![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Hello NebY. I saw that you removed a reference to Harwood & Moody from the above article. The reference was not intended to the source of the photo (the proper place for that would be on the photo itself not an article). The reference was meant to be to a reference source that shows how to use such an apparatus. Perhaps the ref could be placed elsewhere in the article? Regards -- Quantockgoblin ( talk) 19:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Hi,
Well done in the NWLLRP, though you spoiled my fun. I was looking forward to those in the attic proposing an extension to run through the Tower Subway.-- SilasW ( talk) 21:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, sorry this [1] was my mistake. I was editing too quickly. raseaC talk to me 09:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen you've made several edits in the Gibraltar article. I think they are quite accurate and straight to the point, and I think I agree in general with the criteria you've applied.
On the other hand, I am not sure about one specific edit. You've said that mentioning a specific town as the main destination of Gibraltarians is "superfluous".
My own opinion would be that the main destination of the massive exodus of a whole town is quite notable: Gibraltarians didn't simply vanish in the air; most of them established themselves in a very specific location called San Roque. Take into account that San Roque kept an administrative continuity with Gibraltar, all of its official records (which means that it is an important destination in order to research the History of Gibraltar pre-1704), its symbols (the banner), the largest part of the population (which means that it kept demographic continuity with pre-British Gibraltar), and is within sight of the original town (which means that there has been an important amount of interactions -both friendly and hostile- between the two sites during centuries). It has also kept a tradition of being a point of reference with regards to the culture and people of pre-British Gibraltar.
But I would say that the mentions in most reliable authors and sources are more important than my own opinion. Please check below a sample of mentions in the sources that are most widely used with regards to the History of Gibraltar:
Sample of quotes regarding San Roque
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
You are right to say that this information may be "contentious", but only when it is used by Spanish irredentists (pretending that San Roque is "the real Gibraltar"), or by British nationalists (pretending that life in Gibraltar did simply not exist pre-1704).
On the other hand, I hope you agree on the factuality, notability and relevance of the exodus and its destination for the inhabitants of Gibraltar (at least for the ones pre-1704). It would be controversial if we were to say that "San Roque is the real Gibraltar", but this is not the case if we just mention that it was the main destination. Furthermore, this fact is mentioned by most relevant and uncontroversial sources.
Sorry for the long text, and thank you for your edits and your attention. --
Imalbornoz (
talk)
15:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I have opened a dispute resolution page regarding Heroes in Hell and Gilgamesh in the Outback where your conduct has been mentioned. You can find the page here. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your attempt to help keep these page discussions reasonable. Unfortunately, there is no longer any point. Two weeks after reaching consensus on the Gilgamesh in the Outback page, Mr. Wolfowitz rewrote the entire page to reflect his version of history stating that "he didn't agree with the consensus" calling it "capitulation." I give up. No evidence or explanation is accepted if it deviates from Mr. Wolfowitz' beliefs. I have more important things to do than argue with someone who refuses to see any viewpoint but his own, while Mr. Wolfowitz has nothing to do but sit on WP all day and monitor pages he has taken a personal interest in. With editors like him, Wikipedia becomes less and less accurate every day and will continue to discourage new editors who run across a Wolfowitz (and apparently some long-time editors have given up too). I hope that someday, WP has the desire to consider accuracy over ego and have some fact-checkers stop out-of-control editors from trying to change history. Hulcys930 ( talk) 00:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for getting involved in the discussion, and for putting things in a way that both makes sense to me and apparently may have satisfied Jesse and Medeis...at least until they speak up again. Right now I'm planning to stay clear of the discussion unless other editors speak up, unless you feel I should speak up again, but I really think the unsourced "references" need to go, and that we should have clear criteria for inclusion per WP:LSC. Thanks again. Doniago ( talk) 23:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
for your help on Bicycle helmet. It's appreciated. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 17:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
An editor who spent quite some time attempting to alter the page "Gilgamesh in the Outback" and was finally forced to accept a consensus (and has now reverted the consensus in the last 3 minutes again) is now "cleaning up" another page by the same author of the Heroes in Hell series and I have been told his "edits" are not considered "vandalism" by WP standards. This page, The Sacred Band of Stepsons, has stood unmolested for a year and a half but suddenly it needs to be "cleaned up" i.e., removing book cover images, rewording many paragraphs, taking out any mention of LGBT issues, and generally diluting the information on the page. I have no idea what to do in this case when there is a distinct lack of WP:AGP but he stays within the boundaries of "acceptable" behaviour. In the last 5 minutes he has also gone back into the Heroes in Hell series page, the Gilgamesh in the Outback page, the Heroes in Hell (book) and has redone all the edits that had been decided against by consensus. Can you help me? Hulcys930 ( talk) 22:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
According to my memory during the Lawyers in Hell AfD discussion about merging the Heroes in Hell articles into one large article, it was decided ALL the articles were to be merged. No mention was made of leaving any of the articles separate.
When I went to merge the one remaining article, one editor got really upset saying that the merge discussion did not include this article, Gilgamesh in the Outback. I believe that the consensus was for all articles. The admin who is currently handling the dispute was not involved at the time, and needs to see a show of hands. If you have any opinion on the issue could you please make your opinion known at Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback. UrbanTerrorist ( talk) 16:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
hello,
i've posted my comment on the discussion section, is it possible we can establish some sort of discussion there?
thanks,
busybee Busybee007 ( talk) 01:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting and correcting my mistake. In my defense, I had about 2 hours of sleep last night and am surprised I'm even functioning. :-) -- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Metrication in the United Kingdom". Thank you. -- de Facto ( talk). 19:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion on ANI about a topic you have been involved in relating to DeFacto. You are welcome to bring your experience to that discussion. Toddst1 ( talk) 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your diligence on the sources at Porscia Yeganeh. There is still one that I'm questioning if you have time to comment. Also, it seems someone has undone all the careful formatting of citations that I did on the bio and now the citations are all in a format that is not compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. Not sure what to do about that. Thanks for all your help. -- LarEvee ( talk) 19:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the pages for Wealdstone, Harrow and etc should mention stations that are close or nearby. They should just mention the Stations that are in those areas. CourtneyBonnick ( talk) 21:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pampers Easy Ups. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 16:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 10:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Slaughter and May. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 17:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:KitchenAid. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 18:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
As you requested, I commented on article page. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 09:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi NebY
Thank you for requesting the SPI on User:MeasureIT. I was beginning to get the feeling that (s)he was a sockpuppet of DeFacto. MeasureIT's initial ploy (three months ago) was to state that the UK was entirely metric (as a result of mis-interpretting a statement on the US metric association website) where Defacto had taken a strong anti-metric line. Martinvl ( talk) 21:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Denny's. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Read the criteria for grand slams. Andy Murray has not achieved all the components for one, though Fred Perry did, and is the last British person to so do. Although not a Reliable Source, the wikpedia article does contain accurate criteria and accurate lists of people, and you can see that Andy Murray has achieved but one component of a Grand Slam. Do not revert it unless you can supply accurate reliable sources that claim that he has done so, otherwise, long-standing editor (though "semi-retired") or not, you would not be abiding by the conventions of wikipedia here. DDStretch (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
That is a properly closed thread, but as to your sentence
"I am struggling to think how Apteva can possibly imagine that" when I could just write "Why do you think that".
the correct phraseology instead of "why do you think that" is, "why would anyone think that", directing the conversation to the group instead of to any one individual. I can not guarantee that every group that uses parliamentary procedure does it properly, and if you look across the pond, the US uses phrases such as "my colleague" when you know they really mean "you slime". England engages in a great deal of yelling and jeering that is not tolerated in the United States. One of the most common set of rules for parliamentary procedure is called Roberts Rules of Order [2] "All remarks must be directed to the Chair. Remarks must be courteous in language and deportment - avoid all personalities, never allude to others by name or to motives!" Apteva ( talk) 20:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
You provided some input to the discussion about renaming this article. We are looking to close this off. If you have a preference for either of the two proposed titles, it would be appreciated if you could indicate your preference at Talk:AC/DC (electricity)#Requested move. DieSwartzPunkt ( talk) 16:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Check out my comment on the talk page. I tried to only remove content that wasn't plausible sourceable, meaningless or boarding on senseless. I am One of Many ( talk) 06:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Goldhawk Road tube station shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Harrow, London may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello NebY, can you explain on Talk:Pint why you reverted my last change to Pint, particularly explaining what you think was inaccurate with the details I added. EzEdit ( talk) 18:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess if you could support it, you would have by now. EzEdit ( talk) 18:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Looking at this edit, you refer to one of mine as an indirect attack. Excuse my obtuseness, but how do you work that out? I certainly didn't intend it as an attack on anybody, indirect or not. -- Pete ( talk) 20:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I reverted your last edit Italy (Ancient Rome). The article is about the political entity called "Italia" (a sort of special province of the Roman Empire). It's not about the history of the Italian peninsula and the military expansion of Rome through it. -- Enok ( talk) 21:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Fist in /info/en/?search=International_Bank_Account_Number website IBAN page ecbs.org (not owned by the European Committee for Banking Standards) also have a iban checker!
Second:what you understand from IBAN?!?
Third: Why remove /info/en/?search=Sort_code link? you know other websites, use it? Are they your friends? Why not remove them too??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialenspe ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
If you have time and inclination, I'd appreciate another set of eyes on
Kilometers per hour. I've already started the
SPI. Thanks.
Garamond Lethe
t
c
01:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for the explanation to my comment on the Roman Numerals page, I'm quite new to Wikipedia and missed the 'Edit Details' entirely.
Thanks again, Jo
I've reverted your reversion, because it is a straight duplication of a later section of the article. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Hello NebY. I saw that you removed a reference to Harwood & Moody from the above article. The reference was not intended to the source of the photo (the proper place for that would be on the photo itself not an article). The reference was meant to be to a reference source that shows how to use such an apparatus. Perhaps the ref could be placed elsewhere in the article? Regards -- Quantockgoblin ( talk) 19:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Hi,
Well done in the NWLLRP, though you spoiled my fun. I was looking forward to those in the attic proposing an extension to run through the Tower Subway.-- SilasW ( talk) 21:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, sorry this [1] was my mistake. I was editing too quickly. raseaC talk to me 09:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen you've made several edits in the Gibraltar article. I think they are quite accurate and straight to the point, and I think I agree in general with the criteria you've applied.
On the other hand, I am not sure about one specific edit. You've said that mentioning a specific town as the main destination of Gibraltarians is "superfluous".
My own opinion would be that the main destination of the massive exodus of a whole town is quite notable: Gibraltarians didn't simply vanish in the air; most of them established themselves in a very specific location called San Roque. Take into account that San Roque kept an administrative continuity with Gibraltar, all of its official records (which means that it is an important destination in order to research the History of Gibraltar pre-1704), its symbols (the banner), the largest part of the population (which means that it kept demographic continuity with pre-British Gibraltar), and is within sight of the original town (which means that there has been an important amount of interactions -both friendly and hostile- between the two sites during centuries). It has also kept a tradition of being a point of reference with regards to the culture and people of pre-British Gibraltar.
But I would say that the mentions in most reliable authors and sources are more important than my own opinion. Please check below a sample of mentions in the sources that are most widely used with regards to the History of Gibraltar:
Sample of quotes regarding San Roque
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
You are right to say that this information may be "contentious", but only when it is used by Spanish irredentists (pretending that San Roque is "the real Gibraltar"), or by British nationalists (pretending that life in Gibraltar did simply not exist pre-1704).
On the other hand, I hope you agree on the factuality, notability and relevance of the exodus and its destination for the inhabitants of Gibraltar (at least for the ones pre-1704). It would be controversial if we were to say that "San Roque is the real Gibraltar", but this is not the case if we just mention that it was the main destination. Furthermore, this fact is mentioned by most relevant and uncontroversial sources.
Sorry for the long text, and thank you for your edits and your attention. --
Imalbornoz (
talk)
15:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I have opened a dispute resolution page regarding Heroes in Hell and Gilgamesh in the Outback where your conduct has been mentioned. You can find the page here. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 07:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your attempt to help keep these page discussions reasonable. Unfortunately, there is no longer any point. Two weeks after reaching consensus on the Gilgamesh in the Outback page, Mr. Wolfowitz rewrote the entire page to reflect his version of history stating that "he didn't agree with the consensus" calling it "capitulation." I give up. No evidence or explanation is accepted if it deviates from Mr. Wolfowitz' beliefs. I have more important things to do than argue with someone who refuses to see any viewpoint but his own, while Mr. Wolfowitz has nothing to do but sit on WP all day and monitor pages he has taken a personal interest in. With editors like him, Wikipedia becomes less and less accurate every day and will continue to discourage new editors who run across a Wolfowitz (and apparently some long-time editors have given up too). I hope that someday, WP has the desire to consider accuracy over ego and have some fact-checkers stop out-of-control editors from trying to change history. Hulcys930 ( talk) 00:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for getting involved in the discussion, and for putting things in a way that both makes sense to me and apparently may have satisfied Jesse and Medeis...at least until they speak up again. Right now I'm planning to stay clear of the discussion unless other editors speak up, unless you feel I should speak up again, but I really think the unsourced "references" need to go, and that we should have clear criteria for inclusion per WP:LSC. Thanks again. Doniago ( talk) 23:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
for your help on Bicycle helmet. It's appreciated. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 17:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
An editor who spent quite some time attempting to alter the page "Gilgamesh in the Outback" and was finally forced to accept a consensus (and has now reverted the consensus in the last 3 minutes again) is now "cleaning up" another page by the same author of the Heroes in Hell series and I have been told his "edits" are not considered "vandalism" by WP standards. This page, The Sacred Band of Stepsons, has stood unmolested for a year and a half but suddenly it needs to be "cleaned up" i.e., removing book cover images, rewording many paragraphs, taking out any mention of LGBT issues, and generally diluting the information on the page. I have no idea what to do in this case when there is a distinct lack of WP:AGP but he stays within the boundaries of "acceptable" behaviour. In the last 5 minutes he has also gone back into the Heroes in Hell series page, the Gilgamesh in the Outback page, the Heroes in Hell (book) and has redone all the edits that had been decided against by consensus. Can you help me? Hulcys930 ( talk) 22:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
According to my memory during the Lawyers in Hell AfD discussion about merging the Heroes in Hell articles into one large article, it was decided ALL the articles were to be merged. No mention was made of leaving any of the articles separate.
When I went to merge the one remaining article, one editor got really upset saying that the merge discussion did not include this article, Gilgamesh in the Outback. I believe that the consensus was for all articles. The admin who is currently handling the dispute was not involved at the time, and needs to see a show of hands. If you have any opinion on the issue could you please make your opinion known at Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback. UrbanTerrorist ( talk) 16:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
hello,
i've posted my comment on the discussion section, is it possible we can establish some sort of discussion there?
thanks,
busybee Busybee007 ( talk) 01:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting and correcting my mistake. In my defense, I had about 2 hours of sleep last night and am surprised I'm even functioning. :-) -- Bbb23 ( talk) 16:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Metrication in the United Kingdom". Thank you. -- de Facto ( talk). 19:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a discussion on ANI about a topic you have been involved in relating to DeFacto. You are welcome to bring your experience to that discussion. Toddst1 ( talk) 15:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your diligence on the sources at Porscia Yeganeh. There is still one that I'm questioning if you have time to comment. Also, it seems someone has undone all the careful formatting of citations that I did on the bio and now the citations are all in a format that is not compliant with Wikipedia guidelines. Not sure what to do about that. Thanks for all your help. -- LarEvee ( talk) 19:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't think the pages for Wealdstone, Harrow and etc should mention stations that are close or nearby. They should just mention the Stations that are in those areas. CourtneyBonnick ( talk) 21:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pampers Easy Ups. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 16:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 10:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Slaughter and May. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 17:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:KitchenAid. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 18:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
As you requested, I commented on article page. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 09:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi NebY
Thank you for requesting the SPI on User:MeasureIT. I was beginning to get the feeling that (s)he was a sockpuppet of DeFacto. MeasureIT's initial ploy (three months ago) was to state that the UK was entirely metric (as a result of mis-interpretting a statement on the US metric association website) where Defacto had taken a strong anti-metric line. Martinvl ( talk) 21:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Denny's. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 18:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Read the criteria for grand slams. Andy Murray has not achieved all the components for one, though Fred Perry did, and is the last British person to so do. Although not a Reliable Source, the wikpedia article does contain accurate criteria and accurate lists of people, and you can see that Andy Murray has achieved but one component of a Grand Slam. Do not revert it unless you can supply accurate reliable sources that claim that he has done so, otherwise, long-standing editor (though "semi-retired") or not, you would not be abiding by the conventions of wikipedia here. DDStretch (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
That is a properly closed thread, but as to your sentence
"I am struggling to think how Apteva can possibly imagine that" when I could just write "Why do you think that".
the correct phraseology instead of "why do you think that" is, "why would anyone think that", directing the conversation to the group instead of to any one individual. I can not guarantee that every group that uses parliamentary procedure does it properly, and if you look across the pond, the US uses phrases such as "my colleague" when you know they really mean "you slime". England engages in a great deal of yelling and jeering that is not tolerated in the United States. One of the most common set of rules for parliamentary procedure is called Roberts Rules of Order [2] "All remarks must be directed to the Chair. Remarks must be courteous in language and deportment - avoid all personalities, never allude to others by name or to motives!" Apteva ( talk) 20:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
You provided some input to the discussion about renaming this article. We are looking to close this off. If you have a preference for either of the two proposed titles, it would be appreciated if you could indicate your preference at Talk:AC/DC (electricity)#Requested move. DieSwartzPunkt ( talk) 16:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Check out my comment on the talk page. I tried to only remove content that wasn't plausible sourceable, meaningless or boarding on senseless. I am One of Many ( talk) 06:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Goldhawk Road tube station shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 17:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm
BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
your edit to
Harrow, London may have broken the
syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just
edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on
my operator's talk page.
Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 16:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello NebY, can you explain on Talk:Pint why you reverted my last change to Pint, particularly explaining what you think was inaccurate with the details I added. EzEdit ( talk) 18:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I guess if you could support it, you would have by now. EzEdit ( talk) 18:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Looking at this edit, you refer to one of mine as an indirect attack. Excuse my obtuseness, but how do you work that out? I certainly didn't intend it as an attack on anybody, indirect or not. -- Pete ( talk) 20:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I reverted your last edit Italy (Ancient Rome). The article is about the political entity called "Italia" (a sort of special province of the Roman Empire). It's not about the history of the Italian peninsula and the military expansion of Rome through it. -- Enok ( talk) 21:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Fist in /info/en/?search=International_Bank_Account_Number website IBAN page ecbs.org (not owned by the European Committee for Banking Standards) also have a iban checker!
Second:what you understand from IBAN?!?
Third: Why remove /info/en/?search=Sort_code link? you know other websites, use it? Are they your friends? Why not remove them too??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialenspe ( talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
If you have time and inclination, I'd appreciate another set of eyes on
Kilometers per hour. I've already started the
SPI. Thanks.
Garamond Lethe
t
c
01:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for the explanation to my comment on the Roman Numerals page, I'm quite new to Wikipedia and missed the 'Edit Details' entirely.
Thanks again, Jo
I've reverted your reversion, because it is a straight duplication of a later section of the article. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |