Welcome!
Hello, Smcg8374, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! —
DoRD (
talk)
16:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I am new to this, so please forgive me if I am not commenting in the right way. I am not sure if it notifies you, but I did respond to your comment about the proposed article on Gedamu Woldegiorgis "Aboy Gedamu". I could use a little help making sure that it is not deleted. Thank you Ynegede ( talk) 14:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, can you please tell me why is it getting declined? I did everything that was asked, I posted notable sources, I added references. Please let me know. Rchamaa ( talk) 13:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 15:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Sry, i reverted your decision, did you already read Untold? and the submission? One is about a musician, the other is about an album! Regards, mabdul 15:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm not sure why you felt you had to leave Offthetwig a level 3 warning for disruptive editing. Resubmitting an AfC draft, however badly written (and however incongruous the subject), is no crime. Rather, that's what AfC is there for - to give new users a chance to make an article that could be up to scratch, and to learn some guidelines. Threatening them with blocks and calling their edits disruptive would effectively stop them from ever coming back to try and make articles again. Please don't bite the newbies. If you think a submission doesn't have a chance of passing, try nicely explaining why on their talk page or something. Thanks. OohBunnies! (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
"One of the references is to an online record store selling the product" Kiwi Records is the producer, i.e. the company that produced the record in the first place (1966), they also happen to sell the record. http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/kiwi-records Hence should be considered a primary source . There are subdivisions of Kiwi Records on Wikipedia already - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibiscus_Records.
The other reference is to an artifact pictured on the album cover (by the singer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlasdairKennedy ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Smcg8374,
I've updated the references, am I on the right track? It is a young organisation, so references are slim.
Andrew Morrison ( talk) 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies, I had been under the impression that The Prince's status as a work of satire was undisputed, but not widely known, and that the phrase 'Machiavellian' itself was fundamentally flawed. I added that bit because I thought it was a known fact that was lacking from the page and would further confuse the issue. I shall endeavour to research such things more closely in the future. :-) Master Deusoma ( talk) 09:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The original research article is about to be published by a third party - a print magazine called 'Magick'. Will the article become eligible to be used as a citation at this point?
Also - I notice that authors of a certain religiosity are very quick to say that 'Crowley believed X, Y and Z' when (if I am correct?) the correct mode of address would be 'Crowley claimed to believe'... after all - none of us needs to peer review an obvious anagram - i.e. 'I sin, I was the Master'. :D All we can really know is that Crowley claimed to believe certain things, not whether he actually did believe them or not; - so can we remove all the 'Crowley believed...' statements or modify them please?
Oh - and thirdly - the New Aeon is never mentioned in the Book of the Law, but one author is saying that the Book announced the New Aeon?
I welcome you taking an interest in this wiki page and hope you keep editing my friend. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dara Allarah ( talk • contribs) 03:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Would you mind holding off on the revisions until we have clarification back from the help desk whether evident perfect anagrams in a text are to be regarded as Original Research or not?
Anagrams have been used and accepted in court as evidence btw. For instance in the recent court case of Dan Brown Vs. Baigent and Leigh, the Judge accepted that Dan Brown's villain 'Leigh Teabing' is an anagram of Baigent and Leigh and said "I have already observed the anagram in the name Teabing as being another example of how The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail was clearly in the mind of Mr Brown when he finalised his book."
Clearly, if anagrams were entirely subjective they could not have been accepted as evidence.
Thank you. Dara Allarah ( talk) 13:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Smcg8374. Could you please comment on my recent edits on Spirituality? See Talk:Spirituality#Mass-reversion. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi - I noticed you reverted my "Machiavelli test" addition. I think there are some sources for this eg:
- Christie, R., and F. L. Geis. "How devious are you? Take the Machiavelli test to find out." Journal of Management in Engineering 15.4 (1970): 17.
- Ortwein, Bernard M. "Teaching Negotiation: A Valuable Experience." J. Legal Educ. 31 (1981): 108.
- White, James J. "Lawyer as a Negotiator: An Adventure in Understanding and Teaching the Art of Negotiation, The." J. Legal Educ. 19 (1966): 337.
- The later two both talk about the so-called "Machiavelli test".
I was just at a seminar where this was mentioned and looked up and couldn't find it here - and so added it to help. I have put it back with a toned down claim and a source which would seem OK to me. Might this be a term that was used but now is not used so much? Feel free to revert if you really want to and have strong feelings on this.
Best wishes ( Msrasnw ( talk) 14:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC))
I removed that article from the AFC page. That 1973 article. Thank you. Emeraldgirl ( talk) 01:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the spelling of the name is so different from the pronunciation? There is an explanation of the etymology in the article but no explanation of the unusual pronunciation. If anyone has any sources to shed light on this, I think it would be worth adding. -- Smcg8374 ( talk) 07:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Smcg. You might be interested in an editathon this Friday: Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/University of Sydney Wikibomb. -- 99of9 ( talk) 00:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Good to see another active contributor in the psychology field. As you created boundaries of the mind, I thought you would be interested in the related personal boundaries which I created. Recently Wiki-psyc boldly renamed personal boundaries as setting boundaries and added new material https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Setting_boundaries&action=history. I would be interested in your opinion of this.-- Penbat ( talk) 08:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
My home internet has been down this week, so I have only had restricted access to the net. I will take a look at the article you mentioned and let you know what I think. Just off the top of my head, I would think the original title, a noun phrase, seems more suitable than a verb phrase. -- Smcg8374 ( talk) 08:06, 1 September 2015 (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)
16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hvcuhgf 41.116.94.41 ( talk) 14:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Smcg8374, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}}
before the question. Again, welcome! —
DoRD (
talk)
16:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I am new to this, so please forgive me if I am not commenting in the right way. I am not sure if it notifies you, but I did respond to your comment about the proposed article on Gedamu Woldegiorgis "Aboy Gedamu". I could use a little help making sure that it is not deleted. Thank you Ynegede ( talk) 14:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, can you please tell me why is it getting declined? I did everything that was asked, I posted notable sources, I added references. Please let me know. Rchamaa ( talk) 13:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Cheers, Riley Huntley talk No talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here. 15:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Sry, i reverted your decision, did you already read Untold? and the submission? One is about a musician, the other is about an album! Regards, mabdul 15:52, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm not sure why you felt you had to leave Offthetwig a level 3 warning for disruptive editing. Resubmitting an AfC draft, however badly written (and however incongruous the subject), is no crime. Rather, that's what AfC is there for - to give new users a chance to make an article that could be up to scratch, and to learn some guidelines. Threatening them with blocks and calling their edits disruptive would effectively stop them from ever coming back to try and make articles again. Please don't bite the newbies. If you think a submission doesn't have a chance of passing, try nicely explaining why on their talk page or something. Thanks. OohBunnies! (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
"One of the references is to an online record store selling the product" Kiwi Records is the producer, i.e. the company that produced the record in the first place (1966), they also happen to sell the record. http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/photo/kiwi-records Hence should be considered a primary source . There are subdivisions of Kiwi Records on Wikipedia already - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibiscus_Records.
The other reference is to an artifact pictured on the album cover (by the singer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlasdairKennedy ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Smcg8374,
I've updated the references, am I on the right track? It is a young organisation, so references are slim.
Andrew Morrison ( talk) 20:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, my apologies, I had been under the impression that The Prince's status as a work of satire was undisputed, but not widely known, and that the phrase 'Machiavellian' itself was fundamentally flawed. I added that bit because I thought it was a known fact that was lacking from the page and would further confuse the issue. I shall endeavour to research such things more closely in the future. :-) Master Deusoma ( talk) 09:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The original research article is about to be published by a third party - a print magazine called 'Magick'. Will the article become eligible to be used as a citation at this point?
Also - I notice that authors of a certain religiosity are very quick to say that 'Crowley believed X, Y and Z' when (if I am correct?) the correct mode of address would be 'Crowley claimed to believe'... after all - none of us needs to peer review an obvious anagram - i.e. 'I sin, I was the Master'. :D All we can really know is that Crowley claimed to believe certain things, not whether he actually did believe them or not; - so can we remove all the 'Crowley believed...' statements or modify them please?
Oh - and thirdly - the New Aeon is never mentioned in the Book of the Law, but one author is saying that the Book announced the New Aeon?
I welcome you taking an interest in this wiki page and hope you keep editing my friend. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dara Allarah ( talk • contribs) 03:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Would you mind holding off on the revisions until we have clarification back from the help desk whether evident perfect anagrams in a text are to be regarded as Original Research or not?
Anagrams have been used and accepted in court as evidence btw. For instance in the recent court case of Dan Brown Vs. Baigent and Leigh, the Judge accepted that Dan Brown's villain 'Leigh Teabing' is an anagram of Baigent and Leigh and said "I have already observed the anagram in the name Teabing as being another example of how The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail was clearly in the mind of Mr Brown when he finalised his book."
Clearly, if anagrams were entirely subjective they could not have been accepted as evidence.
Thank you. Dara Allarah ( talk) 13:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Smcg8374. Could you please comment on my recent edits on Spirituality? See Talk:Spirituality#Mass-reversion. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi - I noticed you reverted my "Machiavelli test" addition. I think there are some sources for this eg:
- Christie, R., and F. L. Geis. "How devious are you? Take the Machiavelli test to find out." Journal of Management in Engineering 15.4 (1970): 17.
- Ortwein, Bernard M. "Teaching Negotiation: A Valuable Experience." J. Legal Educ. 31 (1981): 108.
- White, James J. "Lawyer as a Negotiator: An Adventure in Understanding and Teaching the Art of Negotiation, The." J. Legal Educ. 19 (1966): 337.
- The later two both talk about the so-called "Machiavelli test".
I was just at a seminar where this was mentioned and looked up and couldn't find it here - and so added it to help. I have put it back with a toned down claim and a source which would seem OK to me. Might this be a term that was used but now is not used so much? Feel free to revert if you really want to and have strong feelings on this.
Best wishes ( Msrasnw ( talk) 14:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC))
I removed that article from the AFC page. That 1973 article. Thank you. Emeraldgirl ( talk) 01:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know why the spelling of the name is so different from the pronunciation? There is an explanation of the etymology in the article but no explanation of the unusual pronunciation. If anyone has any sources to shed light on this, I think it would be worth adding. -- Smcg8374 ( talk) 07:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Smcg. You might be interested in an editathon this Friday: Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/University of Sydney Wikibomb. -- 99of9 ( talk) 00:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Good to see another active contributor in the psychology field. As you created boundaries of the mind, I thought you would be interested in the related personal boundaries which I created. Recently Wiki-psyc boldly renamed personal boundaries as setting boundaries and added new material https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Setting_boundaries&action=history. I would be interested in your opinion of this.-- Penbat ( talk) 08:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
My home internet has been down this week, so I have only had restricted access to the net. I will take a look at the article you mentioned and let you know what I think. Just off the top of my head, I would think the original title, a noun phrase, seems more suitable than a verb phrase. -- Smcg8374 ( talk) 08:06, 1 September 2015 (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)
16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hvcuhgf 41.116.94.41 ( talk) 14:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)