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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
This is an excellent edit summary:
I do grasp the reasons to agree with the way you frame the options. At the same time, I can't settle on how to explain the reasons you've got it wrong, but that is quite beside the point.
These clauses are clear, succinct and compelling. Please consider incorporating these words in the RfC you are drafting. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I blocked as a sock account of Md iet. Notice the unusual use of commas: not only does he express support for a lost cause as his first edit, he matches Md iet's punctuation errors and did so during a period where Md iet stopped editing in response to a warning that he was risking editing restrictions.— Kww( talk) 16:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Sea of Japan naming dispute you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute for things which need to be addressed. EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 01:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
This is not intended to get you involved in my little spat with another user.
As you already know, I've recently enforced a WP:BRD on another user's edits. Although I've allowed the discussion to derail to be something somewhat less civil, I believe my justification of using the BRD procedure is appropriate. I am aware that you've expressed some initial disagreements to using BRD but did not follow up on the issue as the discussion progressed. Since this may not be the last time this guideline will pop up for this page, I would like to know, in your opinion, what circumstances would warrant a BRD. Bobthefish2 ( talk) 00:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
How do you want to have this RfC submitted? A table like this?
Topic | Supporting Argument | Opposing Argument |
---|---|---|
Issue 1 | Example | Example |
Issue 2 | Example | Example |
Issue 3 | Example | Example |
If so, we need to decide on a set of topics. Choosing the arguments should be easy, since it'd be just a matter of copying and pasting from our existing discussions. Bobthefish2 ( talk) 19:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I see you reverted my edit; I think I'm right though since I read it in a book (see reference). I altered the Dromedary#Uses article too. I guess that perhaps meat is used of camels, but I don't think milk is, or if it is, atleast in a much lesser degree and perhaps only in special preperations (rather than straight up)
Also, is it possible to redirect camel to Bactrian camel, it would simplify matters allot. 91.182.251.170 ( talk) 12:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I was aware that I had gone beyond the three revert rule, and meant to stop editing the page and bring it to attention at administrators' noticeboard. You were faster; thanks. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 13:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It's been reviewed now (twice), and has been placed on hold. Please go and check up on it.
By the way, shameless plug below:
Cheers, Sven Manguard Talk 01:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject North America | |
---|---|
Another editor has noticed your contributions to articles related to East Asia, and would like to invite you to join WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. |
Whoops, well I didn't notice that other notice right above this notice. He eh, my bad. Sven Manguard Talk 02:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on the images now. I found the source of the main image. It's a modification of a file from commons (File:Topographic_Map_of_Japan.png at commons link) I'll do the licencing on it now. As for the other one, I'm having issues tracking the source down. TinEye isn't helping (it's an image searcher. See the reuslt page here (result page expires in 72 hours.) Cheers, Sven Manguard Talk 02:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. This is to serve as a formal notice of intent for the pursuant, one Sven Manguard, to undertake the following actions towards you, Qwyrxian.
The actions will be taken in such a time as dictated by the pursuant getting off his lazy bum and making the star. You have the right to remind him of this one (1) week from the posting of this message. You may exercise this right via trouting if you so choose.
Cheers, Sven Manguard Talk 06:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not obvious that you would have any interest in a maritime boundary dispute between two North African nations here; but some aspects may have relevance in East Asian contexts. For example, please consider three short excerpts from S. P. Jagota's Maritime Boundary:
In other words,
However,
Perhaps there is potential usefulness in the way this topic is parsed -- Tenmei ( talk) 01:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not a problem. Post on my page if ever you need any help whatsoever. It was a good article from the get-go, but it just had a few kinks to iron out. Glad to have passed it. EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 02:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I found this wonderful little box during one of my tagging sprees, and thought you might want to have it. Considering the wonderful work you do, I figured that this might pique your interest. Who would have thought that there would be so many of them. Anyways, this isn't a request for you to do anything, but rather one of those interesting things I find from time to time and pass along other people's way. If you're looking for something on a lighter note, there's always my personal collection of lighter notes. Well, see you around. Cheers, Sven Manguard Talk 05:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I didn't see a response to one of my comments on the talk page. Are you going to accept that the RfC can deal with more than one issue at the same time, or will I have to make my own one? I have seen a number of RfCs that addressed multiple points - they didn't fail to get interest. John Smith's ( talk) 13:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I do certainly understand your concern. My hope on the RfC was not that we would get many different thoroughly researched opinions on the matter, but that we would get one or two people who took a new interest and joined us for longer discussions, or that perhaps someone had an insight that we hand't had before--or, heck, even a reference we hadn't seen. And, as an avid watcher for the "drama boards" like ANI, I guarantee that if we take a content dispute their, they'll close up the discussion very quickly and tell us to go to WP:Dispute resolution. Which, in fact, is the other reason we "had to" do an RfC. In order to get accepted for mediation, usually we have to show that we've made a good faith effort to resolve the problem on our own, which an RfC does. Qwyrxian ( talk) 02:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Just because Canada is neighbours with the US, it doesn't mean we do things the same!! The Federal and Provincial gov't use dd/mm/yy and I grew up dd, mm, yy. If you're speaking about a Canadian, you SHOULD respect our culture and use Canadian spelling and date format. It's not cool to automatically assume that just because you're American or that we are neighbours with Americans, that you can run rule we do things American. Not cool to dictate to a country's culture. We are not strongly related to the US...instead, we're strong related to the UK!!!
You're the one who's not understanding. In Canada, both formats are used. I'm not at all assuming that Canada should follow American format. I'm saying that you, if you want to be a Wikipedia editor, must follow Wikipedia policies. One of those policies ( WP:MOSDATE) states that articles related to Canada can use either format, and that you need talk page consensus to switch from one to the other. If you can show on that talk page that the consensus of involved editors is to switch the format, then you may do so. Again, I'm only trying to make sure policy is followed here. Personally, I prefer the Day-Month-Year format--it makes much more sense to me. But unilaterally making these changes just leads to pointless edit warring. Notice that I've set up a space for a conversation on the talk page. Please add your comments there. Qwyrxian ( talk) 12:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It depends in Canada, as there two types of Canadians - Americanised Canadian and a British Canadian - I am from Victoria and I am British Canadian - I see more influence from the UK than I do America - the differences between Victoria and Seattle or any other American city is QUITE notable...Bobthefish2 you must live on the American border/city for you to say that or from Ontario...so speak for your region!!! SAMK71 ( talk)
Hi Qwyrxian. You helped get the above page on the straight and narrow. We have a POV user trying to mess the page up by removing facts he may find personally inconvenient. Your help appreciated. Thanks - bigbrothersback —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbrothersback ( talk • contribs) 00:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It's fine (and arguably necessary) to include ethnicity in the body of the article. The rough consensus seems to be that including it in the lead (and generally the first sentence of the lead, at that) unnecessarily highlights what is usually an accident of birth. It's worst for Americans, because we are mongrels. A year ago, the lead sentence for my hypothetical article would have read "Kevin Wayne Williams, a Japanese-born American of Dutch, German, Welsh and Irish ancestry residing in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,..." Clearly a distraction, and not serving the purpose of summarizing the article.— Kww( talk) 14:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It appears Tenmei copied and pasted one of his magnificent tables from the past to the RfC. Personally, I don't think it fits at all to the discussion and is quite redundant. The table's framing of question, as I've commented in a previous discussion, was geared towards supporting a specific conclusion. Since his tables have a tendency of derailing or complicating a discussion (which is a view you may or may not sure), but I have a this temptation to delete it. However, I am not sure if it is something appropriate to do. Bobthefish2 ( talk) 20:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Qwyrxian,
I would like to have the "need citation" notes removed from Mr. Silva's references. The citations are all correct. In fact, his book "Monograph of Macaws and Conures" even has the ISBN publisher number in the section immediately above the referenced section. It is correct and so that citation should be removed.
In the United states, legal citations are cited exactly as Mr. Silva has given them. Anyone can go to the U.S. court which he also referenced, and ask the court clerk to look up documents (pleadings, complaints, transcripts etc) with the legal case number. The legal citations/case number that he provided are all correct. Therefore, no further citations are needed.
Please email me if you need further information.
I want to remove the "citations needed" because they are already on the page in proper form.
Thank you,
Psittazen ( talk) 14:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I've removed you address as you generally shouldn't put that on Wikipedia. As for the citations, I'm going to put a comment on the article's talk page so that everyone editing can see it. Thanks for the clarification. Qwyrxian ( talk) 14:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. We're having a content dispute at the article above - the list of empires has a large 216 entries, and currently the article sees fit to repeat this list 6 times! Clearly a waste of storage and bandwidth. A better solution (saving at least 30% and making it much easier to read and use) would be a table with a column for each attribute, sortable, as used in many other articles (see the discussion). However, a silent editor keeps reverting attempts to clean up the article, without explanation. Please see the discussion (currently nobody disagrees). Your comments would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.207 ( talk) 21:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to respond yesterday. Thanks for your request, but I intentionally no longer edit that article. I sincerely believe that the article is and will always be WP:OR. I bow to the consensus at the 5th deletion discussion and will not be disruptive, but I do not consider any effort invested on that article worth my time. Qwyrxian ( talk) 02:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for considering my request for a wikilink and correction on Talk:Nick Clegg. Sorry if I was not clear: I have already created the article here: Vote for Students pledge so could you reconsider please? -- Hermajesty21 ( talk) 18:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
We talked a bit on the Anita Bryant talk page about the right phrasing of the slogan from the orange juice commercials. This video suggests that the correct slogan at some point was "A day without..." instead of "Breakfast without...", so her page should probably reflect both slogans. FWIW, which is not much, google thinks there are about twice as many hits for her name plus "a day without" versus "breakfast without". Poker dmorr ( talk) 02:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello... FYI, I'm sure this isn't what you intended at Canadian English. However, when you reverted my tweaks with the comment "You're adding unreferenced qualifiers that don't seem likely", you actually rolled back to several unreferenced changes that had been added recently by a new account and an IP. I have thus rolled the page back to the last version by User:Funandtrvl, reverting the aforementioned changes. Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 17:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Erm...excuse me...there are so many errors in "Canadian English" that I tried to correct and are now deleted. For example "shag" in doesn't mean 'stag' or whatever...it means having sex!!! If you say to a Canadian "are you going to a shag?" They will automatically think you're meaning sex!! "Taking the piss" in Canada, especially western Canadian and many members of the Canadian Forces, know that that term is either taking advantage or making fun. Why is it that the Americans are allowed to change and edit and dictate what is and what isn't Canadian, but when a Canadian goes to edit what is Canadian it's deleted and yet is dictated to by Americans!! It's so infuriating!! America and Canada are two very distinct, serparate countries!!! FYI... SAMK71 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC).
Thank you for amending the quotation in the Sen. Grassley article. While I had looked at the page at requesting edits of semi-protected pages, I did not notice the specifics that showed up in the box once requested, or I would have been more specific. I think it is just as likely that the referenced article misprinted his quote, but have not found an audio or video to compare directly. 75.202.33.251 ( talk) 23:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanx for pointing out the Red Bull quote issues I have properly amended with a National Institute of Medicine quote.(Undid revision 400586979 by Qwyrxian (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.71.47 ( talk) 09:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thus far, the focal points of disagreement in the Senkaku Islands dispute have been somewhat narrowly confined. The serial threads have been concerned with differing versions of history in the East China Sea.
For me, the justification for an uncompromising, non-Wikipedian, aggressive or confrontational strategy is nicely summarized here:
"Historic rights" or titles of some or another kind will acquire enhanced, rather than diminished, importance as a result of the narrowing of the 'physical' rather than the 'legal' sources of right. It is important to remember that, although historical claims were not successful in the Gulf of Maine case, the identification of a ' status quo' or ' modus vivendi' line in Tunisia-Libya was of decisive importance in confirming the equitableness of the first stage of delimitation. States will scrupulously avoid, more than ever, any appearance of acquiescence where acquiescence is not intended; prudent coordination can be expected between petroleum and mining ministries and the legal advisers of foreign ministries." — Highet, Keith. (1989). "Whatever became of natural prolongation," in Rights to Oceanic Resources: Deciding and Drawing Maritime Boundaries, (Dorinda G. Dallmeyer et al., editors), pp. 97, p. 97, at Google Books.
Please consider two related sentences at Strait of Juan de Fuca#Boundary dispute.
Please consider this Canadian paradigm and paradox. It suggests an outside the box perspective which may assist us in further discussions about the Senkaku Islands dispute. When the questions about the article name are settled, a substantial range of issues will remain unresolved.
Is it arguably useful to compare and contrast our best guesses about prospective negotiations between China and Japan with negotiations about a maritime boundary dispute between the US and Canada?
Would it be helpful for this diff -- or some edited version of this diff -- to be posted at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute and/or Talk:Spratly Islands dispute and/or Talk:Liancourt Rocks? -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Qwyrxian -- your comment illuminates two aspects of a core issue, not only in relation to the Senkaku Islands dispute. You appear either unwilling or unable to acknowledge an elephant in the room. Alternately, you appear to reject any recognition of the ways an elephant in the room affects the development of an article. If this assessment has merit, the consequences are problematic — which justifies any risks which attend making it explicit. In other words,
Qwyrxian - your assessment is nearly correct. My company, Core and More Technologies, is not a partner of said company -- however we do provide services. Our intent in posting a reference here on Wikipedia is not to promote - but rather to cite a company with more experience than most in the emergency communication industry. Our intent was to create a new point of reference - to tie together the technologies and peripheral items that comprise a robust system of this type. We think this to be of good public service, as these systems are commonly used to mitigate loss of life and property when disaster strikes. There are literally hundreds of providers in the marketplace - but very few have the proven experience of this entity. So it is really not about promotion - but education. That said, we will work to resolve the items you cited and will not be removing them. Please feel free to send me any additional information that might help us along - and thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Young US ( talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Got it and will do. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Young US ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I added a couple of more sources to my page. Let me know if they are reliable sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakozaib ( talk • contribs) 13:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Quinceañera: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. ialsoagree ( talk) 01:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is to inform you that I have called for a reexamination of the scope document and the ratings system used by the project. The ratings system especially has run into problems and could benefit from a simplification and generalizations. The scope, too, could be reexamined to the same end. Please come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject East Asia and discuss the matters so that we can reach a community consensus. I'd like to have it done before Christmas, so I can spend the break making any necessary changes. The importance discussion is at the top of the page. The scope discussion is at the bottom, but we can move them together if we need to.
Thank you, Sven Manguard Wha? 07:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Softpedia is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Softpedia (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 12:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Qwyrxian -- Perhaps you overlooked a brief, obscure comment by Bobthefish2, who wrote:
I construed this sentence as being addressed to me and about San9663 because I used the word "methodology" in the immediately preceding diff. I wrote,
I don't fully understand Bobthefish2's sentence. Perhaps it is unnecessary to dwell on it?
Could it be that Bobthefish2 perceived a complaint where none was intended? Let's remove this from the list of things which might affect collaborative editing in the future.
The word "methodology" has nothing to do with anyone's individual searches. As far as I can tell, each search has been transparent. Rather, in the context of my sentence above, the methodology issue has to do with the Google search engine in general. Our common interests are united in parsing Google's relationship to Wikipedia's core principles and policies. Please see Wikipedia:Search engine test and my comments at Talk:Senkaku Islands today ( here → here → here). -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)z
Does this graphic representation help to describe our objectives?
Please see Candidate solution? Just a thought? -- Tenmei ( talk) 20:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Qwyrixian. FYI I think you need to review your changes in the light of this http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/09/online-shopping-vat-channel-islands Which verifies some of the assertions in the article. Bigbrothersback ( talk) 12:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, There is a message for you in here In fact ( talk) 14:38, 12 December 2010 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
This is an excellent edit summary:
I do grasp the reasons to agree with the way you frame the options. At the same time, I can't settle on how to explain the reasons you've got it wrong, but that is quite beside the point.
These clauses are clear, succinct and compelling. Please consider incorporating these words in the RfC you are drafting. -- Tenmei ( talk) 18:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I blocked as a sock account of Md iet. Notice the unusual use of commas: not only does he express support for a lost cause as his first edit, he matches Md iet's punctuation errors and did so during a period where Md iet stopped editing in response to a warning that he was risking editing restrictions.— Kww( talk) 16:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
The article Sea of Japan naming dispute you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Sea of Japan naming dispute for things which need to be addressed. EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 01:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
This is not intended to get you involved in my little spat with another user.
As you already know, I've recently enforced a WP:BRD on another user's edits. Although I've allowed the discussion to derail to be something somewhat less civil, I believe my justification of using the BRD procedure is appropriate. I am aware that you've expressed some initial disagreements to using BRD but did not follow up on the issue as the discussion progressed. Since this may not be the last time this guideline will pop up for this page, I would like to know, in your opinion, what circumstances would warrant a BRD. Bobthefish2 ( talk) 00:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
How do you want to have this RfC submitted? A table like this?
Topic | Supporting Argument | Opposing Argument |
---|---|---|
Issue 1 | Example | Example |
Issue 2 | Example | Example |
Issue 3 | Example | Example |
If so, we need to decide on a set of topics. Choosing the arguments should be easy, since it'd be just a matter of copying and pasting from our existing discussions. Bobthefish2 ( talk) 19:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I see you reverted my edit; I think I'm right though since I read it in a book (see reference). I altered the Dromedary#Uses article too. I guess that perhaps meat is used of camels, but I don't think milk is, or if it is, atleast in a much lesser degree and perhaps only in special preperations (rather than straight up)
Also, is it possible to redirect camel to Bactrian camel, it would simplify matters allot. 91.182.251.170 ( talk) 12:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I was aware that I had gone beyond the three revert rule, and meant to stop editing the page and bring it to attention at administrators' noticeboard. You were faster; thanks. - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 13:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It's been reviewed now (twice), and has been placed on hold. Please go and check up on it.
By the way, shameless plug below:
Cheers, Sven Manguard Talk 01:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
WikiProject North America | |
---|---|
Another editor has noticed your contributions to articles related to East Asia, and would like to invite you to join WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. |
Whoops, well I didn't notice that other notice right above this notice. He eh, my bad. Sven Manguard Talk 02:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm working on the images now. I found the source of the main image. It's a modification of a file from commons (File:Topographic_Map_of_Japan.png at commons link) I'll do the licencing on it now. As for the other one, I'm having issues tracking the source down. TinEye isn't helping (it's an image searcher. See the reuslt page here (result page expires in 72 hours.) Cheers, Sven Manguard Talk 02:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Greetings. This is to serve as a formal notice of intent for the pursuant, one Sven Manguard, to undertake the following actions towards you, Qwyrxian.
The actions will be taken in such a time as dictated by the pursuant getting off his lazy bum and making the star. You have the right to remind him of this one (1) week from the posting of this message. You may exercise this right via trouting if you so choose.
Cheers, Sven Manguard Talk 06:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It is not obvious that you would have any interest in a maritime boundary dispute between two North African nations here; but some aspects may have relevance in East Asian contexts. For example, please consider three short excerpts from S. P. Jagota's Maritime Boundary:
In other words,
However,
Perhaps there is potential usefulness in the way this topic is parsed -- Tenmei ( talk) 01:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not a problem. Post on my page if ever you need any help whatsoever. It was a good article from the get-go, but it just had a few kinks to iron out. Glad to have passed it. EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 02:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I found this wonderful little box during one of my tagging sprees, and thought you might want to have it. Considering the wonderful work you do, I figured that this might pique your interest. Who would have thought that there would be so many of them. Anyways, this isn't a request for you to do anything, but rather one of those interesting things I find from time to time and pass along other people's way. If you're looking for something on a lighter note, there's always my personal collection of lighter notes. Well, see you around. Cheers, Sven Manguard Talk 05:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I didn't see a response to one of my comments on the talk page. Are you going to accept that the RfC can deal with more than one issue at the same time, or will I have to make my own one? I have seen a number of RfCs that addressed multiple points - they didn't fail to get interest. John Smith's ( talk) 13:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I do certainly understand your concern. My hope on the RfC was not that we would get many different thoroughly researched opinions on the matter, but that we would get one or two people who took a new interest and joined us for longer discussions, or that perhaps someone had an insight that we hand't had before--or, heck, even a reference we hadn't seen. And, as an avid watcher for the "drama boards" like ANI, I guarantee that if we take a content dispute their, they'll close up the discussion very quickly and tell us to go to WP:Dispute resolution. Which, in fact, is the other reason we "had to" do an RfC. In order to get accepted for mediation, usually we have to show that we've made a good faith effort to resolve the problem on our own, which an RfC does. Qwyrxian ( talk) 02:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Just because Canada is neighbours with the US, it doesn't mean we do things the same!! The Federal and Provincial gov't use dd/mm/yy and I grew up dd, mm, yy. If you're speaking about a Canadian, you SHOULD respect our culture and use Canadian spelling and date format. It's not cool to automatically assume that just because you're American or that we are neighbours with Americans, that you can run rule we do things American. Not cool to dictate to a country's culture. We are not strongly related to the US...instead, we're strong related to the UK!!!
You're the one who's not understanding. In Canada, both formats are used. I'm not at all assuming that Canada should follow American format. I'm saying that you, if you want to be a Wikipedia editor, must follow Wikipedia policies. One of those policies ( WP:MOSDATE) states that articles related to Canada can use either format, and that you need talk page consensus to switch from one to the other. If you can show on that talk page that the consensus of involved editors is to switch the format, then you may do so. Again, I'm only trying to make sure policy is followed here. Personally, I prefer the Day-Month-Year format--it makes much more sense to me. But unilaterally making these changes just leads to pointless edit warring. Notice that I've set up a space for a conversation on the talk page. Please add your comments there. Qwyrxian ( talk) 12:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
It depends in Canada, as there two types of Canadians - Americanised Canadian and a British Canadian - I am from Victoria and I am British Canadian - I see more influence from the UK than I do America - the differences between Victoria and Seattle or any other American city is QUITE notable...Bobthefish2 you must live on the American border/city for you to say that or from Ontario...so speak for your region!!! SAMK71 ( talk)
Hi Qwyrxian. You helped get the above page on the straight and narrow. We have a POV user trying to mess the page up by removing facts he may find personally inconvenient. Your help appreciated. Thanks - bigbrothersback —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigbrothersback ( talk • contribs) 00:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It's fine (and arguably necessary) to include ethnicity in the body of the article. The rough consensus seems to be that including it in the lead (and generally the first sentence of the lead, at that) unnecessarily highlights what is usually an accident of birth. It's worst for Americans, because we are mongrels. A year ago, the lead sentence for my hypothetical article would have read "Kevin Wayne Williams, a Japanese-born American of Dutch, German, Welsh and Irish ancestry residing in the Kingdom of the Netherlands,..." Clearly a distraction, and not serving the purpose of summarizing the article.— Kww( talk) 14:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
It appears Tenmei copied and pasted one of his magnificent tables from the past to the RfC. Personally, I don't think it fits at all to the discussion and is quite redundant. The table's framing of question, as I've commented in a previous discussion, was geared towards supporting a specific conclusion. Since his tables have a tendency of derailing or complicating a discussion (which is a view you may or may not sure), but I have a this temptation to delete it. However, I am not sure if it is something appropriate to do. Bobthefish2 ( talk) 20:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Qwyrxian,
I would like to have the "need citation" notes removed from Mr. Silva's references. The citations are all correct. In fact, his book "Monograph of Macaws and Conures" even has the ISBN publisher number in the section immediately above the referenced section. It is correct and so that citation should be removed.
In the United states, legal citations are cited exactly as Mr. Silva has given them. Anyone can go to the U.S. court which he also referenced, and ask the court clerk to look up documents (pleadings, complaints, transcripts etc) with the legal case number. The legal citations/case number that he provided are all correct. Therefore, no further citations are needed.
Please email me if you need further information.
I want to remove the "citations needed" because they are already on the page in proper form.
Thank you,
Psittazen ( talk) 14:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
I've removed you address as you generally shouldn't put that on Wikipedia. As for the citations, I'm going to put a comment on the article's talk page so that everyone editing can see it. Thanks for the clarification. Qwyrxian ( talk) 14:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. We're having a content dispute at the article above - the list of empires has a large 216 entries, and currently the article sees fit to repeat this list 6 times! Clearly a waste of storage and bandwidth. A better solution (saving at least 30% and making it much easier to read and use) would be a table with a column for each attribute, sortable, as used in many other articles (see the discussion). However, a silent editor keeps reverting attempts to clean up the article, without explanation. Please see the discussion (currently nobody disagrees). Your comments would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.207 ( talk) 21:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot to respond yesterday. Thanks for your request, but I intentionally no longer edit that article. I sincerely believe that the article is and will always be WP:OR. I bow to the consensus at the 5th deletion discussion and will not be disruptive, but I do not consider any effort invested on that article worth my time. Qwyrxian ( talk) 02:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for considering my request for a wikilink and correction on Talk:Nick Clegg. Sorry if I was not clear: I have already created the article here: Vote for Students pledge so could you reconsider please? -- Hermajesty21 ( talk) 18:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
We talked a bit on the Anita Bryant talk page about the right phrasing of the slogan from the orange juice commercials. This video suggests that the correct slogan at some point was "A day without..." instead of "Breakfast without...", so her page should probably reflect both slogans. FWIW, which is not much, google thinks there are about twice as many hits for her name plus "a day without" versus "breakfast without". Poker dmorr ( talk) 02:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello... FYI, I'm sure this isn't what you intended at Canadian English. However, when you reverted my tweaks with the comment "You're adding unreferenced qualifiers that don't seem likely", you actually rolled back to several unreferenced changes that had been added recently by a new account and an IP. I have thus rolled the page back to the last version by User:Funandtrvl, reverting the aforementioned changes. Cheers. -- Ckatz chat spy 17:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Erm...excuse me...there are so many errors in "Canadian English" that I tried to correct and are now deleted. For example "shag" in doesn't mean 'stag' or whatever...it means having sex!!! If you say to a Canadian "are you going to a shag?" They will automatically think you're meaning sex!! "Taking the piss" in Canada, especially western Canadian and many members of the Canadian Forces, know that that term is either taking advantage or making fun. Why is it that the Americans are allowed to change and edit and dictate what is and what isn't Canadian, but when a Canadian goes to edit what is Canadian it's deleted and yet is dictated to by Americans!! It's so infuriating!! America and Canada are two very distinct, serparate countries!!! FYI... SAMK71 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC).
Thank you for amending the quotation in the Sen. Grassley article. While I had looked at the page at requesting edits of semi-protected pages, I did not notice the specifics that showed up in the box once requested, or I would have been more specific. I think it is just as likely that the referenced article misprinted his quote, but have not found an audio or video to compare directly. 75.202.33.251 ( talk) 23:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanx for pointing out the Red Bull quote issues I have properly amended with a National Institute of Medicine quote.(Undid revision 400586979 by Qwyrxian (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.71.47 ( talk) 09:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thus far, the focal points of disagreement in the Senkaku Islands dispute have been somewhat narrowly confined. The serial threads have been concerned with differing versions of history in the East China Sea.
For me, the justification for an uncompromising, non-Wikipedian, aggressive or confrontational strategy is nicely summarized here:
"Historic rights" or titles of some or another kind will acquire enhanced, rather than diminished, importance as a result of the narrowing of the 'physical' rather than the 'legal' sources of right. It is important to remember that, although historical claims were not successful in the Gulf of Maine case, the identification of a ' status quo' or ' modus vivendi' line in Tunisia-Libya was of decisive importance in confirming the equitableness of the first stage of delimitation. States will scrupulously avoid, more than ever, any appearance of acquiescence where acquiescence is not intended; prudent coordination can be expected between petroleum and mining ministries and the legal advisers of foreign ministries." — Highet, Keith. (1989). "Whatever became of natural prolongation," in Rights to Oceanic Resources: Deciding and Drawing Maritime Boundaries, (Dorinda G. Dallmeyer et al., editors), pp. 97, p. 97, at Google Books.
Please consider two related sentences at Strait of Juan de Fuca#Boundary dispute.
Please consider this Canadian paradigm and paradox. It suggests an outside the box perspective which may assist us in further discussions about the Senkaku Islands dispute. When the questions about the article name are settled, a substantial range of issues will remain unresolved.
Is it arguably useful to compare and contrast our best guesses about prospective negotiations between China and Japan with negotiations about a maritime boundary dispute between the US and Canada?
Would it be helpful for this diff -- or some edited version of this diff -- to be posted at Talk:Senkaku Islands dispute and/or Talk:Spratly Islands dispute and/or Talk:Liancourt Rocks? -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Qwyrxian -- your comment illuminates two aspects of a core issue, not only in relation to the Senkaku Islands dispute. You appear either unwilling or unable to acknowledge an elephant in the room. Alternately, you appear to reject any recognition of the ways an elephant in the room affects the development of an article. If this assessment has merit, the consequences are problematic — which justifies any risks which attend making it explicit. In other words,
Qwyrxian - your assessment is nearly correct. My company, Core and More Technologies, is not a partner of said company -- however we do provide services. Our intent in posting a reference here on Wikipedia is not to promote - but rather to cite a company with more experience than most in the emergency communication industry. Our intent was to create a new point of reference - to tie together the technologies and peripheral items that comprise a robust system of this type. We think this to be of good public service, as these systems are commonly used to mitigate loss of life and property when disaster strikes. There are literally hundreds of providers in the marketplace - but very few have the proven experience of this entity. So it is really not about promotion - but education. That said, we will work to resolve the items you cited and will not be removing them. Please feel free to send me any additional information that might help us along - and thanks again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Young US ( talk • contribs) 14:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Got it and will do. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Young US ( talk • contribs) 00:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I added a couple of more sources to my page. Let me know if they are reliable sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakozaib ( talk • contribs) 13:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Quinceañera: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. ialsoagree ( talk) 01:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is to inform you that I have called for a reexamination of the scope document and the ratings system used by the project. The ratings system especially has run into problems and could benefit from a simplification and generalizations. The scope, too, could be reexamined to the same end. Please come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject East Asia and discuss the matters so that we can reach a community consensus. I'd like to have it done before Christmas, so I can spend the break making any necessary changes. The importance discussion is at the top of the page. The scope discussion is at the bottom, but we can move them together if we need to.
Thank you, Sven Manguard Wha? 07:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
The article Softpedia is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Softpedia (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 12:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Qwyrxian -- Perhaps you overlooked a brief, obscure comment by Bobthefish2, who wrote:
I construed this sentence as being addressed to me and about San9663 because I used the word "methodology" in the immediately preceding diff. I wrote,
I don't fully understand Bobthefish2's sentence. Perhaps it is unnecessary to dwell on it?
Could it be that Bobthefish2 perceived a complaint where none was intended? Let's remove this from the list of things which might affect collaborative editing in the future.
The word "methodology" has nothing to do with anyone's individual searches. As far as I can tell, each search has been transparent. Rather, in the context of my sentence above, the methodology issue has to do with the Google search engine in general. Our common interests are united in parsing Google's relationship to Wikipedia's core principles and policies. Please see Wikipedia:Search engine test and my comments at Talk:Senkaku Islands today ( here → here → here). -- Tenmei ( talk) 21:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)z
Does this graphic representation help to describe our objectives?
Please see Candidate solution? Just a thought? -- Tenmei ( talk) 20:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Qwyrixian. FYI I think you need to review your changes in the light of this http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/dec/09/online-shopping-vat-channel-islands Which verifies some of the assertions in the article. Bigbrothersback ( talk) 12:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, There is a message for you in here In fact ( talk) 14:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)