk) 23:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mindmatrix,
I noticed a few of your edits on other articles. I noticed that the Harmonized Sales Tax article was pretty bare considering it's such a national topic of conversation. Would you mind helping me contribute to it? Thanks for your consideration! -- Pdelongchamp ( talk) 21:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I dislike your face, lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.133.173 ( talk) 22:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you deleted a link to the industry group Open IPTV Forum. It's a well established group [7] whose members are some of the industry heavyweights. They published some standards/recommendations and work with other well-establised projects ( DVB), standardization bodies ( ETSI) and iniciatives ( DLNA). I'm reverting the edit you made. 174.6.87.98 ( talk) 12:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you please want to replace the image with the first complete Italian text of Leonardo da Vinci of the first version of Vitruvian Man?
Just click on the image for more information. Please investigate before you erase a contribution. Further, I guess you don't believe in reincarnation :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLTcYvQOxZw
On this moment there is not a single word about Leonardo da Vincis text left. (About Vitruvian Man 1). (And about the corrections I made). All contributions till now are about Marcus Vitruvius Pollios text. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxbIkvJw2hA&feature=related
Version 2 not important? Vitruvian Man 2 on You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GQf1OrqQHo&feature=related
Your comments? Best regards & Happy X-Mas (MY Birthday) (*** Orions Belt on Manipura-Chakra of Vitruvian Man 2)
Rob ten Berge
Image:Vitruvian_Man_&_Last_Supper.jpg
Please click on the second image too, before you delete it. Just to see a censored animation about Vitruvian Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob ten Berge ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Anything to do with you? User talk:Mantror Dougweller ( talk) 15:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
=)
Thanks for categorization. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 01:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Mindmatrix - At the risk of being seen as an upward delegator, I'd appreciate your maybe taking a look at the section of Canadian Do Not Call List entitled "Regulatory Guides". My guess is that the whole section is linkspam since each of the 3 links and the two citations lead to various commercial websites and press releases. The editor who created the section seems to have duplicated it on other pages as well. If you agree/advise, I'd be happy to do the edit and take whatever heat results. TypicalEh ( talk) 04:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
HOPE (band) looks pretty borderline to me, too, but it does contain claims (albeit unreferenced ones) about airplay on MuchEast and a spot on the Vans Warped Tour. And according to the discography, while they started in 1992 they're still active and recording today. So I've tagged it for notability and references, but strictly speaking it's not immediately speediable. For what it's worth, though, my actual expertise in Canadian music being made in this decade extends much more toward "what middle-aged or almost middle-aged farts who used to be young rock club hipsters are into" rather than "what the kids like" :-) Bearcat ( talk) 17:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Anyone wanna talk to this guy?? you can do so here! User: Mikon8er March, 1st, 2009, 5:18 PM.
This guy is starting to piss me off! What is " StatCan" anyway, whoever they are, the are wrong about the population of Mississauga! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikon8er ( talk • contribs)
Well done on summarising the options, rationales, and what should be the resulting conclusion. It is clear, precise, and I hope will help. I am astonished at the people who say, well I've never heard of the town but I know some politician who has that name so it should be a dab. ??? Why on earth would someone link to or look to Georgina for some particular person? I don't particularly care if this particular article is dabbed or not but the arguments against it are appalling and would be a horrible precedent. DoubleBlue ( talk) 15:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Greetings. As you were the last person to revert my edit of the introductory paragraph of the Bloc Quebecois entry, I wonder if you would be so kind as to review the relevant discussion section as I have subsequently added some additional material. Your comments and help in resolving this matter would be appreciated. Thank you. Pinkythecorgi ( talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Just so you know, it actually screws up the infobox formatting to add the reference directly to the population figure — it was causing the infobox to display the population as "21,957?UNIQ10a5,580,121dfa5-ref-00,000,000-QINU?" instead of just "21,957". There's a separate entry field in the infobox for population reference tags. Bearcat ( talk) 20:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi!
i would just like to say thanks for your babysitting of the emoticon article. I've been reverting vandalism on that article off and on for a couple of years now, it is nice to have help. Wrs1864 ( talk) 01:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
You're invited to sign up as a founding member, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#WikiProject Historic Sites ! :) doncram ( talk) 06:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I can't remember if I put in that wording about "the portion" re the Islands, but there's a terminological tangle going on, with "bilateral" aspects that need resolving; maybe you have the patience to work it out. Y'see, while the CEC and EPA ecoregion systems are identical, which is to say they are the same system, the names for the units that span the border differ from one side of the border to the other, and the Americans don't use the term "Ecozone", which is Environment Canada's and I gather also used in the wider world beyond North America (in the CEC's system, that is; this discussion so far excludes the WWF region system, which is parallel, has different boundaries, and a whole different set of names/hierarchies). In other words, while Canadian ecologists and Environment Canada define the Pacific Maritime Ecozone as spanning the adjoining American states, the corresponding Level II Ecoregion in the US is Marine West Coast Forest, which is currently Wiki-wise only a section-heading on List of ecoregions in the United States (EPA). Now part of the wiki-issue is that while the Canadian article is focussed on the one Level (Level II = Ecozones) the U.S. articles are by Level II Ecoregions, which there are not articles for their Canadian co-respondents. That, however, is more similar to the ecoregion level in list of WWF ecoregions in Canada; in that system the equivalent Level II system, though not by that name, is defined differently and they do not neatly align with each other, i.e. the one system to the other. So, again avoiding getting into a WWF <-> CEC/EPA further-confusion problem, simply within the CEC/EPA system he have different terminologies, and they're difficult to merge. We went through this with what is now Western Cordillera (North America), which integrates the Canadian and US topographic/toponymic systems, without OR, or trying not to do OR, but even there Physiographic regions of the United States has different sub-names very different from one side of the border to the other; similarly North Cascades and Canadian Cascades are the asme (the latter is s redirect to the former, both are topographic system names, though have respective ecoregion names in both systems North Cascades (ecoregion) and note Cascades (ecoregion) and Coast Range (ecoregion) - note also Canadian Rockies (ecoregion) - with different boundaries on all three same-named but different-types of regions........); Pacific Coast Ranges vs Pacific Mountain System (not sure there are the same landform, but with two different names on eith either side of the Strait of Juan de Fuca/Dixon Entrance and/or 49th Parallel...OK, OK, now I'm getting distracted by the difference between toponymy, physiogeographic regions, and ecoregions/ecozones - oh, and note geology has yet another system, again with national-terminology differences. Complicating all this is that the geologists as well as the ecologists often use mountain-range toponymic/topographic to name their units, likewise physical geographers, though those usually but not always coincide with the toponymies (BCGNIS/GNIS/CGNDB basically); in the case of the ecoregion people, they've created what seem like mountain-range names such as Boreal Cordillera and Taiga Cordillera which are not even physiographic objects, much less are they official toponymies as such e.g. Muskwa Ranges, Stikine Plateau, and when they do use an official toponymy they mis-apply it, e.g. Fraser Basin and Plateau complex (that's a WWF not CEC/EPA item though); the WWF "ecozone"-level counterpart to British Columbia mainland coastal forests, which doesn't include teh islands that Pacific Maritime Ecozone does, they call Western Cordillera ("western" here meaning hte Coast Mountains and Cascade Range; but the normative use of "Western Cordillera" is everything from Colorado and Alberta westward..... So unsuccessfuly avoiding all those, or trying to but not quite doing it, let's just talk about the CEC/EPA system and trying to "resolve" it. Should, for instance Pacific Maritime Ecozone be maintained separately as Maritime West Coast Forest? Or should the one article refer to the other? Except that the latter is, as noted, currently only a section heading; and the corresponding linked items on List of ecoregions in the United States do not have a parallel hierarchy on the Canadian side of the system.
It's a mess huh? Thing is, we can't get into trying to integrate the two systems, because that's original research. Got much teh same problem with the physiogeographic regions and the geologic zones. I think if we did a similar analysis of any soils system/nomenclature on either side of the border we'd find much the same problem, I know it exists with botanical/biological regions. Note also Biogeoclimatic zones of British Columbia, which si the BC Ministry of Forests system, which is about ecoregions but doesn't use the same terminology and the term "biogeoclimatic zone" is not used in the US......All of this has been on my wiki-mind for quite a while; if there's some tartness in various edits to ecoregion articles and talkpages its' because of my frustration with the needless complexity of it, and how it's not globalized to start with, and how freely and carelessly it coopts and simultaneously redefines and confluses terms from teh toponymy, phsiogeography and geology (and more). Coherent it's not (neither am I but at least I try to make sense....). Skookum1 ( talk) 01:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated Song of the Free, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Song of the Free. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. billinghurst ( talk) 01:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi; I reverted the most recent vandal attacks on this page, and then saw some more garble where the word "features" should be, but even that's an incomplete sentence; trying to sort out where to revert from, I discovered that a number of the refs were also vandalized in various ways; there's nowhere to easily revert from, as more material was added since and in the process between the various vandal edits, which are all from different IPs and IP-domains. I see you're the "founder" of the article, and maybe (one hopes) are more familiar (than I) with the refs and the meaning of the vandalized passages before they were garble-hacked. Would you mind cleaning it up, I just got in the door and have a backlog of "burning issues" as it is..... Skookum1 ( talk) 21:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mind matrix, Thank you for helping me to put together article Colonel Samuel Smith Park. Today I put a list of Toronto swimming pools ( List of Toronto Swimming Pools). My thinking was that it is a starting point for new section about city of Toronto (the same way as List of Toronto parks). Would you consider that new article is just a directory and has to be deleted or a starting point for new section? Thanks a lot, DreamGYM ( talk) 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
I asked somewhere (can't find it now) what category Conservation Areas should go under, and apparently the decision was to go with Category II. Don't get thrown off by the "national" parks title though -- all provincial parks are Category II as well. -- Padraic 15:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm new on Wikipedia, so forgive me for my lack of knowledge on navigating this site. I saw that you reverted nearly all of my edits. We spent a couple weeks going through all the guidelines and policies, and it said external links were ok, especially if the link has information which can be added to the article. Somewhere along the line, we either made a mistake by placing it in the wrong area, or Wikipedia does not allow external links to "credible" and "valuable" information. Our news stories are credible, they offer unique content which can be used on Wikipedia, and they are distributed across Google News, Yahoo News, Microsoft's Website, and AOL. Can you help explain what we are doing wrong? Or, guide us to the proper ways to submit this information in link pattern? Newsoxy ( talk) 05:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I check on on Burnaby's talk page you support renaming the main article from Burnaby, British Columbia to Burnaby and I was wondering I propose the nominated categories for 5 Burnaby related categories to be renamed and I did so if you want to check the categories go to today's Categories for discussion to match the main article title and let you if you could support renaming those categories click on this link that is located above. Steam5 ( talk) 04:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey Ya, I came here for apologized for the categories for discussion on Friday, cause I was too eagered for opposing users for renaming, Anyway, we won't talk about the past so that's done. So I came here to talk to you for the nominated requested move on Victoriaville, Quebec to rename Victoriaville and I did. If you want more about a requested move to Victoriaville go to Victoriaville's talk page. for more info. Steam5 ( talk) 23:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
Thanks for cleaning up the work on Canada–Kazakhstan relations, we need more editors like you. Cheers - Marcusmax( speak) 23:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC) |
Given that the OMB has released three or four high profile cases in the last month or so, this page may see further efforts at turning it into an advocacy piece. -- Skeezix1000 ( talk) 16:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I've applied a temporary "new and unregistered users" protection to the page to keep this from spiralling out of control. (This won't prevent you or Skeezix from being able to edit the article, obviously.) Bearcat ( talk) 17:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey there, I came here to apologize for the categories for discussion a few weeks ago, now I came back to talk to you for a "friendly notice" about this requested move is to rename and move from Swift Current, Saskatchewan to Swift Current so if you want more info on this requested move, click on this talk page and I will meet you at the Swift Current's talk page. Steam5 ( talk) 00:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
I am puzzled by the objectionable approach you have taken to sequester, remove, or change any sections on multiple pages when they reference the Oak Ridges Independence movement. Please clarify why you have done this and taken a very non objective stance on this issue. You may claim that it is because it was not cited, however many sections of those pages have vast swaths of on information that are not cited and you choose to only remove those specific sections. Why have you done this? Outback the koala ( talk) 22:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Royal broil 22:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I have set up the 'requested move' of the article, rather than the copy/paste. I forget that there is a process sometimes. :-( Alaney2k ( talk) 20:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I believe you have been bias instead of thorough in your research. The very proof is that not a single distribution will boot on a Dreamcast. We have had the best coders review and burn these various distributions - none have worked. I provided proof of different factions in the world of Dreamcast, apparently you did not check this out either. The new 5.0 distribution has been posted in various Dreamcast sites in which some have asked the question "did anyone have luck getting this to work?". NetBSD needs to prove that it does work by having a distribution that can be downloaded, burned and then bootable from a Dreamcast. It seems that the NetBSD Organization is lacking in R&D like Ford and GM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeeman3 ( talk • contribs) 20:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
So if the edit on the Aurora page was fine, what would be a proper or more wildly accepted summary of the edit made? Thanks for commenting on this by the way, I haven't been sure about this. Outback the koala ( talk) 00:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mindmatrix/2009! An article you have been involved with has been tagged by its parent project as being in need of a little attention or further development. If you can help with these minor issues please see talk:Croome collection |
. -- Kudpung ( talk) 13:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Could you please express your concerns on the talk page so other folks know how to repsond to the tag? Thanks. Wiggy! ( talk) 19:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think the name should exist as a redirect at all, if it wouldn't be admissible in the article under BLP. It's not just about the categories, because the redirect, and hence the name, would also be visible to anybody who ever clicked on "What links here" whether the categories were present or not. Bearcat ( talk) 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Re User talk:Ivan sus77#Awards, While I wasn't crazy about the formatting, I don't see those as violating WP:EL and WP:NOT. There was a small discussion about these the other day and a few of these type of additions that were completely out of place were removed. It isn't a bad idea to have an "Awards" section in some of these articles but it could be formatted much better. In any case, the editor who added these is new to wikipedia and was clearly trying to add good content. I do not believe him to be a "spammer" and I think your comment on his talk page may come across as overly harsh. -- Tothwolf ( talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello MindMatrix,
You have reverted my contributions to Wikipedia, thinking that they are a spam. But they are not.
Please, allow me to explain myself. I was in no way attempting to 'spam' or clutter those articles, but was only trying to provide every program's description with a list of rightful awards, as neatly as possible, without marring the overall design of the articles. Should you have a different view on how such a list is to be implemented (objectionable links, grouping, whatnot), please describe it for me to follow it thereafter. If I may, software.informer.com keeps every program's awards all in one place - would it be proper to use its pages as substitutes for complete lists of awards?
I myself am of the opinion that these awards (at least, most of them) can actually assist users in adequate comparison of similar programs - providing them with compact qualitative descriptions. Ivan sus77 ( talk) 12:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
>if they have a webpage about this project, include those, but generic links to the developer/designer websites is not appropriate
They do have webpages about these projects but they are total flash sites (an annoying trend in design sites) so you can't link to the content directly. That's why I linked to the generic sites. What are the alternatives? Seems like it's better to have a link than non at all. Your thoughts? Landskippy ( talk) 03:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I’m looking to add free-licensed photographs of the various season residences of MTV’s The Real World to the articles for those seasons, so I’m contacting editors whom it appears may live in or near those cities. Do you live in or near Key Haven, and if so, would you be able to take some high-quality pics of the Key West residence, and upload them here if I give you the location? If not, do you know anyone who can? Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 14:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Concerning this edit: Why does it matter whether it's inclusive when a set containing just one point has probability zero? It's the same cdf and the same probability distribution either way.
Also one should use "nowiki" when writing half-open intervals in this notation, lest a bot come along, or a mathematically illiterate Wikipedian, and "fix" the "incorrect" punctuation. Michael Hardy ( talk) 18:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not know if you are a native English speaker. However, The word it's is only a contraction for the words it is. It is not a possessive, such as John's book. As for the so-called debate on the placement of quotation marks (relative to commas and periods) in American English, there is none (and I only correct American English articles). The Catholic Church (and its forcing Galileo to recant) did not make Galileo wrong. The fact that some computer code-writers at Wikipedia reject the English language does not make them correct, either. As you acknowledge, certain people reject all of the style sheets of the English language. That certainly doesn't make them correct either. The English language is not determined by computer logic code. If you are in need of some good English grammar books I can refer you to them. I used to teach college English in Boston; what about you? -- Onesius ( talk) 00:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Onesius ( talk · contribs) continues on his insistence that he is right and we are wrong about punctuation and quotation marks, is it worth doing anything more? Dougweller ( talk) 06:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen that you have converted the rest of the table on the List of Major League Baseball Players with 4000 Total bases that I was working on. I saw your edit summary and found out that you used something called "wiki formatting". Is this tool something that only administrators can use? If not, can I use it?? Can you please tell me? I've converting them the hard way and was trying to find a way to do it more easily. Thanks. Jonathansuh ( talk) 18:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't see that one...well, if a reference could be found I suppose it would help, but "the first Valentine sent in America" still seems excessively trivial. Adam Bishop ( talk) 16:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello Mindmatrix. I was frankly amused, and almost disappointed and annoyed, at your claim that my research on Italy containing 70% of the world's culture is 'bogus', on the Italy talk page.
Firstly, what do you mean by bogus?
Secondly, if you really do think that it is 'bogus', then look it up anywhere on the internet, and you'll have countless sources proving that it is true.
Reply
-- Theologiae ( talk) 16:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Ok, you asked me to give sources, no problem Mindmatrix. Not all sources prove that Italy contains exactly 70% of the world's culture, yet there are many which prove that Italy contains the vastest amount of art and architecture.
To see, go on:
So, rather than writing 'Italy contains 70% of the world's culture', I would write 'Italy contains one of the richest collections of art, history and culture in the world'.
Reply
-- Theologiae ( talk) 18:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi! Could you have an eye on the Microcredit article? As soon as the semi protection wore off the old IP was back and beginning the same old game of "spamming" the article lead with Khan, while ignoring the discussion page and other authors. regards, -- Kmhkmh ( talk) 20:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Care to elaborate on your summary "Uh, no" reversion that took away my carefully-crafted layman's conceptual description of Benford's Law, one that might help people gain an intuitive grasp easier than a proof of the logarithmic relationships underlying scaling? You cannot claim the example is mathematically incorrect. Perhaps it was not formal or encyclopedic in tone, but as an editor, it is your job to edit such content as needed. 20:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.219.236 ( talk)
Hi, what's wrong with the external link i add? Emile Barker, 01:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi. There is a request to move Amaretto to Amaretto (liqueur). See Talk:Amaretto. -- Una Smith ( talk) 05:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering if you'd read my comment at Talk:List of cities by time of continuous habitation... Pasquale ( talk) 16:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your sensitive improvements to my Coloured hat page, and related article headers. Your contributions are kindly received. Neuralwarp ( talk) 10:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Mindmatrix, What did I write that was incorrect? Did the integrity commissioner not conclude his 16 month investigation in November? I do not know what your problem is with what I wrote. If you were to read what is on the Eddie Francis page and were well enough educated in the poltics of Windsor you'd realize that everything on the page is biased and candy coated without providing the complete story of the mayor's tenure. By invlving yourself in the manner in which you deny a neutral but more widely accurate listing of events, you are doing a disservice to the purpose of Wikipedia.
How am I to provide an accurate portrait? (Epicvision (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicvision ( talk • contribs)
The image I selected is used in another Wikipedia article. So it is not "non-free." See Troll Doll.
Thanks -- 71.80.121.0 ( talk) 17:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mindmatrix,
I don't understand why my contribution of the original italian text of Leonardo da Vinci on the Vitruvian Man is deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Vitruvian_Man&diff=prev&oldid=329448669 Should be pleased with your answer. Best regards, Rob ten Berge 82.75.23.125 ( talk) 23:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mindmatrix,
I noticed a few of your edits on other articles. I noticed that the Harmonized Sales Tax article was pretty bare considering it's such a national topic of conversation. Would you mind helping me contribute to it? Thanks for your consideration! -- Pdelongchamp ( talk) 21:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I dislike your face, lol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.133.173 ( talk) 22:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't understand why you deleted a link to the industry group Open IPTV Forum. It's a well established group [7] whose members are some of the industry heavyweights. They published some standards/recommendations and work with other well-establised projects ( DVB), standardization bodies ( ETSI) and iniciatives ( DLNA). I'm reverting the edit you made. 174.6.87.98 ( talk) 12:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you please want to replace the image with the first complete Italian text of Leonardo da Vinci of the first version of Vitruvian Man?
Just click on the image for more information. Please investigate before you erase a contribution. Further, I guess you don't believe in reincarnation :-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLTcYvQOxZw
On this moment there is not a single word about Leonardo da Vincis text left. (About Vitruvian Man 1). (And about the corrections I made). All contributions till now are about Marcus Vitruvius Pollios text. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxbIkvJw2hA&feature=related
Version 2 not important? Vitruvian Man 2 on You Tube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GQf1OrqQHo&feature=related
Your comments? Best regards & Happy X-Mas (MY Birthday) (*** Orions Belt on Manipura-Chakra of Vitruvian Man 2)
Rob ten Berge
Image:Vitruvian_Man_&_Last_Supper.jpg
Please click on the second image too, before you delete it. Just to see a censored animation about Vitruvian Man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob ten Berge ( talk • contribs) 21:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Anything to do with you? User talk:Mantror Dougweller ( talk) 15:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
=)