Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
Good luck!
Meelar (talk) 23:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I never noticed the warning box in infinity symbol. Firedrop ( talk) 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanx for your edit. I felt like "finest battleship" should be there, but my grammar far from perfect. Now I think you found a perfect wording. TestPilot 19:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
You realise you have to create the Phillip Griffiths page now, I hope. Charles Matthews 20:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the rewrite at Zariski topology. It's much improved. -- Fropuff 18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have eyes everywhere :) Yeah, I've been meaning to rewrite that article for a long time; I've just never gotten around to it. Too many things to do. -- Fropuff 18:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. I started a discussion on this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#By inspection. I wonder if you could comment. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to commend you for your recent work on this article. It looks a lot better. dbtfz talk 01:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Dude surely you must add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Participants.
Dmharvey 22:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ryan,
a redirect to NBG is not what I was looking for. I want a discussion of the philosophical concept, not a formal theory that arguably incorporates it. -- Trovatore 23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion page regarding AfD for this article. I found it very constructive and helpful. Slowmover 16:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ryan,
Are you aware that "I can tell you where you should try to merge it" can be read as a vulgar insult? If not, you might want to rephrase that. (If so, you might still want to rephrase that.) -- Allen 01:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I can easily believe nothing was being insinuated, but given the accusations and harsh tones already in the discussion, I believe it's wise if you modify that statement and note in the edit summary that it was not meant to be an insult. Better safe than sorry. -- C S (Talk) 01:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was positive that you didn't mean anything nasty when I read it, and I'm sure Michael wouldn't have taken it the wrong way... but I still had a laugh. It could have been an instant Wikipedia classic! I guess it just goes to show the dangers of communicating through text. Anyway, let me add my thanks to you for spending so much thought on the AfD. Cheers, Melchoir 01:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for your stellar work on Common misconceptions in probability and statistics (or whatever its current title is). I had given up on that article, but you are probably right that User:Helgus meant to explain the difference between statistical independence and causal independence. This is an important point, and it wasn't yet mentioned on Wikipedia, so I'm very glad if it will be saved because of your efforts. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 02:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I see no relation between your "we disagree" statement and what I wrote, and don't understand why you write that you're "through". If I offended you in some way, I'm sorry. -- Lambiam Talk 16:28, 30 May 2006 (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 ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Ryan,
Many thanks for the help in editing wiki-papers. Obviously, my English is not perfect. Moreover, your help was rather pertinent and indispensable. I understand, that you are very busy. And nevertheless I'd like to address to you with the request of the same sort.
On July, 30th I leave for Paris on Conference IPMU-2006, where I have the session E22 on eventology.
Would you be so kind to find a spare minute and examine preambles of two wiki-papers from the point of view of your excellent English style?:
Thank you in advance:) - Helgus 04:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, why do you hesitate to post your draft on rational maps? I think it is valuable. Some of the material, e.g. dominant map, might also be good to add to the Glossary of scheme theory. Jakob.scholbach 04:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Just post it and others, maybe myself may see whether they want to add, rearrange etc. something. Jakob.scholbach 15:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ryan, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks-- Cronholm144 00:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ryan, I notice your change to the article and I am fine with it, but I encourage you to address the comments in the comment box. thanks-- Cronholm144 00:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I knew that it was not a true stub but it needed work and I sometimes rate lower than the article's true value, which I think is start, in hopes of attracting angry editors who will improve their article to prove me wrong;), but if that is all there is to say then that is all there is to say on the topic. However I wonder if there is another editor who could help expand the article? anyway thanks so much for your prompt reply-- Cronholm144 01:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Help out with the Math collaboration of the week Mathematical physics if you have time!
Just curous, what is the meaning of the {{to Commons}} template you've put on this image today? It seems to imply that you think the image is inappropriate for some reason, i.e. being indiscriminately included. Do you think that Tinfoil Hat Linux does not deserve an image of its logo on its page? Or is it simply that you think that the image itself belongs to be hosted on the Commons site rather than on Wikipedia itself? I am not experienced in these political matters, so I don't know what the rule is with where images of various licensing belong. Ryan Reich 16:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your undo of my edit to Mathematical jargon. The reason I made my edit is that your definition of "stronger" doesn't cover the one I gave (although it gives related meanings), and the one I give is the only one I encounter on a regular basis. Undoing doesn't fix that. Please suggest a solution. Rp ( talk) 07:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"A property or condition is said to be stronger than another if the second property holds in all cases where the first property holds, but not vice versa; e.g. for positive whole numbers, being divisible by 4 is a stronger property than being even, while being divisible by 3 is neither stronger or weaker than either.:
"Finally, the adjective strong or the adverb strongly may be added to a mathematical notion to indicate a related stronger notion; for example, a strong antichain is an antichain satisfying certain additional conditions, and likewise a strongly regular graph is a regular graph meeting stronger conditions. When used in this way, the stronger notion (such as "strong antichain") is a technical term with a precisely defined meaning; the nature of the extra conditions cannot be derived from the definition of the weaker notion (such as "antichain")."
Hi Ryan. Given your recent comments, I just thought you mind find this entertaining (if somewhat worrying). I'll never forget that particular AfD, in which people it was argued that a misprint (in all probability) was inherently notable. To my mind, that's why the concept is so absurd. Jakew ( talk) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan - as you may know, the community reached consensus in relation to FritzpollBot. I believe that there is no such thing as inherent notability, per your arguments during the discussion. What I was interested in hearing was your thoughts on creating full stubs (oxymoron? :) ) on places with sources to verify notability per the only presently available guideline but creating lists of the places in particular administrative districts with information such as coordinates, population data, etc. One option might then be a redirect from the placename to the list, but I'm not sure. Anyway, this and many other discussions will be taking place at a centralised location, which we should be able to find in the next 48 hours, but if you would like to contribute, can you drop a line over at User:John_Carter/GEOBOT_group. I think we could certainly use your guidance, as I'm pretty certain WP:NPT won't become a guideline any time soon Fritzpoll ( talk) 12:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi I've made an intital suggestion at the GEOBOT talk page in that it would be an excellent idea to generate a full lists of places in a tabled list. Once this is accomplished we can work through what articles could be started in their own right if there is enough info avilabale. I see it as a solid comprehensive base to build geo content on if we have a full world list organized like this. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/Bot#Creating lists. Please offer your thoughts thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, I've seen your edits on the Cayley–Hamilton article, and I appreciate that you informed me on my talk page, since indeed I had invested quite a bit of time in the part that you replaced. The text you replaced it with is interesting, but in my opinion not an improvement, even though it seems essentially correct (I have a few gripes but these are not so serious). But I'm probably not the most neutral person to judge, so we'll see how your change fares by other editors opinions. Let me just say a few things that come to mind.
Marc van Leeuwen ( talk) 20:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan,
The theory is in section 2. If you don't think the theory is well-presented, please improve the exposition.
Change of variable for PDE is not much discussed but it is an essential technique. Change of variable for integral equations is discussed in Integration by substitution but this doesn't really give you much help.
Also let's continue this discussion in the article's Talk page.
Thanks, Erxnmedia ( talk) 13:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, The "reactions" subsection has undergone a bit of an edit war. I already left a comment at talk:manifold destiny, perhaps you could offer an opinion. Katzmik ( talk) 14:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ryan,
Before I respond to your comment, I would just like to note that I accepted Ozob's idea at some point in the discussion but that at that point, people conveniently changed their minds to choosing the Rubik's cube. I don't mind you changing the image as such (I could have reverted and continued pointless dispute but I didn't. So really you didn't end the discussion; I agreed with your idea), but I feel that I might look into this later on. The discussion:
1. Started out with me wanting to know how to find a good image (in fact I was happy with a*b = c) but then I saw the commutative diagram.
2. I started supporting the commutative diagram hoping for some back-up but it didn't come. By then, I had argued for so long, I did not want to give up (not because I wanted to waste more time but because I felt strongly about the image).
As you mentioned, this discussion was a waste of time and one of the reasons why I was unwilling to accept the Rubik's cube idea, was because I had been 'for my idea' for quite a while (ask yourself what you would have done in the same position if you felt strongly about a particular image and had argued for 1 page about it). Anyway, my response to one of your comments:
the icon should be "real math" and by that you meant category theory, that only "real mathematicians" need understand it, that the template actually function as an instructive device
By the way, I don't want to make a pointless discussion out of this but I suspect sockpuppetry at some point in the discussion (see the contributions of User:Brwian). Perhaps one user created an additional account for more support. I am also sure that if more users participated, I would have got some more support (especially by algebraists who specialize in homological algebra).
Topology Expert ( talk) 08:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Needs_resolution:_Are_places_inherently_notable.3F - I've initiated a question that I feel needs asking and which you may be interested in Fritzpoll ( talk) 08:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
See my comment on the Grothendieck talk page. Feketekave ( talk) 04:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
I came across an alternative to flagged revisions on Jimbo's talk page today. If you didn't know, there was an error on the page about Ted Kennedy that stated that he had died. Though the edit was corrected within five minutes, the change prompted some to ask for flagged revisions, meaning that all edits had to be checked by established users. Anyway, I think the alternative suggestion is good—do you know how I can propose and maybe get a vote on it? Jchthys ( talk) 04:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I see you took this out. I must admit I was tempted to do the same. I couldn't make up my mind. In all these cases, which are kinda a tough call, I dunno really what the rule of thumb is. Any advice?
Like I just tried to think "where would someone looking for quantum electrodynamics" end up and also "is it doing any harm?". The last is weaker because otherwise, yeah, might as well just stuff everything in as a seealso or whatever, from querelous erratic damned children to quite educated democrats (that's a very short topic).
It's a hard one to call. SimonTrew ( talk) 16:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
Good luck!
Meelar (talk) 23:18, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I never noticed the warning box in infinity symbol. Firedrop ( talk) 19:20, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanx for your edit. I felt like "finest battleship" should be there, but my grammar far from perfect. Now I think you found a perfect wording. TestPilot 19:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
You realise you have to create the Phillip Griffiths page now, I hope. Charles Matthews 20:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the rewrite at Zariski topology. It's much improved. -- Fropuff 18:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I have eyes everywhere :) Yeah, I've been meaning to rewrite that article for a long time; I've just never gotten around to it. Too many things to do. -- Fropuff 18:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ryan. I started a discussion on this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#By inspection. I wonder if you could comment. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 02:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Just wanted to commend you for your recent work on this article. It looks a lot better. dbtfz talk 01:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Dude surely you must add your name to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Participants.
Dmharvey 22:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ryan,
a redirect to NBG is not what I was looking for. I want a discussion of the philosophical concept, not a formal theory that arguably incorporates it. -- Trovatore 23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion page regarding AfD for this article. I found it very constructive and helpful. Slowmover 16:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ryan,
Are you aware that "I can tell you where you should try to merge it" can be read as a vulgar insult? If not, you might want to rephrase that. (If so, you might still want to rephrase that.) -- Allen 01:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
I can easily believe nothing was being insinuated, but given the accusations and harsh tones already in the discussion, I believe it's wise if you modify that statement and note in the edit summary that it was not meant to be an insult. Better safe than sorry. -- C S (Talk) 01:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I was positive that you didn't mean anything nasty when I read it, and I'm sure Michael wouldn't have taken it the wrong way... but I still had a laugh. It could have been an instant Wikipedia classic! I guess it just goes to show the dangers of communicating through text. Anyway, let me add my thanks to you for spending so much thought on the AfD. Cheers, Melchoir 01:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Many thanks for your stellar work on Common misconceptions in probability and statistics (or whatever its current title is). I had given up on that article, but you are probably right that User:Helgus meant to explain the difference between statistical independence and causal independence. This is an important point, and it wasn't yet mentioned on Wikipedia, so I'm very glad if it will be saved because of your efforts. -- Jitse Niesen ( talk) 02:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I see no relation between your "we disagree" statement and what I wrote, and don't understand why you write that you're "through". If I offended you in some way, I'm sorry. -- Lambiam Talk 16:28, 30 May 2006 (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 ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear Ryan,
Many thanks for the help in editing wiki-papers. Obviously, my English is not perfect. Moreover, your help was rather pertinent and indispensable. I understand, that you are very busy. And nevertheless I'd like to address to you with the request of the same sort.
On July, 30th I leave for Paris on Conference IPMU-2006, where I have the session E22 on eventology.
Would you be so kind to find a spare minute and examine preambles of two wiki-papers from the point of view of your excellent English style?:
Thank you in advance:) - Helgus 04:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Ryan, why do you hesitate to post your draft on rational maps? I think it is valuable. Some of the material, e.g. dominant map, might also be good to add to the Glossary of scheme theory. Jakob.scholbach 04:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Just post it and others, maybe myself may see whether they want to add, rearrange etc. something. Jakob.scholbach 15:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ryan, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks-- Cronholm144 00:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey Ryan, I notice your change to the article and I am fine with it, but I encourage you to address the comments in the comment box. thanks-- Cronholm144 00:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Well I knew that it was not a true stub but it needed work and I sometimes rate lower than the article's true value, which I think is start, in hopes of attracting angry editors who will improve their article to prove me wrong;), but if that is all there is to say then that is all there is to say on the topic. However I wonder if there is another editor who could help expand the article? anyway thanks so much for your prompt reply-- Cronholm144 01:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Help out with the Math collaboration of the week Mathematical physics if you have time!
Just curous, what is the meaning of the {{to Commons}} template you've put on this image today? It seems to imply that you think the image is inappropriate for some reason, i.e. being indiscriminately included. Do you think that Tinfoil Hat Linux does not deserve an image of its logo on its page? Or is it simply that you think that the image itself belongs to be hosted on the Commons site rather than on Wikipedia itself? I am not experienced in these political matters, so I don't know what the rule is with where images of various licensing belong. Ryan Reich 16:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your undo of my edit to Mathematical jargon. The reason I made my edit is that your definition of "stronger" doesn't cover the one I gave (although it gives related meanings), and the one I give is the only one I encounter on a regular basis. Undoing doesn't fix that. Please suggest a solution. Rp ( talk) 07:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"A property or condition is said to be stronger than another if the second property holds in all cases where the first property holds, but not vice versa; e.g. for positive whole numbers, being divisible by 4 is a stronger property than being even, while being divisible by 3 is neither stronger or weaker than either.:
"Finally, the adjective strong or the adverb strongly may be added to a mathematical notion to indicate a related stronger notion; for example, a strong antichain is an antichain satisfying certain additional conditions, and likewise a strongly regular graph is a regular graph meeting stronger conditions. When used in this way, the stronger notion (such as "strong antichain") is a technical term with a precisely defined meaning; the nature of the extra conditions cannot be derived from the definition of the weaker notion (such as "antichain")."
Hi Ryan. Given your recent comments, I just thought you mind find this entertaining (if somewhat worrying). I'll never forget that particular AfD, in which people it was argued that a misprint (in all probability) was inherently notable. To my mind, that's why the concept is so absurd. Jakew ( talk) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan - as you may know, the community reached consensus in relation to FritzpollBot. I believe that there is no such thing as inherent notability, per your arguments during the discussion. What I was interested in hearing was your thoughts on creating full stubs (oxymoron? :) ) on places with sources to verify notability per the only presently available guideline but creating lists of the places in particular administrative districts with information such as coordinates, population data, etc. One option might then be a redirect from the placename to the list, but I'm not sure. Anyway, this and many other discussions will be taking place at a centralised location, which we should be able to find in the next 48 hours, but if you would like to contribute, can you drop a line over at User:John_Carter/GEOBOT_group. I think we could certainly use your guidance, as I'm pretty certain WP:NPT won't become a guideline any time soon Fritzpoll ( talk) 12:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi I've made an intital suggestion at the GEOBOT talk page in that it would be an excellent idea to generate a full lists of places in a tabled list. Once this is accomplished we can work through what articles could be started in their own right if there is enough info avilabale. I see it as a solid comprehensive base to build geo content on if we have a full world list organized like this. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography/Bot#Creating lists. Please offer your thoughts thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 14:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, I've seen your edits on the Cayley–Hamilton article, and I appreciate that you informed me on my talk page, since indeed I had invested quite a bit of time in the part that you replaced. The text you replaced it with is interesting, but in my opinion not an improvement, even though it seems essentially correct (I have a few gripes but these are not so serious). But I'm probably not the most neutral person to judge, so we'll see how your change fares by other editors opinions. Let me just say a few things that come to mind.
Marc van Leeuwen ( talk) 20:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ryan,
The theory is in section 2. If you don't think the theory is well-presented, please improve the exposition.
Change of variable for PDE is not much discussed but it is an essential technique. Change of variable for integral equations is discussed in Integration by substitution but this doesn't really give you much help.
Also let's continue this discussion in the article's Talk page.
Thanks, Erxnmedia ( talk) 13:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi, The "reactions" subsection has undergone a bit of an edit war. I already left a comment at talk:manifold destiny, perhaps you could offer an opinion. Katzmik ( talk) 14:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Dear Ryan,
Before I respond to your comment, I would just like to note that I accepted Ozob's idea at some point in the discussion but that at that point, people conveniently changed their minds to choosing the Rubik's cube. I don't mind you changing the image as such (I could have reverted and continued pointless dispute but I didn't. So really you didn't end the discussion; I agreed with your idea), but I feel that I might look into this later on. The discussion:
1. Started out with me wanting to know how to find a good image (in fact I was happy with a*b = c) but then I saw the commutative diagram.
2. I started supporting the commutative diagram hoping for some back-up but it didn't come. By then, I had argued for so long, I did not want to give up (not because I wanted to waste more time but because I felt strongly about the image).
As you mentioned, this discussion was a waste of time and one of the reasons why I was unwilling to accept the Rubik's cube idea, was because I had been 'for my idea' for quite a while (ask yourself what you would have done in the same position if you felt strongly about a particular image and had argued for 1 page about it). Anyway, my response to one of your comments:
the icon should be "real math" and by that you meant category theory, that only "real mathematicians" need understand it, that the template actually function as an instructive device
By the way, I don't want to make a pointless discussion out of this but I suspect sockpuppetry at some point in the discussion (see the contributions of User:Brwian). Perhaps one user created an additional account for more support. I am also sure that if more users participated, I would have got some more support (especially by algebraists who specialize in homological algebra).
Topology Expert ( talk) 08:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Needs_resolution:_Are_places_inherently_notable.3F - I've initiated a question that I feel needs asking and which you may be interested in Fritzpoll ( talk) 08:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
See my comment on the Grothendieck talk page. Feketekave ( talk) 04:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
I came across an alternative to flagged revisions on Jimbo's talk page today. If you didn't know, there was an error on the page about Ted Kennedy that stated that he had died. Though the edit was corrected within five minutes, the change prompted some to ask for flagged revisions, meaning that all edits had to be checked by established users. Anyway, I think the alternative suggestion is good—do you know how I can propose and maybe get a vote on it? Jchthys ( talk) 04:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I see you took this out. I must admit I was tempted to do the same. I couldn't make up my mind. In all these cases, which are kinda a tough call, I dunno really what the rule of thumb is. Any advice?
Like I just tried to think "where would someone looking for quantum electrodynamics" end up and also "is it doing any harm?". The last is weaker because otherwise, yeah, might as well just stuff everything in as a seealso or whatever, from querelous erratic damned children to quite educated democrats (that's a very short topic).
It's a hard one to call. SimonTrew ( talk) 16:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)