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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Hi. In the spirit of openness, you should probably be aware of this. Frickeg ( talk) 10:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Wowsers, they won't even wait until a person is nominated, see Chuck Hagel. -- GoodDay ( talk) 03:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a user, User:ANTONI20, who means well when she/he edits district pages. Information has been added, but the editor makes additional changes such as removing old information, reformatting lists to out-of-use formats, and using reverse chronological order. You can find some of our discussions on her/his and my talk pages. Please keep an eye on this editor's work as it overlaps with yours. Let's make helpful suggestions and keep this editor doing good work. It's frustrating, but maybe she/he will learn.— GoldRingChip 12:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have created a discussion about whether and how information on the election of speaker for the 113th Congress should be included on Wikipedia. As you've made edits to this subject, I wanted to bring your attention to the discussion. It can be found here. - Nbpolitico ( talk) 12:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Seniority in the United States Senate#Top of the List. — GoldRingChip 15:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:United States congressional committees#Memberships of previous Congresses. — GoldRingChip 18:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for filling in the stuff you did. I hadn't updated everything yet, obviously; I started bare stubs for Beyak and Batters, and Black already had an article since he was the winner of the last Alberta senator-in-waiting election, but then I had to head out for a dinner engagement before I could actually finish the other two — but I'd already added all five of them to the {{ Senate of Canada}} template and also opted to disambiguate David Wells' redlink on there as "(politician)". So I guess great minds think alike or something like that. Bearcat ( talk) 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Murphy ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I would contest the point that it is not a legislature - the Privy Council has a central role in passing delegated legislation. Several thousand SIs are made every year ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi), a proportion of these by Order-in-Council. While the power is derived from an Act of Parliament, it is still passing legislation which has the same primacy as those originating in the Houses of Parliament. While it is true it doesn't regularly meet en masse, it does after the death of the sovereign, and while the composition may be slightly less relevant in context of the Houses of Parliament, it is still worth noting - why would they be reported in the List of current members of the British Privy Council? -- Delta Orionis ( talk) 06:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
What is your source for Senatorial seniority? For the rankiungs that determine who will become chairs of committees are those of the two caucuses. A listing that disregards the caucus ranking will mislead folks. -- Dauster ( talk) 21:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
What you say is true, and I am sorry for my previous comments. I was wrong. Please accept my apology. 71.72.26.127 ( talk) 02:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I would be interested in helping out on Wikipedia with government related articles, but I will need your help on some things (formatting, tables, etc....), as I am still just a beginner. 71.72.26.127 ( talk) 03:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I just want to let you know that I created a new account. My new account name is Hardcoreromancatholic. My previous account was 71.72.26.127. Please contact me at this new account only. Hardcoreromancatholic ( talk) 23:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you review this sentence? I believe you're its author.
Something's not quite right. Is there text missing before [18]? Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 18:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rius, I'm sure your move of Matt Ridley was in good faith, but the article was already moved to that title from Matthew White Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley in December. Having been the subject of an RM, the naming of the article should be considered controversial, so please start a new RM if you'd like to move it again. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 17:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a source for the non-heraldic use of the term? If so, I'll stand corrected. Fry1989 eh? 07:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grant Crack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Member of Provincial Parliament ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I have answered at your post.-- 94.65.145.7 ( talk) 14:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:GoldRingChip#Problem with User:ANTONI20. — GoldRingChip 22:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Prior to inserting yourself in a dilemna between myself and GoldRingChip, you may want to review the actual changes which I had made. If the changes are to the benefit to a viewer (other than GoldRingChip) then I see no justification in reverting it back to a page of broken links and outdated information (as assembled by GoldRingChip). In addition, my argument with GoldRingChip has absolutely nothing to do with content, rather it has to do with format. He is very stubborn in asserting that elections be listed in reverse chronological order (oldest to newest). This is not the format utilized by anyone, other than GoldRingChip (and he is unwilling to compromise on my revisions to his flawed methodology). In fact, I sought to compromise with him on several occassions on our disagreements and he was unwilling to give an inch, even after I gave him a yard. Instead he references Wikipedia rules which do not exist (other than in his own creation). It is obvious that GoldRingChip wants to have exclusive authority on the content AND format of any page dealing with congressional districts, even if it is outdated and/or inaccurate. I have no problem in working with him and taking his advise, but he has been very irrational and arrogrant up to this point. Therefore, prior to doing future reverts I would request that you consider that my edits (aka: improvements/updates) have done no harm. In fact, they have done much good. The same cannot be said for GoldRingChip's lack of contribution and cooperation up to this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
First, I would advise you look at my version and compare it to the version you reverted back to. The differences are abundantly apparent. Second, I would recommend you take into consideration that much of the factual information appearing on the reverted page, minus the congressional race results prior to 2006, was provided by myself. My contribution up to this point is not the question. The real question is why GoldRingChip feels it is his sole responsibility to monitor, oversee, referee, and dictate what substance can appear on a page, as to what format it appears, and who can suppy the information. There is no general consensus, since most of the edits have come from one individual (GoldRingChip). May I suggest that you review first, then discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I look forward to any constructive recommendation you can provide as to how my edits have taken away from content on the pages themselves (considering that 400+ of the same pages remain outdated, with broken links, and inaccurate information). I also recommend that you provide recommendations on how to difuse the situation, since it is obviously not a one person problem. If 400+ pages with equal content are in such disastrous form and outdated, then maybe the problem lies elsewhere. Rather than policing my work, maybe you could work in updating that information as well. -- ANTONI20 ( talk) 06:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Rrius.
I keep coming back to this statement of yours, particularly the final sentence:
I did apologise and change my post as soon as you drew my attention to the matter. But I can’t help feeling there was a slight over-reaction there. Making a simple error is not something that’s usually characterised as “beneath” the author. There was no intentional “twisting” of words, and certainly nothing personal or malicious about it. I deal with many, many editors in my travels, and always on the basis of the words they actually use in each case, not coloured by whatever positive or negative interactions I may have had with them in the past. I hasten to add that my relations with other editors have almost always been of the positive variety, and there are very few examples of the negative; but, as I say, it makes no difference either way. Not to me. I deal with each case on its merits, not on the personalities involved.
So, I’m not sure what kind of special consideration you were hoping you’d receive from me on the basis of having defended me in some other matter. I don’t play favourites like that. Maybe I’m misinterpreting your words here, and if so, I’d be grateful if you could set me right. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 23:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The last straw is that I'm "shielding Labor".' I believe my reaction was fully justified. The only "special consideration" I was talking about was not assuming my words were meant as a shot at you. I'm not sure exactly what you want me to do. If it's that you want me to strike that last sentence out, I will do that presently. If there is something else, let me know. - Rrius ( talk) 01:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
That is not a stray character at Talk:United States v. Windsor. It is necessary for the bot to find the explanation for the proposed move and post it at WP:RM. Please revert this change. [1] Thanks. You can see what happened when you took it out here. [2] Apteva ( talk) 06:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave 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 high-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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosPn ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
You say that the article is not a work unto itself. Indeed not: "BBC News" is italicised in news citations in thousands of WP articles, often using the "work" parameter in the "cite news" template. The publisher is the BBC; the news source ("work") is BBC News, but there is no need to say that the publisher of BBC News is the BBC, so the "publisher" parameter is left out. "BBC News" is here analogous to the name of a newspaper. If you are going to be consistent about this, you will need to change it in thousands of articles -- most of the ones I come across, in fact. -- Alarics ( talk) 15:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of
edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on
Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2013. Users are expected to
collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 10:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings fellow Wikipedia editor -
I am leaving you this note because I have reason to believe that you are interested in C-SPAN. (I may have made this assumption based on your C-SPAN user box, or perhaps for some other reason.) If this is not an interest of yours, please feel free to read no further and delete this message.
If you are in fact someone who is interested in C-SPAN, then let me put forward an idea that I have been kicking around for a while. What if we started a C-SPAN WikiProject?
The parameters of this (potential) project are up for discussion, but it could include some or all of the following (as well as things that may occur to you that have not occurred to me):
I don't know exactly how far we may want to go, nor in what directions, but I do believe ( as I have long noted on my user page) that C-SPAN and Wikipedia are both...
...fantastic vehicles for the free exchange of ideas and information in a non-sound-bite manner, and they both invite the participation of any parties (expert or amateur) who are interested in taking the time to absorb and/or contribute to the ideas and information offered. C-SPAN and Wikipedia go together like peanut butter and jelly, and I want to help give other Wiki users easy access to the great work that C-SPAN has done on a variety of topics.
Now, I should mention that I have never started a WikiProject before, and I do not know the best way to go about it. (Perhaps one of you do?) Let me offer one of my sandbox pages, User:KConWiki/sandbox/Wikiproject C-SPAN?, as a gathering area for comments until such time as we gather enough steam to start our own WikiProject page.
Thanks for reading this far, and I hope that you will give some consideration as to whether this is something we ought to attempt. Please feel free to pass this message on to others you know whom might be interested, and please let me know your thoughts and comments.
KConWiki ( talk) 01:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
Hi. In the spirit of openness, you should probably be aware of this. Frickeg ( talk) 10:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Wowsers, they won't even wait until a person is nominated, see Chuck Hagel. -- GoodDay ( talk) 03:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a user, User:ANTONI20, who means well when she/he edits district pages. Information has been added, but the editor makes additional changes such as removing old information, reformatting lists to out-of-use formats, and using reverse chronological order. You can find some of our discussions on her/his and my talk pages. Please keep an eye on this editor's work as it overlaps with yours. Let's make helpful suggestions and keep this editor doing good work. It's frustrating, but maybe she/he will learn.— GoldRingChip 12:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have created a discussion about whether and how information on the election of speaker for the 113th Congress should be included on Wikipedia. As you've made edits to this subject, I wanted to bring your attention to the discussion. It can be found here. - Nbpolitico ( talk) 12:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Seniority in the United States Senate#Top of the List. — GoldRingChip 15:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:United States congressional committees#Memberships of previous Congresses. — GoldRingChip 18:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for filling in the stuff you did. I hadn't updated everything yet, obviously; I started bare stubs for Beyak and Batters, and Black already had an article since he was the winner of the last Alberta senator-in-waiting election, but then I had to head out for a dinner engagement before I could actually finish the other two — but I'd already added all five of them to the {{ Senate of Canada}} template and also opted to disambiguate David Wells' redlink on there as "(politician)". So I guess great minds think alike or something like that. Bearcat ( talk) 00:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited United States Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Murphy ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I would contest the point that it is not a legislature - the Privy Council has a central role in passing delegated legislation. Several thousand SIs are made every year ( http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi), a proportion of these by Order-in-Council. While the power is derived from an Act of Parliament, it is still passing legislation which has the same primacy as those originating in the Houses of Parliament. While it is true it doesn't regularly meet en masse, it does after the death of the sovereign, and while the composition may be slightly less relevant in context of the Houses of Parliament, it is still worth noting - why would they be reported in the List of current members of the British Privy Council? -- Delta Orionis ( talk) 06:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
What is your source for Senatorial seniority? For the rankiungs that determine who will become chairs of committees are those of the two caucuses. A listing that disregards the caucus ranking will mislead folks. -- Dauster ( talk) 21:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
What you say is true, and I am sorry for my previous comments. I was wrong. Please accept my apology. 71.72.26.127 ( talk) 02:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I would be interested in helping out on Wikipedia with government related articles, but I will need your help on some things (formatting, tables, etc....), as I am still just a beginner. 71.72.26.127 ( talk) 03:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I just want to let you know that I created a new account. My new account name is Hardcoreromancatholic. My previous account was 71.72.26.127. Please contact me at this new account only. Hardcoreromancatholic ( talk) 23:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Can you review this sentence? I believe you're its author.
Something's not quite right. Is there text missing before [18]? Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 ( talk) 18:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Rius, I'm sure your move of Matt Ridley was in good faith, but the article was already moved to that title from Matthew White Ridley, 5th Viscount Ridley in December. Having been the subject of an RM, the naming of the article should be considered controversial, so please start a new RM if you'd like to move it again. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 17:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Do you have a source for the non-heraldic use of the term? If so, I'll stand corrected. Fry1989 eh? 07:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grant Crack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Member of Provincial Parliament ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I have answered at your post.-- 94.65.145.7 ( talk) 14:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:GoldRingChip#Problem with User:ANTONI20. — GoldRingChip 22:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Prior to inserting yourself in a dilemna between myself and GoldRingChip, you may want to review the actual changes which I had made. If the changes are to the benefit to a viewer (other than GoldRingChip) then I see no justification in reverting it back to a page of broken links and outdated information (as assembled by GoldRingChip). In addition, my argument with GoldRingChip has absolutely nothing to do with content, rather it has to do with format. He is very stubborn in asserting that elections be listed in reverse chronological order (oldest to newest). This is not the format utilized by anyone, other than GoldRingChip (and he is unwilling to compromise on my revisions to his flawed methodology). In fact, I sought to compromise with him on several occassions on our disagreements and he was unwilling to give an inch, even after I gave him a yard. Instead he references Wikipedia rules which do not exist (other than in his own creation). It is obvious that GoldRingChip wants to have exclusive authority on the content AND format of any page dealing with congressional districts, even if it is outdated and/or inaccurate. I have no problem in working with him and taking his advise, but he has been very irrational and arrogrant up to this point. Therefore, prior to doing future reverts I would request that you consider that my edits (aka: improvements/updates) have done no harm. In fact, they have done much good. The same cannot be said for GoldRingChip's lack of contribution and cooperation up to this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
First, I would advise you look at my version and compare it to the version you reverted back to. The differences are abundantly apparent. Second, I would recommend you take into consideration that much of the factual information appearing on the reverted page, minus the congressional race results prior to 2006, was provided by myself. My contribution up to this point is not the question. The real question is why GoldRingChip feels it is his sole responsibility to monitor, oversee, referee, and dictate what substance can appear on a page, as to what format it appears, and who can suppy the information. There is no general consensus, since most of the edits have come from one individual (GoldRingChip). May I suggest that you review first, then discuss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 ( talk • contribs) 05:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I look forward to any constructive recommendation you can provide as to how my edits have taken away from content on the pages themselves (considering that 400+ of the same pages remain outdated, with broken links, and inaccurate information). I also recommend that you provide recommendations on how to difuse the situation, since it is obviously not a one person problem. If 400+ pages with equal content are in such disastrous form and outdated, then maybe the problem lies elsewhere. Rather than policing my work, maybe you could work in updating that information as well. -- ANTONI20 ( talk) 06:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Rrius.
I keep coming back to this statement of yours, particularly the final sentence:
I did apologise and change my post as soon as you drew my attention to the matter. But I can’t help feeling there was a slight over-reaction there. Making a simple error is not something that’s usually characterised as “beneath” the author. There was no intentional “twisting” of words, and certainly nothing personal or malicious about it. I deal with many, many editors in my travels, and always on the basis of the words they actually use in each case, not coloured by whatever positive or negative interactions I may have had with them in the past. I hasten to add that my relations with other editors have almost always been of the positive variety, and there are very few examples of the negative; but, as I say, it makes no difference either way. Not to me. I deal with each case on its merits, not on the personalities involved.
So, I’m not sure what kind of special consideration you were hoping you’d receive from me on the basis of having defended me in some other matter. I don’t play favourites like that. Maybe I’m misinterpreting your words here, and if so, I’d be grateful if you could set me right. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 23:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The last straw is that I'm "shielding Labor".' I believe my reaction was fully justified. The only "special consideration" I was talking about was not assuming my words were meant as a shot at you. I'm not sure exactly what you want me to do. If it's that you want me to strike that last sentence out, I will do that presently. If there is something else, let me know. - Rrius ( talk) 01:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
That is not a stray character at Talk:United States v. Windsor. It is necessary for the bot to find the explanation for the proposed move and post it at WP:RM. Please revert this change. [1] Thanks. You can see what happened when you took it out here. [2] Apteva ( talk) 06:09, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave 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 high-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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosPn ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
You say that the article is not a work unto itself. Indeed not: "BBC News" is italicised in news citations in thousands of WP articles, often using the "work" parameter in the "cite news" template. The publisher is the BBC; the news source ("work") is BBC News, but there is no need to say that the publisher of BBC News is the BBC, so the "publisher" parameter is left out. "BBC News" is here analogous to the name of a newspaper. If you are going to be consistent about this, you will need to change it in thousands of articles -- most of the ones I come across, in fact. -- Alarics ( talk) 15:45, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of
edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on
Opinion polling for the Australian federal election, 2013. Users are expected to
collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing
disruptively.
Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Somedifferentstuff ( talk) 10:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Greetings fellow Wikipedia editor -
I am leaving you this note because I have reason to believe that you are interested in C-SPAN. (I may have made this assumption based on your C-SPAN user box, or perhaps for some other reason.) If this is not an interest of yours, please feel free to read no further and delete this message.
If you are in fact someone who is interested in C-SPAN, then let me put forward an idea that I have been kicking around for a while. What if we started a C-SPAN WikiProject?
The parameters of this (potential) project are up for discussion, but it could include some or all of the following (as well as things that may occur to you that have not occurred to me):
I don't know exactly how far we may want to go, nor in what directions, but I do believe ( as I have long noted on my user page) that C-SPAN and Wikipedia are both...
...fantastic vehicles for the free exchange of ideas and information in a non-sound-bite manner, and they both invite the participation of any parties (expert or amateur) who are interested in taking the time to absorb and/or contribute to the ideas and information offered. C-SPAN and Wikipedia go together like peanut butter and jelly, and I want to help give other Wiki users easy access to the great work that C-SPAN has done on a variety of topics.
Now, I should mention that I have never started a WikiProject before, and I do not know the best way to go about it. (Perhaps one of you do?) Let me offer one of my sandbox pages, User:KConWiki/sandbox/Wikiproject C-SPAN?, as a gathering area for comments until such time as we gather enough steam to start our own WikiProject page.
Thanks for reading this far, and I hope that you will give some consideration as to whether this is something we ought to attempt. Please feel free to pass this message on to others you know whom might be interested, and please let me know your thoughts and comments.
KConWiki ( talk) 01:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |