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. |
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞ |
Hi, I'm wondering if you can lend a hand with a spot of (French to English) translation? I'd like someone to go through the final paragraph of the Under French control section of the Château-Gaillard article to make sure I've understood the source. I was working from this, and think I've covered the main points but can't be sure as my French is not great. Nev1 ( talk) 20:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I totally apologise for besmearing your talkpage and edit history by my posting some invective that I intended for someone else. Sorry. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, since I can't read German, if you have some spare time could you check if it is possible to incorporate [1] and [2] into the article? Thanks a lot. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 08:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all for your various messages and I'm conscious that some of them require my attention. My Wikipedia time is severely restricted between now and the new year, but please rest assured that I don't intend to ignore you forever!— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw your comments over at the deletion review for the article I've been working on about chinese immigration to sydney - I thought they sounded like a good way forward, so as well as replying at the review, I've re-started the article (see here) and would welcome your thoughts on whether or not it's a good fit for mainspace development work at this point? cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 23:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
My laptop is very sick, and going to the doctor's shortly. Estimated AFK time is at least two weeks. Apologies for the continued delay in responding to messages.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 18:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You changed Little Berko to Berko but left a footnote referring to Little Berko. I don't want to wade in on an issue I know nothing about, so I thought I'd just point it out. Cheers, Bazj ( talk) 10:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. It is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). I noticed that while many editors who commented on prior AfDs in the past were contacted, you somehow were not, so am leaving a friendly note here. Thank you, -- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
Hey S, how you doing? Please have a look at this AFD. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 16:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This article was sitting in the queue for a GA review for months. I did the review - and then found the nominator has gone on a long term break for family reasons, departing just 2 days ago. My bad timing. Anyway, my main concerns with the article relate to historical information, and you appear active in this area. Would you be willing to take a look? I'll leave it on hold for longer than usual and see what happens. hamiltonstone ( talk) 23:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
As someone who participated in the deletion review for the Regional Information Center for Science and Technology article, would you have the time to take a look at the notes I'm making here? What I'm looking for is comments on whether an article is feasible and (if possible) help in drafting an article. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think I "botched" the closure at all. The article, as I deleted it, was a single sentence under a relatively implausible title and nothing more. The apparently young individual recreated and expanded it per my message on his talk page, not realizing that there was already an article on the film. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem. :) This was jut one of those times when the "ignore all rules rule" got a bit mixed up.
PMDrive1061 has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Dear S Marshall, hi - I have added a little comment on your contribution here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#File:ZwillingeStampSWA1985.jpg best wishes ( Msrasnw ( talk) 19:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC))
Being bold is fine. However, if you had read the talk page you would have realised that discussion in this regard has been going on for some time (possibly too long, but users can get busy doing other things!). Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 22:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, S Marshall. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 02:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Stifle. I came across the Matt Rider article while category-sorting BLPs, and I see it's been deleted once before ( AfD). Is the new version substantially identical?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
╟─ Treasury Tag► constablewick─╢ 17:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Bit confused by your rationale on the Surf Shop DRV. By saying "Endorse", surely you are saying the close was correct, and thus endorsing the result that was gained by canvassing? Black Kite (t) (c) 15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Please would you undo the alterations to my comments at this FAC, if you wish to reply please do so below the original comment Fasach Nua ( talk) 06:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Fasach Nua is correct: it's considered bad form to strike out a user's comments at FAC. I know you're a newbie to the process, so no worries! It takes time to get used to this pomp and circumstance. :) The original editor may strike their own comments if they feel you have addressed their concerns, but don't do it yourself because they may feel otherwise; case in point, I think some of my comments were misunderstood. A block quotation is ANY chunk of text separated from the rest, no matter what template you use. This is what I meant by removing those blockquotes that are less than three lines long, and integrating them into the rest of the text. The citation formatting, while heading in the right direction, is still confused. Rather than "BBC: British History Timeline, retrieved 5 May 2010" and "Daily Mail: Will George slay England's patron saint?, retrieved 9 August 2009", use the style you've already established with the other website citations, such as in ref 5: title, then publisher, then access date. Because the Daily Mail is a publication, format it like this: "'Will George slay England's patron saint?', Daily Mail, retrieved 9 August 2009." You can use a citation template if you think it would help with the formatting consistency, but it's not necessary. I hope these points make more sense now, María ( habla con migo) 12:42, 13 May 2010 (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. |
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞ |
Hi, I'm wondering if you can lend a hand with a spot of (French to English) translation? I'd like someone to go through the final paragraph of the Under French control section of the Château-Gaillard article to make sure I've understood the source. I was working from this, and think I've covered the main points but can't be sure as my French is not great. Nev1 ( talk) 20:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
I totally apologise for besmearing your talkpage and edit history by my posting some invective that I intended for someone else. Sorry. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 23:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi, since I can't read German, if you have some spare time could you check if it is possible to incorporate [1] and [2] into the article? Thanks a lot. Timotheus Canens ( talk) 08:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you all for your various messages and I'm conscious that some of them require my attention. My Wikipedia time is severely restricted between now and the new year, but please rest assured that I don't intend to ignore you forever!— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I saw your comments over at the deletion review for the article I've been working on about chinese immigration to sydney - I thought they sounded like a good way forward, so as well as replying at the review, I've re-started the article (see here) and would welcome your thoughts on whether or not it's a good fit for mainspace development work at this point? cheers, Privatemusings ( talk) 23:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
My laptop is very sick, and going to the doctor's shortly. Estimated AFK time is at least two weeks. Apologies for the continued delay in responding to messages.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 18:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You changed Little Berko to Berko but left a footnote referring to Little Berko. I don't want to wade in on an issue I know nothing about, so I thought I'd just point it out. Cheers, Bazj ( talk) 10:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you commented in a past AfD discussion of the article Nicholas Beale. It is now back at AfD again, so you might be interested in commenting again (but you are under no obligation to). I noticed that while many editors who commented on prior AfDs in the past were contacted, you somehow were not, so am leaving a friendly note here. Thank you, -- Epeefleche ( talk) 22:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;
Hey S, how you doing? Please have a look at this AFD. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 16:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
This article was sitting in the queue for a GA review for months. I did the review - and then found the nominator has gone on a long term break for family reasons, departing just 2 days ago. My bad timing. Anyway, my main concerns with the article relate to historical information, and you appear active in this area. Would you be willing to take a look? I'll leave it on hold for longer than usual and see what happens. hamiltonstone ( talk) 23:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
As someone who participated in the deletion review for the Regional Information Center for Science and Technology article, would you have the time to take a look at the notes I'm making here? What I'm looking for is comments on whether an article is feasible and (if possible) help in drafting an article. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 01:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think I "botched" the closure at all. The article, as I deleted it, was a single sentence under a relatively implausible title and nothing more. The apparently young individual recreated and expanded it per my message on his talk page, not realizing that there was already an article on the film. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 15:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem. :) This was jut one of those times when the "ignore all rules rule" got a bit mixed up.
PMDrive1061 has given you a
cookie! Cookies promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}!
Dear S Marshall, hi - I have added a little comment on your contribution here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#File:ZwillingeStampSWA1985.jpg best wishes ( Msrasnw ( talk) 19:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC))
Being bold is fine. However, if you had read the talk page you would have realised that discussion in this regard has been going on for some time (possibly too long, but users can get busy doing other things!). Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ( Talk Contribs) 22:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, S Marshall. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 18#Richard Tylman, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Tylman (4th nomination). Cunard ( talk) 02:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Stifle. I came across the Matt Rider article while category-sorting BLPs, and I see it's been deleted once before ( AfD). Is the new version substantially identical?— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
╟─ Treasury Tag► constablewick─╢ 17:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Bit confused by your rationale on the Surf Shop DRV. By saying "Endorse", surely you are saying the close was correct, and thus endorsing the result that was gained by canvassing? Black Kite (t) (c) 15:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Please would you undo the alterations to my comments at this FAC, if you wish to reply please do so below the original comment Fasach Nua ( talk) 06:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Fasach Nua is correct: it's considered bad form to strike out a user's comments at FAC. I know you're a newbie to the process, so no worries! It takes time to get used to this pomp and circumstance. :) The original editor may strike their own comments if they feel you have addressed their concerns, but don't do it yourself because they may feel otherwise; case in point, I think some of my comments were misunderstood. A block quotation is ANY chunk of text separated from the rest, no matter what template you use. This is what I meant by removing those blockquotes that are less than three lines long, and integrating them into the rest of the text. The citation formatting, while heading in the right direction, is still confused. Rather than "BBC: British History Timeline, retrieved 5 May 2010" and "Daily Mail: Will George slay England's patron saint?, retrieved 9 August 2009", use the style you've already established with the other website citations, such as in ref 5: title, then publisher, then access date. Because the Daily Mail is a publication, format it like this: "'Will George slay England's patron saint?', Daily Mail, retrieved 9 August 2009." You can use a citation template if you think it would help with the formatting consistency, but it's not necessary. I hope these points make more sense now, María ( habla con migo) 12:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)