![]() | 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. |
You helped me in the past, and I wondered if you could help me again. I used to access a counter page that could tell me how many edits I made on any Wikipedia page (e.g., an article, a discussion page, a template page, a user pages, etc.). The counter I use can no longer do that for me. I wondered if you know of a counter page that can count how many edits I made on any specific page. Thank you. Iss246 ( talk) 03:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I use the first one:
http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Iss246&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia but it no longer tells me the number of contributions specific article by specific article.
I created this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Iss246/EditCounterOptIn.js&action=edit&redlink=1 but I don't know how to use it. How will it give me a count of, say, the edits I made on the Work & Stress article? Iss246 ( talk) 04:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't get further than what I already have on my iss246 page. The bottom of my soxred page reads as follows:
Month counts User has not yet opted in. If you want to see graphs, please create User:Iss246/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. Alternatively, you can create meta:User:Iss246/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js to opt-in across all Wikimedia wikis. Top edited articles User has not yet opted in. If you want to see graphs, please create User:Iss246/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. Alternatively, you can create meta:User:Iss246/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js to opt-in across all Wikimedia wikis.
I don't know what to do with those meta sites. I tried to opt in, but I'm not sure what that means. I can neither get monthly counts (which I once had) and counts of my edits on specific articles and other pages (which I once had). I wouldn't mind if you did the edits for me. I am lost. Iss246 ( talk) 19:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I got the counter working the way I want. Thank you. You are unfailingly helpful. You, and people like you, make Wikipedia a hospitable place. Best wishes. Iss246 ( talk) 22:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Another question: what's the quickest way to see my userpages (pages I'ves started but haven't yet presented to wikipedia's eager audience)? I've got a couple I am working on and can't find them. Thanks. Jim Steele ( talk) 23:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
With regard to that paper you reviewed for me, thank you so much for your feedback. I have tried to address and integrate all of the comments you raised. I also sent you back an e-mail with some comments as well. Also, I would like to at least mention you in the paper acknowledgments, so if you want to e-mail me your name I will do that. However, if you wish to maintain anonymity, I totally respect that. Just let me know what you want to do. Thanks again for everything! --- kilbad ( talk) 22:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello WAID I am thinking of doing some work on hypoglycemia. I have pulled up a few review articles and intend to reference the peice. Looks like it has been controversial in the past so though I would give you a heads up. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw that you contributed to the discussion at WT:N#Notability of small settlements, so you may be interested in a policy proposal I have made concerning this issue at the Village pump. Regards. Claritas ( talk) 17:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated FWSE ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Claritas ( talk) 20:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You raised a great point at the medicine talk page. Yeah, currently, I only want to tag redirects for disease synonyms found in the list of cutaneous conditions. This is not to say that someday we will not also tag other types I redirects, but that is where I am starting. With that being said, would you consider adding some text to the relevant sections at WP:DERM:A about which articles and redirects should be tagged? Regardless, thanks again for all your help in the past! --- kilbad ( talk) 00:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. It seems special education is vandalized regularly, and I'm thinking it should be protected. Can you do that? Thanks, JS. Jim Steele ( talk) 16:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you like to be an admin? I will nominate you, if so (even though the procedure looks somewhat scary!) -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 02:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You wrote "The same can be said, BTW, for Noah Webster's works". Suddenly I understand why we have so many spelling issues with WP:ENGVAR :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 21:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Jessica wanted me to move the most recent SPI page you made at here for Dieudonne Carrington isnt actually posted on the SPI page. Either under pending or awaiting admin approval . I guess the bot is down or something? But its not on the pending approval page or anything. So if you could fix that, i dont feel like learning the new system (used checkuser, havent learned SPI formatting). She keeps asking me about opening up a ANI discussion for her too :sigh:. Anyway have a nice day. MrMacMan Talk 01:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Jim Steele ( talk) 21:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
(UTC)
Please try to be more careful in adjusting tags in the future. There is a parameter to add more than one topic. It is a style issue. If there is anything else it is probably politics. I kept soc in based on your edit. Cptnono ( talk) 06:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
|style
parameter is explicitly listed as being used only on "non-article pages".
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 17:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Thanks for your advise to my question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Your_opinion_on_my_right_to_post_external_links.2C_please...
I really appreciate your suggestions and will follow up on them. I would like to ask you a question: Will my account automatically be blocked if I add something, as EyeSerene suggested on my talk page, or is this more of a process that I could prevent by adding additional details, as you suggested? Thanks and have a nice day Digitaldomain ( talk) 18:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Just to let you know I mentioned your reply to a question raised at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria reg football player lists, in an RfC at WT:FOOTY#Name of football player lists. Hope I didn't misrepresent you. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 13:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
You commented here: Talk:Radiation (pain) ( the page was originally here) a long time ago, but I thought that it was fair enough.
I was bold and moved it, added some disambiguation templates and the like. I will improve the article when I get chance.
Please comment here on my actions if you think what I did was not for the best. Kind regards, Captain n00dle \ Talk 21:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask for your input here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie. Recently you commented on Minphie's conduct and we ask if you could come and give feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie as the editor appears not to have taken any heed of the community's feedback on his approach to editing. If you don't remember your exact interactions with Minphie, it is detailed in the RfC/U page. Thankyou for your time, -- Figs Might Ply ( talk) 23:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I simply cannot continue going in circles on that particular discussion; so, I will not be commenting on it any further. Due to the heavily involved nature of the discussion, I felt this courtesy message was called for.
Hopefully, we will cross paths again. Chicken monkey 04:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 02:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you could explain to me what happened here (the next 3 lines are copied from my watchlist):
June 2, 2010
What did NawlinWiki do? And why? I don't understand this. Thanks.
Iss246 (
talk) 21:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Iss246 ( talk) 03:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Any reason why this [1]is? I seem to follow the procedure and it won't show the citations. Also, the help page like so many on wikipedia is turgid. Jim Steele ( talk) 16:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
</ref>
), you accidentally put it inside the close ref tag (< text /ref>
). The 'missing' ref tag then ate the rest of the page. (A missing or broken ref tag is a good thing to look for if you make a change, and suddenly a previously long article stops dead right after the last reference, or skips all the text between the ref you were editing and the next.)Jim Steele ( talk) 18:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll fix it when I have time to wrestle with formatting. Assuming you read my apology - I found something better to read before editing Wikipedia, to improve my tone rather than degrade it: Feynman's memoirs. ;-) Postpostmod ( talk) 13:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Truce! lets try to work this out sensibly, personally i would prefer to leave most Wikipedia editor issues with those who have the time and patients to fully under who is who with regard to Socks etc, but in the last few days it have been difficult for me to understand who was who, which is part of my processing issues.
My main concern is to have an article free of any particular countries special education jargon be it the USA the UK or anywhere else. I am aware of the Criticisms regarding special education which exist in the USA regarding the current system there, which may not be shared in other countries So may be renaming the section as say "controvercies" may be a way forward. (never could spell that word) dolfrog ( talk) 16:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Accessory nail of the fifth toe... just fyi. And I took some photos I will upload later. --- kilbad ( talk) 01:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm all for different aspects of special education being represented. Which is why we have "differences by location." I'm really starting to lose my patience with the assertion the article is biased towards U.S. settings. Tempest in a teapot, really. The references you listed were great, but in vain as they weren't read. Looks to me we have some parents with an axe to grind, or some people with a violation of NPOV in there somewhere. Seeing how it's an article I've taken the time to improve, by slowly adding references (and it seems there are very little editors in this project who seem to care about education-related articles) , I'm not going to let it be tampered with easily. I'm going to take a break, turn a blind eye, unless the article is changed without good reason. The Kafka short stories need attention for now. Thanks for the effort, by the way, listing the sources so quickly on the talk page. Jim Steele ( talk) 01:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I've restored the text which mentioned "consolidating information covered in prose".
There was a discussion on the matter around 4-6 months ago. Originally it took place at WP:ACCESS, and focussed on whether collapsible content was an accessibility issue. Once establishing that it was not, the discussion moved to the main MoS talk page, where we asked why it was acceptable to have collapsible content in an infobox, but not collapsible content in a non-infobox template that served a similar purpose. The two examples that were used were a collapsible family tree in an article about a royal family, and the use of {{ footballbox collapsible}} in articles where the match events have already been described (such as the work in progress 2009–10 Watford F.C. season). The counterargument was that an infobox should consolidate information that is covered in the article, and thus "consolidate content already covered in prose" was conceived.
Admittedly it's a pretty clunky phrase. If you agree with the intended meaning, free to be bold and improve it. If you feel that the intended meaning does not reflect consensus, I would be happy for the discussion to be reopened. Regards, WFCforLife ( talk) 13:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Special education. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 17:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing I have been busy in the real world researching Motor Neuron Disease, MND, for my local University. Not a subject I know much about so the initial research took some time, and there will more needed later. The discussions on the Special Education talk page seem to be progressing slowly and quite well, which is understandable due to the complex nature of the topic, the differences in the language different countries use, and the different ways of providing special education in each country which can change as a result of newly elected government or advmace in the understanding of the differences involved. I noticed in the text of the discussion that you had asked me a question which i missed, to answer now on the Special Education talk page would disturb the flow of the existing discussion. But if you still want an answer just ask away and i will try to reply dolfrog ( talk) 19:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear WhatamIdoing,
I like to apologize sincerely for my mistakes. You see, it wasn't intentional. When I told you on the talk page that I made a mistake, then it was a good faith one. I like to work with you collaboratively but blaming me because of others lack of knowledge of the way the US school system works really is not going to help. 198.38.10.1 ( talk) 14:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm always impressed by your grasp of and comments regarding image use, and thought you'd be interested in this. Though I despise the spurious means by which it came about (see the RSN) it is none the less an interesting question. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 20:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
By adding the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) reference ID to a book citation provides more in depth information regarding the citation source, and where you may be best able to find a local copy to valid its use. This option so far has not been included on citation template, may be you could rectify this. The problem with isbn numbers is that thye only lead to another Wikipedia article which is really a dead end and not really useful. dolfrog ( talk) 14:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this rename done by you [2] I would like to point out that he is more commonly known as Dr. Jack de Sequeira. Most sources I came accross do not reffer to him as Joao Hugo but simply as Dr. Jack de Sequiera. As per WP:COMMONNAME the most common name should be used (just like Bill Clinton) and I think the previous name is fine. I have gone ahead and moved it back. Hope you don't mind. In case you do we can discuss this further on the talk page. Thanks. -- Deepak D'Souza ( talk) 00:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I thought I was being helpful to encourge new people. I edited a BUNCH of the discussion pages. Every page was different and there were a bunch that didn't have any project banner on them, so what do you want me to do? Please tell me what to change or delete, and I'll plow back through them over the next couple of days. Sbmeirow ( talk) 04:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
So are you wanting me to remove the "Talk header" and line about "refs"? Sbmeirow ( talk) 04:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
File:Okapis.jpg |
Have you considered joining
WikiProject Cryptozoology? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's coverage on
cryptozoology. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the
list of participants. Please see our
list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gniniv ( talk • contribs) 10:44, 17 July 2010 |
"The actual, long-term 'problem' with the article is that the beliefs and conversation that part of the trans community apparently holds about the Blanchard idea can't be supported by very many high-quality reliable sources."
That's the part I'm not so sure about. Just a short search brings up stuff like this for example. RichLow ( talk) 17:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I love yor boxes. The whole grammar thing drives me nuts, too. As for the pic, I laughed out loud when I saw it! InFairness ( talk) 21:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've been seeing a lot of this: [3] since I started. Do you have a copy of the vandalism template I could just copy and past and use? I went on the WP policy page that attempts to instruct how to place a warning on someone's page, and I couldn't make heads or tails of it. It's getting tiresom, and I'd like to leave a warning rather than just revert in the Sisyphean manner I've been doing...
Thanks. JS
{{
subst:uw-vandalism1}}
into the vandal's user talk page. If you choose one of the more serious warnings (keeping in mind that 'exciting' reactions are exactly what some immature users are after...), then you need to watch the account for a while so that you can follow up with a request at
WP:ANI to have the user blocked if necessary.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 01:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"). There's also a link to their block log there, which is sometimes convenient for figuring out whether the IP has been blocked before. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Excellent work with the above; it's turned out really well. I especially like the "Mistakes to avoid" sections. We're missing a course at the milhist Academy on reviewing GAs and your essay is just the sort of thing we're looking for. Would you mind if I used your essay as the basis for a milhist-specific course - or, though I hesitate to ask, perhaps I could commission you to produce something for us (unpaid naturally)? If not, no problem :) Best, EyeSerene talk 14:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Your { {Introductory Article}} template at Boolean algebra (introduction) automatically includes "non-technical" along with "introductory." Would you say "non-technical" accurately describes that article? And if not, is there a similar template that omits "non-technical?" -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 17:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Whatamidoing. Are there any further point to address in the review of croup? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone on the IRC told me to come here to ask why the edit was reverted. The source was coming from a .gov site. I put quotes for the ones that were word to word from the .gov site. Hteb ( talk) 20:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have made the request to consider re wording of WP:SPS to have a more concise and simple definition. Could you please help with this? Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Self_Published_Sources_is_worded_in_a_way_which_is_too_broad
Thanks -- Hfarmer ( talk) 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 08:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a well-known word, used in popular culture from the TV show Scrubs to MASH. Bearian ( talk) 00:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am massively involved in the Phil Taylor article and was citing references for the recent form section but was thinking that some of the references I was inserting were unneccesary because I cited every tournament. What do you think. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 16:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Was hoping you'd see it on your own, but I asked you a follow-up question in this thread.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 11:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Time you turned that link blue. Has anyone nudged you yet? SilkTork * YES! 19:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
A formalized vote has begun regarding notability and your input is desired, thank you :) - Theornamentalist ( talk) 03:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The things i listed were things i noticed right off the bat, i hadnt even read the article, italics aside it should have failed no questions asked. Its wasn't neutral, it didnt stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, it had dead links, grammar, punctuation i could go on and on. I enforce almost all of WP:MOS even if it is only trying to meet GA status. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Images bigger then 300. Please read MOS:IMAGES "Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "300px". ("upright=1.35"). Dead links are 100% reason to fail the article because it then violates GA criteria 2. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
But that would be unfair to the handful of people who believe that water boils at 200 C, and whose views are suppressed by the orthodox scientific establishment. If the 200C'ers are able to enlist a sympathetic journalist, then who are we to prioritize the peer-reviewed scientific literature over a back issue of Contrarian Weekly? That would be SPOV-pushing. And after all, scientists do grant-funded research predicated on the claim that water boils at 100 C, so they have an obvious conflict of interest here, one that can only be resolved and balanced by impartial and omniscient journalists.
Oy. I think I have been active at this site for too long. I seem to have passed my sell-by date. :P MastCell Talk 21:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
That said, I agree with you about the reasons why this is a bad idea. We can't really have our sourcing dictated by I-need-to-find-it-free-and-online-right-now, not if we take seriously the goal of creating a serious, respectable reference work. It's harsh, but if people want to see some of these sources, then they need to go to their library and get them. If they can't, then there are usually people willing to provide a copy.
Sad experience leads me to agree that while the free-source idea is phrased as a suggestion, it will be interpreted as a requirement by some of our less clueful fellow editors. Relying on the common sense of your fellow Wikipedians is a shortcut to an ulcer. MastCell Talk 04:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
What if someone has already been dignosed with depression? they are taking their meds, and they arent seeing any results?
please respond on this page: User:Cutter598201 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutter598201 ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
We have this list [4] which gives us the talk pages for the GAs. Anyway we can list the GA articles rather than the talk pages? I am going to go through them again to verify no vandalism has occur ed and it is faster if I can go directly to the article. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
"Talk:"
with "* [["
and insert "]]"
at the end of each line.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 00:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Are you a part of the Pedophilia project? Based on your own criteria members of the pedophilia project are the "final arbiters" of what articles pertain to it. If you are part of the pedophila project I apologize for removing your pedophilia tag in the Parental alienation syndrome article. I did look at your user page for a pedophilia project userbox but didn't see one (though I suppose you could be a closet pedophilia project member.) If you are not a member you are not "final arbiter" either and you have reverted my good faith edit of removing the pedophilia tag from an article that clearly has nothing to do with pedophilia. I have said about as much on the talk page as well. And, in answer to your question, no I will not be re-adding the Pedophilia tag to the article. If you would like to re-tag it as belonging to the project and are not a closet pedophilia watch member with "final arbiter" authority, I ask that you verify it belongs there with someone who is since it runs counter to Wikipedia:Common Sense.-- Cybermud ( talk) 04:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Page numbers -- PBS ( talk) 12:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the
sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the
welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the
Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding
I don't think it's necessary to template you (twinkle did it for me, sorry); it looks like the edit notice didn't work. I've never seen an edit notice on an article so I'm not even sure if this is possible, but I don't think this belongs in mainspace, anyway.
GiftigerWunsch
[TALK] 18:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
GiftigerWunsch
[TALK] 18:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You are receiving this because you have commented on either Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, or Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in the past two years; all such commenters have received this notice. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia#Merger proposal. -- 70.57.222.103 ( talk) 19:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
After much as you predicted fruitless discussion everything has boiled down to a Poll. straw Poll on the merger proposals. Since you have shown some active interest in this recently I am notifying you of this. Sincerely, have a nice weekend. -- Hfarmer ( talk) 00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
JFW | T@lk 09:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I read your commentary of the Wikipedia images section and I was wondering about the chance of getting your opinion on a photo [5] I had uploaded. If you have the time and are willing, of course. The image was used in the Hal Block article, but was removed when I put the article up for FAC. I'm not concerned about the FAC now, but more that I feel the image is crucial to the article. The editor removed it because "sure, talk about that point in his career and the meeting, but we most certainly do not need a non-free image to illustrate the fact" and "Yes, he met Patton. Great, talk about it. We don't need a non-free image... What the meeting looked like is not important." To me it seems like that argument could be used to remove almost every image on Wikipedia. I'm not asking you to get in the middle of our disagreement, but I would be appreciative of any opinion. I completely understand, if you don't wish to assist. Thanks, BashBrannigan ( talk) 01:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
So feel free to delete this section. —— Shakescene ( talk) 05:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion which shows you understood my comment about a new user's response to a canned AfD message. I took your suggestion, reviewed a couple of articles, and will try to check out a few each week. I do take greatest pride in creating new articles, though, which I believe are still needed. I find many subjects uncovered, and many articles that do exist to be weak and thin. So creating and improving content will probably remain my favorite Wikipedia activities. I do appreciate your input. Thanks again. Cullen328 ( talk) 05:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Template:Web presence has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
68.35.13.81 (
talk) 23:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
You moved an article that have previously been moved. If you note on the article's talk page this article had been previously moved after much discussion by the Christian music Wikiproject. It has been moved 3 times and returned to urban contemporary gospel. Please revert your edits and if you feel there is a better justification for the movement than what has been previously discussed please post your thoughts on the Christian Music Wikiproject. Thank you. -- Absolon S. Kent ( chat), 19:00, Wednesday July 21, 2010 ( UTC)
It has been proposed on the talk page of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory the article Feminine essence concept of transsexuality has been proposed for merger with Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. [Since you edited this article heavily] I thought it would be considerate to alert you to this. -- Hfarmer ( talk) 23:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I am having a hard time finding reliable resources stating what pestology is. It must be more unofficial than I thought. In my industry, scientists and specialists focus on the more popular -ists, like entomologists, chemists, and pathologists.
Should I include that it is an unofficial term, since I cannot find viable resources?
Thank you for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocturnalnights ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, WhatamIdoing, before I respond to you at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy), I'm so confused that I'm not sure what you mean, you said "Why do you say that we must assume that a newbie who creates an article about a non-notable subject is acting in bad faith?" but I don't know where I said that (or even implied it) so I'm not sure I understand your message. Could you help me out a bit? -- CáliKewlKid ( talk) 06:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I asked on Jimbo's talk page what he, as a regular editor and as the Founder of Wikipedia, personally thought about the role of the WP:5P. I figured he'd be diplomatic and have a middle of the road belief between that of actual policy and that of "nice essay". I was quite surprised when his response was along the the lines of core policy and his analogy to British constitutional law. I still believe the position you have been stating is representative of the majority of Wikipedians, but it makes the argument that "this page is confusing editors, especially newbies, into thinking it is policy" is hard to push when Jimbo himself believes it to be policy. How do you say that the founder of Wikipedia "is wrong" about something like this? I of course do not change my opinion of the 5P but it does knock the fight out of me to know that if Jimbo can think the 5P is fundamental policy then how can we expect newbies to understand the role of the 5P as something less than what he thinks they are... Camelbinky ( talk) 22:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that's starting to capture the differences between sources. I disagree to a small amount on how you're defining secondary source though that's a close-enough capture and stark enough from the first/third party designation. (FYI, the way I see primary vs secondary is the amount of transformation that is done to the material; the original work and non-interpretive recaps, such as would be published as news stories, are primary, while analysis, critique, and other factors would make the work secondary, but that's not critical to what you are writing). -- MASEM ( t) 23:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your invitation to contribute on WikiProject Medicine. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by InterestedPer ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem we have is the myriad of articles like Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men), which uses a one statement about an Emmy award and one line about the character's car to justify a large article consisting of items derived from the plot of the show. That is not an article which is based on reliable, independent (third-party) sources. I agree that your example can come up in theory, but even then, it would be unacceptable to base an article solely on a single police report. By the time there are multiple independent sources there are, in practice, some secondary sources. Cases where the sourcing consists of multiple sources that are all primary sources yet are independent of the topic don't occur in practice.— Kww( talk) 06:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Using "that" where a personal pronoun is called for may be "well established in older English," but that is no reason for recommending it. When you refer to a person, use a PERSONal pronoun. There is no reason for sticking to archaic usage. There may be two options, both grammatically correct. In this case, use what is preferred. And a little less pretentiousness wouldn't do you any harm, when you tell people that they "might want to read" your scribblings "before making any stylistic changes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briantw ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
You asked for it you got it Toyota. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have recognized someone behind that IP... Probably not Darlie. Tijfo098 ( talk)
About time you got one of these. -- Colin° Talk 20:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't get why people are criticizing me. The purpose of the policy page would seem to be to get advice on policy. I'm sorry, but if the talk page of the article is unlikely to be seen, all that other stuff is just too confusing.
I wasn't even aware of that list of noticeboards but it's like I'm a newbie all over again.
The only solution would be to not even attempt to solve problems. Or when I'm the one potentially violating policy, to go ahead and violate whatever it is I'm violating and wait for someone to yell at me. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia talk:Database reports#Popular WikiProjects (permanent link
here).
(Your talk page is on my watchlist, and I will watch for your reply here.)
—
Wavelength (
talk) 20:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Please consider commenting at Talk:Intellectual disability regarding my edit. Thanks My76 Strat 12:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
If you don't like a gallery in something as visual as origami then why can't you tag it first rather than just removing the gallery? Dmcq ( talk) 00:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I've reported Special:Contributions/98.149.114.34 to ANI. You were engaged in discussion with this user at Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen, so I thought I should notify you of this. Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:20, 23 November 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. |
You helped me in the past, and I wondered if you could help me again. I used to access a counter page that could tell me how many edits I made on any Wikipedia page (e.g., an article, a discussion page, a template page, a user pages, etc.). The counter I use can no longer do that for me. I wondered if you know of a counter page that can count how many edits I made on any specific page. Thank you. Iss246 ( talk) 03:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. I use the first one:
http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/pcount/index.php?name=Iss246&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia but it no longer tells me the number of contributions specific article by specific article.
I created this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Iss246/EditCounterOptIn.js&action=edit&redlink=1 but I don't know how to use it. How will it give me a count of, say, the edits I made on the Work & Stress article? Iss246 ( talk) 04:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I can't get further than what I already have on my iss246 page. The bottom of my soxred page reads as follows:
Month counts User has not yet opted in. If you want to see graphs, please create User:Iss246/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. Alternatively, you can create meta:User:Iss246/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js to opt-in across all Wikimedia wikis. Top edited articles User has not yet opted in. If you want to see graphs, please create User:Iss246/EditCounterOptIn.js with any content. Alternatively, you can create meta:User:Iss246/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js to opt-in across all Wikimedia wikis.
I don't know what to do with those meta sites. I tried to opt in, but I'm not sure what that means. I can neither get monthly counts (which I once had) and counts of my edits on specific articles and other pages (which I once had). I wouldn't mind if you did the edits for me. I am lost. Iss246 ( talk) 19:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I got the counter working the way I want. Thank you. You are unfailingly helpful. You, and people like you, make Wikipedia a hospitable place. Best wishes. Iss246 ( talk) 22:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Another question: what's the quickest way to see my userpages (pages I'ves started but haven't yet presented to wikipedia's eager audience)? I've got a couple I am working on and can't find them. Thanks. Jim Steele ( talk) 23:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
With regard to that paper you reviewed for me, thank you so much for your feedback. I have tried to address and integrate all of the comments you raised. I also sent you back an e-mail with some comments as well. Also, I would like to at least mention you in the paper acknowledgments, so if you want to e-mail me your name I will do that. However, if you wish to maintain anonymity, I totally respect that. Just let me know what you want to do. Thanks again for everything! --- kilbad ( talk) 22:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello WAID I am thinking of doing some work on hypoglycemia. I have pulled up a few review articles and intend to reference the peice. Looks like it has been controversial in the past so though I would give you a heads up. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
I saw that you contributed to the discussion at WT:N#Notability of small settlements, so you may be interested in a policy proposal I have made concerning this issue at the Village pump. Regards. Claritas ( talk) 17:26, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated FWSE ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Claritas ( talk) 20:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You raised a great point at the medicine talk page. Yeah, currently, I only want to tag redirects for disease synonyms found in the list of cutaneous conditions. This is not to say that someday we will not also tag other types I redirects, but that is where I am starting. With that being said, would you consider adding some text to the relevant sections at WP:DERM:A about which articles and redirects should be tagged? Regardless, thanks again for all your help in the past! --- kilbad ( talk) 00:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. It seems special education is vandalized regularly, and I'm thinking it should be protected. Can you do that? Thanks, JS. Jim Steele ( talk) 16:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Would you like to be an admin? I will nominate you, if so (even though the procedure looks somewhat scary!) -- Jubilee ♫ clipman 02:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
You wrote "The same can be said, BTW, for Noah Webster's works". Suddenly I understand why we have so many spelling issues with WP:ENGVAR :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 21:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Jessica wanted me to move the most recent SPI page you made at here for Dieudonne Carrington isnt actually posted on the SPI page. Either under pending or awaiting admin approval . I guess the bot is down or something? But its not on the pending approval page or anything. So if you could fix that, i dont feel like learning the new system (used checkuser, havent learned SPI formatting). She keeps asking me about opening up a ANI discussion for her too :sigh:. Anyway have a nice day. MrMacMan Talk 01:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Jim Steele ( talk) 21:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
(UTC)
Please try to be more careful in adjusting tags in the future. There is a parameter to add more than one topic. It is a style issue. If there is anything else it is probably politics. I kept soc in based on your edit. Cptnono ( talk) 06:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
|style
parameter is explicitly listed as being used only on "non-article pages".
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 17:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)Thanks for your advise to my question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Your_opinion_on_my_right_to_post_external_links.2C_please...
I really appreciate your suggestions and will follow up on them. I would like to ask you a question: Will my account automatically be blocked if I add something, as EyeSerene suggested on my talk page, or is this more of a process that I could prevent by adding additional details, as you suggested? Thanks and have a nice day Digitaldomain ( talk) 18:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Just to let you know I mentioned your reply to a question raised at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists#Lead and selection criteria reg football player lists, in an RfC at WT:FOOTY#Name of football player lists. Hope I didn't misrepresent you. cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 13:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
You commented here: Talk:Radiation (pain) ( the page was originally here) a long time ago, but I thought that it was fair enough.
I was bold and moved it, added some disambiguation templates and the like. I will improve the article when I get chance.
Please comment here on my actions if you think what I did was not for the best. Kind regards, Captain n00dle \ Talk 21:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask for your input here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie. Recently you commented on Minphie's conduct and we ask if you could come and give feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie as the editor appears not to have taken any heed of the community's feedback on his approach to editing. If you don't remember your exact interactions with Minphie, it is detailed in the RfC/U page. Thankyou for your time, -- Figs Might Ply ( talk) 23:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I simply cannot continue going in circles on that particular discussion; so, I will not be commenting on it any further. Due to the heavily involved nature of the discussion, I felt this courtesy message was called for.
Hopefully, we will cross paths again. Chicken monkey 04:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lady. Thanks. Kitfoxxe ( talk) 02:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you could explain to me what happened here (the next 3 lines are copied from my watchlist):
June 2, 2010
What did NawlinWiki do? And why? I don't understand this. Thanks.
Iss246 (
talk) 21:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Iss246 ( talk) 03:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
Any reason why this [1]is? I seem to follow the procedure and it won't show the citations. Also, the help page like so many on wikipedia is turgid. Jim Steele ( talk) 16:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
</ref>
), you accidentally put it inside the close ref tag (< text /ref>
). The 'missing' ref tag then ate the rest of the page. (A missing or broken ref tag is a good thing to look for if you make a change, and suddenly a previously long article stops dead right after the last reference, or skips all the text between the ref you were editing and the next.)Jim Steele ( talk) 18:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll fix it when I have time to wrestle with formatting. Assuming you read my apology - I found something better to read before editing Wikipedia, to improve my tone rather than degrade it: Feynman's memoirs. ;-) Postpostmod ( talk) 13:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Truce! lets try to work this out sensibly, personally i would prefer to leave most Wikipedia editor issues with those who have the time and patients to fully under who is who with regard to Socks etc, but in the last few days it have been difficult for me to understand who was who, which is part of my processing issues.
My main concern is to have an article free of any particular countries special education jargon be it the USA the UK or anywhere else. I am aware of the Criticisms regarding special education which exist in the USA regarding the current system there, which may not be shared in other countries So may be renaming the section as say "controvercies" may be a way forward. (never could spell that word) dolfrog ( talk) 16:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Accessory nail of the fifth toe... just fyi. And I took some photos I will upload later. --- kilbad ( talk) 01:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I'm all for different aspects of special education being represented. Which is why we have "differences by location." I'm really starting to lose my patience with the assertion the article is biased towards U.S. settings. Tempest in a teapot, really. The references you listed were great, but in vain as they weren't read. Looks to me we have some parents with an axe to grind, or some people with a violation of NPOV in there somewhere. Seeing how it's an article I've taken the time to improve, by slowly adding references (and it seems there are very little editors in this project who seem to care about education-related articles) , I'm not going to let it be tampered with easily. I'm going to take a break, turn a blind eye, unless the article is changed without good reason. The Kafka short stories need attention for now. Thanks for the effort, by the way, listing the sources so quickly on the talk page. Jim Steele ( talk) 01:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I've restored the text which mentioned "consolidating information covered in prose".
There was a discussion on the matter around 4-6 months ago. Originally it took place at WP:ACCESS, and focussed on whether collapsible content was an accessibility issue. Once establishing that it was not, the discussion moved to the main MoS talk page, where we asked why it was acceptable to have collapsible content in an infobox, but not collapsible content in a non-infobox template that served a similar purpose. The two examples that were used were a collapsible family tree in an article about a royal family, and the use of {{ footballbox collapsible}} in articles where the match events have already been described (such as the work in progress 2009–10 Watford F.C. season). The counterargument was that an infobox should consolidate information that is covered in the article, and thus "consolidate content already covered in prose" was conceived.
Admittedly it's a pretty clunky phrase. If you agree with the intended meaning, free to be bold and improve it. If you feel that the intended meaning does not reflect consensus, I would be happy for the discussion to be reopened. Regards, WFCforLife ( talk) 13:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Special education. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to
discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek
dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request
page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk) 17:30, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi WhatamIdoing I have been busy in the real world researching Motor Neuron Disease, MND, for my local University. Not a subject I know much about so the initial research took some time, and there will more needed later. The discussions on the Special Education talk page seem to be progressing slowly and quite well, which is understandable due to the complex nature of the topic, the differences in the language different countries use, and the different ways of providing special education in each country which can change as a result of newly elected government or advmace in the understanding of the differences involved. I noticed in the text of the discussion that you had asked me a question which i missed, to answer now on the Special Education talk page would disturb the flow of the existing discussion. But if you still want an answer just ask away and i will try to reply dolfrog ( talk) 19:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Dear WhatamIdoing,
I like to apologize sincerely for my mistakes. You see, it wasn't intentional. When I told you on the talk page that I made a mistake, then it was a good faith one. I like to work with you collaboratively but blaming me because of others lack of knowledge of the way the US school system works really is not going to help. 198.38.10.1 ( talk) 14:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm always impressed by your grasp of and comments regarding image use, and thought you'd be interested in this. Though I despise the spurious means by which it came about (see the RSN) it is none the less an interesting question. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 20:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
By adding the Online Computer Library Center (OCLC) reference ID to a book citation provides more in depth information regarding the citation source, and where you may be best able to find a local copy to valid its use. This option so far has not been included on citation template, may be you could rectify this. The problem with isbn numbers is that thye only lead to another Wikipedia article which is really a dead end and not really useful. dolfrog ( talk) 14:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Regarding this rename done by you [2] I would like to point out that he is more commonly known as Dr. Jack de Sequeira. Most sources I came accross do not reffer to him as Joao Hugo but simply as Dr. Jack de Sequiera. As per WP:COMMONNAME the most common name should be used (just like Bill Clinton) and I think the previous name is fine. I have gone ahead and moved it back. Hope you don't mind. In case you do we can discuss this further on the talk page. Thanks. -- Deepak D'Souza ( talk) 00:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. I thought I was being helpful to encourge new people. I edited a BUNCH of the discussion pages. Every page was different and there were a bunch that didn't have any project banner on them, so what do you want me to do? Please tell me what to change or delete, and I'll plow back through them over the next couple of days. Sbmeirow ( talk) 04:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
So are you wanting me to remove the "Talk header" and line about "refs"? Sbmeirow ( talk) 04:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
File:Okapis.jpg |
Have you considered joining
WikiProject Cryptozoology? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's coverage on
cryptozoology. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the
list of participants. Please see our
list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gniniv ( talk • contribs) 10:44, 17 July 2010 |
"The actual, long-term 'problem' with the article is that the beliefs and conversation that part of the trans community apparently holds about the Blanchard idea can't be supported by very many high-quality reliable sources."
That's the part I'm not so sure about. Just a short search brings up stuff like this for example. RichLow ( talk) 17:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Heh, I love yor boxes. The whole grammar thing drives me nuts, too. As for the pic, I laughed out loud when I saw it! InFairness ( talk) 21:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've been seeing a lot of this: [3] since I started. Do you have a copy of the vandalism template I could just copy and past and use? I went on the WP policy page that attempts to instruct how to place a warning on someone's page, and I couldn't make heads or tails of it. It's getting tiresom, and I'd like to leave a warning rather than just revert in the Sisyphean manner I've been doing...
Thanks. JS
{{
subst:uw-vandalism1}}
into the vandal's user talk page. If you choose one of the more serious warnings (keeping in mind that 'exciting' reactions are exactly what some immature users are after...), then you need to watch the account for a while so that you can follow up with a request at
WP:ANI to have the user blocked if necessary.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 01:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia"). There's also a link to their block log there, which is sometimes convenient for figuring out whether the IP has been blocked before. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Excellent work with the above; it's turned out really well. I especially like the "Mistakes to avoid" sections. We're missing a course at the milhist Academy on reviewing GAs and your essay is just the sort of thing we're looking for. Would you mind if I used your essay as the basis for a milhist-specific course - or, though I hesitate to ask, perhaps I could commission you to produce something for us (unpaid naturally)? If not, no problem :) Best, EyeSerene talk 14:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Your { {Introductory Article}} template at Boolean algebra (introduction) automatically includes "non-technical" along with "introductory." Would you say "non-technical" accurately describes that article? And if not, is there a similar template that omits "non-technical?" -- Vaughan Pratt ( talk) 17:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey Whatamidoing. Are there any further point to address in the review of croup? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 07:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone on the IRC told me to come here to ask why the edit was reverted. The source was coming from a .gov site. I put quotes for the ones that were word to word from the .gov site. Hteb ( talk) 20:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I have made the request to consider re wording of WP:SPS to have a more concise and simple definition. Could you please help with this? Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Self_Published_Sources_is_worded_in_a_way_which_is_too_broad
Thanks -- Hfarmer ( talk) 14:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion on Temple's reliability here. Regards Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 08:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a well-known word, used in popular culture from the TV show Scrubs to MASH. Bearian ( talk) 00:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am massively involved in the Phil Taylor article and was citing references for the recent form section but was thinking that some of the references I was inserting were unneccesary because I cited every tournament. What do you think. Mr.Kennedy1 talk 16:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Was hoping you'd see it on your own, but I asked you a follow-up question in this thread.--- Balloonman NO! I'm Spartacus! 11:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Time you turned that link blue. Has anyone nudged you yet? SilkTork * YES! 19:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
A formalized vote has begun regarding notability and your input is desired, thank you :) - Theornamentalist ( talk) 03:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
The things i listed were things i noticed right off the bat, i hadnt even read the article, italics aside it should have failed no questions asked. Its wasn't neutral, it didnt stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail, it had dead links, grammar, punctuation i could go on and on. I enforce almost all of WP:MOS even if it is only trying to meet GA status. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 20:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Images bigger then 300. Please read MOS:IMAGES "Lead images, which should usually be no wider than "300px". ("upright=1.35"). Dead links are 100% reason to fail the article because it then violates GA criteria 2. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
But that would be unfair to the handful of people who believe that water boils at 200 C, and whose views are suppressed by the orthodox scientific establishment. If the 200C'ers are able to enlist a sympathetic journalist, then who are we to prioritize the peer-reviewed scientific literature over a back issue of Contrarian Weekly? That would be SPOV-pushing. And after all, scientists do grant-funded research predicated on the claim that water boils at 100 C, so they have an obvious conflict of interest here, one that can only be resolved and balanced by impartial and omniscient journalists.
Oy. I think I have been active at this site for too long. I seem to have passed my sell-by date. :P MastCell Talk 21:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
That said, I agree with you about the reasons why this is a bad idea. We can't really have our sourcing dictated by I-need-to-find-it-free-and-online-right-now, not if we take seriously the goal of creating a serious, respectable reference work. It's harsh, but if people want to see some of these sources, then they need to go to their library and get them. If they can't, then there are usually people willing to provide a copy.
Sad experience leads me to agree that while the free-source idea is phrased as a suggestion, it will be interpreted as a requirement by some of our less clueful fellow editors. Relying on the common sense of your fellow Wikipedians is a shortcut to an ulcer. MastCell Talk 04:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
What if someone has already been dignosed with depression? they are taking their meds, and they arent seeing any results?
please respond on this page: User:Cutter598201 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutter598201 ( talk • contribs) 01:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
We have this list [4] which gives us the talk pages for the GAs. Anyway we can list the GA articles rather than the talk pages? I am going to go through them again to verify no vandalism has occur ed and it is faster if I can go directly to the article. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
"Talk:"
with "* [["
and insert "]]"
at the end of each line.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 00:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Are you a part of the Pedophilia project? Based on your own criteria members of the pedophilia project are the "final arbiters" of what articles pertain to it. If you are part of the pedophila project I apologize for removing your pedophilia tag in the Parental alienation syndrome article. I did look at your user page for a pedophilia project userbox but didn't see one (though I suppose you could be a closet pedophilia project member.) If you are not a member you are not "final arbiter" either and you have reverted my good faith edit of removing the pedophilia tag from an article that clearly has nothing to do with pedophilia. I have said about as much on the talk page as well. And, in answer to your question, no I will not be re-adding the Pedophilia tag to the article. If you would like to re-tag it as belonging to the project and are not a closet pedophilia watch member with "final arbiter" authority, I ask that you verify it belongs there with someone who is since it runs counter to Wikipedia:Common Sense.-- Cybermud ( talk) 04:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Page numbers -- PBS ( talk) 12:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the
sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the
welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the
Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding
I don't think it's necessary to template you (twinkle did it for me, sorry); it looks like the edit notice didn't work. I've never seen an edit notice on an article so I'm not even sure if this is possible, but I don't think this belongs in mainspace, anyway.
GiftigerWunsch
[TALK] 18:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
{{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
GiftigerWunsch
[TALK] 18:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You are receiving this because you have commented on either Autogynephilia, Homosexual transsexual, or Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory in the past two years; all such commenters have received this notice. It has been proposed to merge these three articles to eliminate WP:Redundancy, WP:UNDUE, WP:POV, and to keep the focus on the specific Blanchardian theory of M2F transsexuality (in contrast to Transsexual sexuality, which would be to focus on the subject in general). Please feel free to comment on the proposal at Talk:Autogynephilia#Merger proposal. -- 70.57.222.103 ( talk) 19:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
After much as you predicted fruitless discussion everything has boiled down to a Poll. straw Poll on the merger proposals. Since you have shown some active interest in this recently I am notifying you of this. Sincerely, have a nice weekend. -- Hfarmer ( talk) 00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
JFW | T@lk 09:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I read your commentary of the Wikipedia images section and I was wondering about the chance of getting your opinion on a photo [5] I had uploaded. If you have the time and are willing, of course. The image was used in the Hal Block article, but was removed when I put the article up for FAC. I'm not concerned about the FAC now, but more that I feel the image is crucial to the article. The editor removed it because "sure, talk about that point in his career and the meeting, but we most certainly do not need a non-free image to illustrate the fact" and "Yes, he met Patton. Great, talk about it. We don't need a non-free image... What the meeting looked like is not important." To me it seems like that argument could be used to remove almost every image on Wikipedia. I'm not asking you to get in the middle of our disagreement, but I would be appreciative of any opinion. I completely understand, if you don't wish to assist. Thanks, BashBrannigan ( talk) 01:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
So feel free to delete this section. —— Shakescene ( talk) 05:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion which shows you understood my comment about a new user's response to a canned AfD message. I took your suggestion, reviewed a couple of articles, and will try to check out a few each week. I do take greatest pride in creating new articles, though, which I believe are still needed. I find many subjects uncovered, and many articles that do exist to be weak and thin. So creating and improving content will probably remain my favorite Wikipedia activities. I do appreciate your input. Thanks again. Cullen328 ( talk) 05:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Template:Web presence has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
68.35.13.81 (
talk) 23:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
You moved an article that have previously been moved. If you note on the article's talk page this article had been previously moved after much discussion by the Christian music Wikiproject. It has been moved 3 times and returned to urban contemporary gospel. Please revert your edits and if you feel there is a better justification for the movement than what has been previously discussed please post your thoughts on the Christian Music Wikiproject. Thank you. -- Absolon S. Kent ( chat), 19:00, Wednesday July 21, 2010 ( UTC)
It has been proposed on the talk page of Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory the article Feminine essence concept of transsexuality has been proposed for merger with Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory. [Since you edited this article heavily] I thought it would be considerate to alert you to this. -- Hfarmer ( talk) 23:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I am having a hard time finding reliable resources stating what pestology is. It must be more unofficial than I thought. In my industry, scientists and specialists focus on the more popular -ists, like entomologists, chemists, and pathologists.
Should I include that it is an unofficial term, since I cannot find viable resources?
Thank you for your help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nocturnalnights ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Hey, WhatamIdoing, before I respond to you at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy), I'm so confused that I'm not sure what you mean, you said "Why do you say that we must assume that a newbie who creates an article about a non-notable subject is acting in bad faith?" but I don't know where I said that (or even implied it) so I'm not sure I understand your message. Could you help me out a bit? -- CáliKewlKid ( talk) 06:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
I asked on Jimbo's talk page what he, as a regular editor and as the Founder of Wikipedia, personally thought about the role of the WP:5P. I figured he'd be diplomatic and have a middle of the road belief between that of actual policy and that of "nice essay". I was quite surprised when his response was along the the lines of core policy and his analogy to British constitutional law. I still believe the position you have been stating is representative of the majority of Wikipedians, but it makes the argument that "this page is confusing editors, especially newbies, into thinking it is policy" is hard to push when Jimbo himself believes it to be policy. How do you say that the founder of Wikipedia "is wrong" about something like this? I of course do not change my opinion of the 5P but it does knock the fight out of me to know that if Jimbo can think the 5P is fundamental policy then how can we expect newbies to understand the role of the 5P as something less than what he thinks they are... Camelbinky ( talk) 22:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I think that's starting to capture the differences between sources. I disagree to a small amount on how you're defining secondary source though that's a close-enough capture and stark enough from the first/third party designation. (FYI, the way I see primary vs secondary is the amount of transformation that is done to the material; the original work and non-interpretive recaps, such as would be published as news stories, are primary, while analysis, critique, and other factors would make the work secondary, but that's not critical to what you are writing). -- MASEM ( t) 23:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your invitation to contribute on WikiProject Medicine. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by InterestedPer ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem we have is the myriad of articles like Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men), which uses a one statement about an Emmy award and one line about the character's car to justify a large article consisting of items derived from the plot of the show. That is not an article which is based on reliable, independent (third-party) sources. I agree that your example can come up in theory, but even then, it would be unacceptable to base an article solely on a single police report. By the time there are multiple independent sources there are, in practice, some secondary sources. Cases where the sourcing consists of multiple sources that are all primary sources yet are independent of the topic don't occur in practice.— Kww( talk) 06:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Using "that" where a personal pronoun is called for may be "well established in older English," but that is no reason for recommending it. When you refer to a person, use a PERSONal pronoun. There is no reason for sticking to archaic usage. There may be two options, both grammatically correct. In this case, use what is preferred. And a little less pretentiousness wouldn't do you any harm, when you tell people that they "might want to read" your scribblings "before making any stylistic changes." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Briantw ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
You asked for it you got it Toyota. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 00:26, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have recognized someone behind that IP... Probably not Darlie. Tijfo098 ( talk)
About time you got one of these. -- Colin° Talk 20:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't get why people are criticizing me. The purpose of the policy page would seem to be to get advice on policy. I'm sorry, but if the talk page of the article is unlikely to be seen, all that other stuff is just too confusing.
I wasn't even aware of that list of noticeboards but it's like I'm a newbie all over again.
The only solution would be to not even attempt to solve problems. Or when I'm the one potentially violating policy, to go ahead and violate whatever it is I'm violating and wait for someone to yell at me. Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see
Wikipedia talk:Database reports#Popular WikiProjects (permanent link
here).
(Your talk page is on my watchlist, and I will watch for your reply here.)
—
Wavelength (
talk) 20:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Please consider commenting at Talk:Intellectual disability regarding my edit. Thanks My76 Strat 12:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
If you don't like a gallery in something as visual as origami then why can't you tag it first rather than just removing the gallery? Dmcq ( talk) 00:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I've reported Special:Contributions/98.149.114.34 to ANI. You were engaged in discussion with this user at Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen, so I thought I should notify you of this. Tijfo098 ( talk) 21:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)