Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)
Here are a few links you might find helpful:
You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on
my talk page. Or, please come to the
Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
We're so glad you're here! If you need help feel free to drop a line at my talk page. :) -- Ac t o w n e 06:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to WikiProject Environment! -- Alex 08:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In response to your question on Talk:George W. Bush administration, I sorted the list of resigned Cabinet officers by the order in which the offices were created. -- TommyBoy 18:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I see you've removed the notation of plot ripoffs from the Little Miss Sunshine page. How does one document a controversy? If you are in denial that such a discussion exists, perhaps google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=national+lampoon+vacation+little+miss+sunshine
and you will get enough reviews that compare the two movies to spend your whole morning reading... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.66.112.5 ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC).
Hi there, you moved Talk:Little Miss Sunshine to Talk:Little Miss Sunshine (film), but it appears you did this simply by cutting and pasting the text of the article to the new article. By doing this, you've sacrificed the entire edit history for the article. For future reference, if you move articles again, use the "Move this page" link. Using this method will preserve the history for the article as well as move the associated talk page. Cacophony 06:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an easy question to answer : 1) take the article and summarize it, remove material that is not seen elsewhere in the article (like time when it runs) and bring the article in the subject by making it easy to read and follow. or 2) go to WP:LEAD for a complete guideline to improve it. Lincher 21:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact that O'Reilly won't even mentioned his name should be proof enough?? Olbermann has a pretty scary obsession w/O'Reilly attacking him usually nightly-A real professional-- Bairdso66 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree, I think the sentence about the "rivarly going to enormous proportions" should be removed. I think Olbermann see's it as a rivarly and O'Reilly let's his ratings do the talking. Thanks for responding-- Bairdso66 04:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with most of the changes you made to the Yankees Red Sox rivalry page, but one of the fact tags you placed seems unnecessary. The sentence, "This was the most recent of several player-fan incidents during Boston-New York games at either venue over the years," is not an opinion; it's just a statement that it's the most recent. A lack of other (more recent) news can't be cited; there's nothing to cite. Besides, it would be easy to find old news stories that call it the "most recent" even after some new event happens. I wouldn't have a problem with removing the sentence entirely, if you're worried about the article not being updated in a timely manner when something new happens (though I doubt that will be an issue with this topic). It's kind of complicated and I'm not sure if I made any sense here; if you're not clear about what I mean, please feel free to say so. Kafziel Talk 19:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, a problem I saw is that the section with the citations is lost. Some parts of the article may also be missing. Some editor may have done something wrong by mistake. I don't know! I'd suggest you try to achieve a compromise. These circumstances are always difficult. If you don't find a way to co-exist, you may be involved in edit-wars etc., which are not pleasant situations. If you see that the problem is getting deeper, you can ask for a mediation by one or more other administrators. I think this is the procedure. Generally, I'd suggest you remain calm and avoid "hot" disputes. Such situations usually don't have pleasant outcomes for anybody.-- Yannismarou 13:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that the image you uploaded is licensed by the flickr user as noncommercial and no derivatives. -- tomf688 ( talk - email) 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I won't revert your reinstatement of the lead-in to "Links normally to be avoided", but I have put my reasons for the deletion at Wikipedia_talk:External_links/workshop#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 19:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The reason for the footnotes portion of the Infobox was that we were constantly reverting edits trying to put Webb into office. I am changing it back. Please discuss this on the talk page if you feel that it should be changed. Stealthound 18:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if the undeletion was improper, how was the speedy delete proper? Which of the criteria for speedy deletion did this meet? - recreation of previously deleted articles. User:Zoe| (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The previous consensus for deletion was that this was even less than vaporware, but unannouncedware, and as such, pretty much was the epitome of crystal ballism. Writing a new article which didn't address those concerns doesn't matter, if it's still got the same problem. User:Zoe| (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, no problem! I know what it's like to be the only person trying to resist someone who doesn't quite get WP:V -- frustrating as hell without backup. Dylan 21:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I have created a barnstar for Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment. Please visit the talk page to vote for the barnstar since there are no votes for 2 months. OhanaUnited 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
HI,
A while ago, you helped motivate the creation of a new section which became Political positions of Mitt Romney. The section got bumped out into a separate article entitled
Political views of Mitt Romney. In case you're interested, there's a discussion underway about whether it's an improvement to name it
Political positions of Mitt Romney, over at
Talk:Political views of Mitt Romney#Requested move.
You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us! |
Hi Schi!
I'm looking at your user page--maybe you'd be interested in joining our
task force? It looks like you'd be a real asset to the team.
Cyrusc 21:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Series of tubes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes. Thank you. -- BJBot ( talk) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:BrightblackMorningLight.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects ( talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated at
Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)
Here are a few links you might find helpful:
You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on
my talk page. Or, please come to the
Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
We're so glad you're here! If you need help feel free to drop a line at my talk page. :) -- Ac t o w n e 06:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to WikiProject Environment! -- Alex 08:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
In response to your question on Talk:George W. Bush administration, I sorted the list of resigned Cabinet officers by the order in which the offices were created. -- TommyBoy 18:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I see you've removed the notation of plot ripoffs from the Little Miss Sunshine page. How does one document a controversy? If you are in denial that such a discussion exists, perhaps google:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=national+lampoon+vacation+little+miss+sunshine
and you will get enough reviews that compare the two movies to spend your whole morning reading... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.66.112.5 ( talk • contribs) 16:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC).
Hi there, you moved Talk:Little Miss Sunshine to Talk:Little Miss Sunshine (film), but it appears you did this simply by cutting and pasting the text of the article to the new article. By doing this, you've sacrificed the entire edit history for the article. For future reference, if you move articles again, use the "Move this page" link. Using this method will preserve the history for the article as well as move the associated talk page. Cacophony 06:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This is an easy question to answer : 1) take the article and summarize it, remove material that is not seen elsewhere in the article (like time when it runs) and bring the article in the subject by making it easy to read and follow. or 2) go to WP:LEAD for a complete guideline to improve it. Lincher 21:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact that O'Reilly won't even mentioned his name should be proof enough?? Olbermann has a pretty scary obsession w/O'Reilly attacking him usually nightly-A real professional-- Bairdso66 23:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree, I think the sentence about the "rivarly going to enormous proportions" should be removed. I think Olbermann see's it as a rivarly and O'Reilly let's his ratings do the talking. Thanks for responding-- Bairdso66 04:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with most of the changes you made to the Yankees Red Sox rivalry page, but one of the fact tags you placed seems unnecessary. The sentence, "This was the most recent of several player-fan incidents during Boston-New York games at either venue over the years," is not an opinion; it's just a statement that it's the most recent. A lack of other (more recent) news can't be cited; there's nothing to cite. Besides, it would be easy to find old news stories that call it the "most recent" even after some new event happens. I wouldn't have a problem with removing the sentence entirely, if you're worried about the article not being updated in a timely manner when something new happens (though I doubt that will be an issue with this topic). It's kind of complicated and I'm not sure if I made any sense here; if you're not clear about what I mean, please feel free to say so. Kafziel Talk 19:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, a problem I saw is that the section with the citations is lost. Some parts of the article may also be missing. Some editor may have done something wrong by mistake. I don't know! I'd suggest you try to achieve a compromise. These circumstances are always difficult. If you don't find a way to co-exist, you may be involved in edit-wars etc., which are not pleasant situations. If you see that the problem is getting deeper, you can ask for a mediation by one or more other administrators. I think this is the procedure. Generally, I'd suggest you remain calm and avoid "hot" disputes. Such situations usually don't have pleasant outcomes for anybody.-- Yannismarou 13:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that the image you uploaded is licensed by the flickr user as noncommercial and no derivatives. -- tomf688 ( talk - email) 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I won't revert your reinstatement of the lead-in to "Links normally to be avoided", but I have put my reasons for the deletion at Wikipedia_talk:External_links/workshop#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 19:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The reason for the footnotes portion of the Infobox was that we were constantly reverting edits trying to put Webb into office. I am changing it back. Please discuss this on the talk page if you feel that it should be changed. Stealthound 18:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Even if the undeletion was improper, how was the speedy delete proper? Which of the criteria for speedy deletion did this meet? - recreation of previously deleted articles. User:Zoe| (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The previous consensus for deletion was that this was even less than vaporware, but unannouncedware, and as such, pretty much was the epitome of crystal ballism. Writing a new article which didn't address those concerns doesn't matter, if it's still got the same problem. User:Zoe| (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Seeking concensus on proposed merger at Talk:Classics. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, no problem! I know what it's like to be the only person trying to resist someone who doesn't quite get WP:V -- frustrating as hell without backup. Dylan 21:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I have created a barnstar for Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment. Please visit the talk page to vote for the barnstar since there are no votes for 2 months. OhanaUnited 03:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
HI,
A while ago, you helped motivate the creation of a new section which became Political positions of Mitt Romney. The section got bumped out into a separate article entitled
Political views of Mitt Romney. In case you're interested, there's a discussion underway about whether it's an improvement to name it
Political positions of Mitt Romney, over at
Talk:Political views of Mitt Romney#Requested move.
You are being recruited by the Environmental Record Task Force, a collaborative project committed to accurately and consistently representing the environmental impact of policymakers, corporations, and institutions throughout the encyclopedia. Join us! |
Hi Schi!
I'm looking at your user page--maybe you'd be interested in joining our
task force? It looks like you'd be a real asset to the team.
Cyrusc 21:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Series of tubes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes. Thank you. -- BJBot ( talk) 02:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:BrightblackMorningLight.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
{{
di-replaceable fair use disputed}}
, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Aspects ( talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Your input would be appreciated at