This user may have left Wikipedia. Anjouli has not edited Wikipedia since March 2008. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Wik, can you explain why you deleted several paragraphs of discussion by various parties on 22 November? I'm not complaining (or reverting), but if there was some valid reason for this, I do not immediately see it. Anjouli 05:59, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Dear Anjouli, copy-vios go to Wikipedia:Possible copyrights infringements. You should also use the boilerplate...
Have fun!, Muriel Victoria 13:19, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Redirects go to wikipedia:redirects for deletion. I've moved (not deleted!) your nomination... Martin 00:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Since you moved the page, could you fix all the links directing to Charles Taylor: [1]? -- Jiang| (Talk) 07:09, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I'm working on it. Help if you like! Anjouli 07:17, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I finished the move. Normally, the software allows you to overwrite the redirects (w/o having to delete them instead), but this time (for some strange reason) it didn't. Now that it's been moved back, the links don't need to be changed. -- Jiang| (Talk) 07:38, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Seems to be fine now. Just a few links to fix. Thanks everybody! Anjouli 07:43, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments at Talk:Student Pugwash USA/Delete. I'm going to try to keep out of it from now on. - Anthropos 17:44, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Dear Anjouli, you are the only person defending to keep the Horrible stories in Dec 10 (11?). There was some discussion afterwards, can you please see if that chenges your opinion? I would like a consensus on this. Thanks, Muriel Victoria 10:47, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Apologies. Secretlondon 18:09, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
Anjouli, what on earth is going on at Talk:Carmen by Horace? I can't make any sense out of the discussion there! It's been listed on VfD for 10 days, so I'm assuming others are having the same problem and ignoring it. As far as I can tell, 80.255 wants to keep (but gives no reason why), RickK, yourself and Daniel Quinlan want to delete it. MIRV and Smerdis of Tlön either want it deleted or moved. Bmills wants it merged with Horace. But I honestly have no idea what Onebyone, Binky or Domatrios are talking about. You seem to have to been following the discussion closely. Do you have any feeling over whether consensus to delete it has been reached? By the way, my only thought on it is that I don't want it at Wikisource. Angela . 10:47, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Agreed - someone's already changed it back anyway. The Indian political parties are a mess - but that was wrong. Thanks. Secretlondon 14:55, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
You might be interested to know you are mentioned on the village pump as a result of this edit. See Wikipedia:Village_pump#Policy on Signed_Pages. I assumed you'd signed the page accidentally so I removed it. :) Angela .
I used to faithfully add the VfD notice on every page I listed on the VfD page, but then The Cunctator came along and started deleting them willy-nilly, and I got no support when I objected, so I figured, "Why bother?" RickK 19:19, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the Éothéod links in various articles! Jor 21:52, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)
Hi Anjouli, Why don't you have a look at the brilliant symbols.com website: http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/26/268.html re your query some time ago about "circumpunct"? --Dieter Simon 01:18, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I am sure you are right about the Latin term, Anjouli, but what troubles me on second thoughts, after I had been convinced it was just a matter of time before it would be in all dictionaries/encyclopedias, is the lack of supporting reference material for the term. What it is actually about is whether we can really introduce neologisms in a general, even though free encyclopedia such as Wiki, rather than garner them from other sources who have created/used them first, or at least refer back to them.
Now, I did in fact check it out in the OED Second Edition of 1989, the only one available in the local library, and it wasn't in there. So, as you say if someone can lay their hands on the most recent edition of 2002, and search for us that would indeed be a great help.
The way it looks at the moment, it is as though someone is pulling our leg about this, and it doesn't look terribly convincing. In fact, it does come over like some kind of vandalism because it just isn't supported by any other than Wikipedia sources. Sorry about that.--
Dieter Simon 23:20, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I am sorry to be so brusque about it, Anjouli, but Menchi did check the word out in the up-to-date version as I did in the preceding edition of the OED, the full edition that is, and circumpunct isn't there. I earnestly beg you to redirect the article to roundel because that is what it really is and where it belongs. You can elaborate as much as you like then, introduce all the other types of roundel and make it a pretty good article.
Here are the various relevant entries for "roundel" in the OED edition, the 1989 one, I looked at:
As far as I noticed a few days ago, there is no article for roundel as yet. Why don't you make it a circumscribed dot or point? "To circmscribe" means "to draw a line tound", among other things. I leave that up to you. At least it would make it quite legit. What do you think? I would urge you to bear in mind Nos 8 and 14 which seem particularly relevant, because more countries than not have these "roundels" on their military aircraft with various designs, including the United States ( a white star surrounded by a circle), and they all call them roundel. -- Dieter Simon 23:23, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It should be moved to "roundel" rather than redirected. Moving a page moves the history as well to the new page (roundel). Redirecting a page does not. -- Dieter Simon 01:06, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I expect you'll notice anyway as you're often at VfD, but I wanted to make sure you were aware that Brianism has been listed there. Angela . 06:52, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
(Response to my defending the Brianism website in VfD.) Anjouli
Sister, withdraw. You will just upset yourself. What is your house? 62.3.32.33 13:05, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Avalon, since you ask. Don't worry. It's not a problem. Do I call you Sister or Brother? Anjouli 15:36, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sister of Albion, Mother of Amethyst. Nevermore! 62.3.32.33 05:55, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Nevermore yourself, Sister. Please spare me the "Reverend Mother" nonsense. E-mail me if you have anything to say. Anjouli 09:28, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
(Response to my notifying her of the open letter from brianism.org) Anjouli
Thanks all fine. I saw it on VfD. Secretlondon 14:24, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
I don't agree with the vote count UtherSRG made, and I have suggested the period of discussion be extended beyond 5 days so that more of a consensus may be reached, particularly in view of the fact that people may wish to change their vote after seeing the letter. Thanks for letting me know about it. Angela . 23:26, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
I will change my vote, if the Brianism people don't want to be on the wikipedia. Where should I do it at? Thanks for the heads up, Jack 04:44, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I've replied on my talk page. Angela . 06:17, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Anjouli, thank you for drawing attention to Rex Mundy's open letter. I appreciate your note very much. Mr Mundy seems a man of integrity, and I find it highly regrettable that he should have been attacked through offensive e-mails and and that people have attempted hacking into his website's server. That is not the way to conduct a civilised discourse. If you can pass this on to Mr Mundy I would be grateful. I do, however still stand by my two main objections which are:
These are still the points I adhere to. But of course, this is all subject to the vote of the Wickipedia community as a whole. Thank you again -- Dieter Simon 13:54, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hello Dieter. Thank you for your reply. I was originally under the impression that Circumpunct was a regular English word. It seems it is not and I do not contest that. Brianism apart, it is a correct description of the symbol in Latin, but of course that does not mean it should go in WP. It is a shame that all the data about the symbol, whatever we choose to call it, was moved to Sun symbol as it is not only a Sun symbol. We may as well have moved it to Town center symbol. I have been toying with the idea of recreating it under Circle with a dot in it and removing any reference to Circumpunct or Brianism. What do you think?
As far as Brianism is concerned, I have withdrawn totally from that argument. I remain privately a Brianist, but have no further interest in whether or not it appears in WP. It may well be that it is too obscure a movement and I do not dispute that. Some other Brianists have behaved like trolls over this and have not done Brianism any good. Since even I lost my temper and asked for The Anome to be blocked when he replaced the entire article, the only ones who emerge from the argument with any dignity or credibility are the owners of brianism.org. Anjouli 14:16, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You are of course right in your comment. Where are you located? Paul, in Saudi
Hello Paul. I am currently in Germany, still on New Year holiday, but I normally live in Jeddah. See my user page for further details. Anjouli 16:11, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hi, no need to apologise. I just tend to get a bit overly defensive of the deletion policy. Regarding the notes on a vote that should not be counted; the only time I have ever done this was with RickK (a sysop). He took offense to some things said on the mailing list recently and reacted to that by voting keep on every single item on VfD. This was discussed on the talk page of VfD as well when Jiang noticed it. These votes were not made in good faith. I doubt he had even looked at the articles he was voting on, so I thought it only fair to mention it. I didn't do it because he was voting keep for everything, but because they were not real votes at all, but just statements to prove a point.
Regarding the VfD rules, the discussions on the deletion policy pages certainly imply that users must give a reason with their vote. I've reworded it now to make that clear. However, I would emphasise that the policy is flexible, so in reality, people's votes won't generally be discounted without reason. Anyway, all this could be set to change with the proposed new system being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, where the reasoning and votes will occur on separate pages and at separate times.
I hope this makes things a bit clearer. Let me know if not. You later point about having a a "fixed" version of WP is discussed on various places on Meta, and on Adam Carr's user/talk pages. See m:Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles, m:Referees, m:Wikipedia needs editors and Wikipedia 1.0 for example. Angela . 18:15, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
Would you consider changing your vote again? It's about 50/50 right now. I know you believe in this and you just ducked out because you were sick of the arguing. I think you voted against because this Rex Mundy said he did not want the article. I think that's just because somebody was hacking them and don't think they would mind if that stopped. SpellBott 12:39, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sister, I would appreciate your input on talk:Yeti. Thanks! - UtherSRG 01:41, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on Talk:Saudi Arabia. I was waiting a couple of days to go back there to avoid an edit war with that fellow.... BCorr¤ Брайен 13:28, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
OR
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man ( comment| talk)
Dear Anjouli,
Could you please check the
Arabic version of the Lord's Prayer and tell me if there are any mistakes. Unfortunately, my Arabic is not good enough.
REX 17:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Glad to see the page you initiated (I believe) on Charlie. I spoke to author 3 years back on phone (from UK) and reviewed his book. Made me quite emotional, his story of finding and handling original supports for engine block, proving all work could have been done with the equipment Charlie had to hand in Dayton.
It looks like the sysop deleted the article for its csd tag. It met the csd criteria without question. I usually nominate csd articles if they have been tagged and contested for more than an hour or so. I went ahead and closed the debate, since there was no more article to debate. Navou talk 08:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I have completely rewritten the Mark Lund article from external published sources. You might want to reconsider your AfD vote, since the article is no longer autobiography. Dr.frog 15:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of Saudi Arabia related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the Saudi Arabian WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) A M M A R 19:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you feel so strongly about it why don't you just fix the article and make it as good as possible, and probably !votes will be ajdusted accordingly. Spaceheatercozitiscold ( talk) 15:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Because I don't have time right now. Just don't want to see a stub on a notable historic character go down the drain. Why don't you fix it? I've given you the references. Anjouli ( talk) 15:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
GEORDIE
Anjouli, you ,rightly, criticise WP saying that "any idiot" can write a comment here and then on an article on the Geordie and north eastern dialects you promptly prove the point by agreeing to some nonesense written by another user on the uses of the word "canny" when you clearly don't know anything about it. I have inserted my own comment on the relevant page Khasab ( talk) 23:21, 16 September 2008 (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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Cottage until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
This user may have left Wikipedia. Anjouli has not edited Wikipedia since March 2008. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Wik, can you explain why you deleted several paragraphs of discussion by various parties on 22 November? I'm not complaining (or reverting), but if there was some valid reason for this, I do not immediately see it. Anjouli 05:59, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Dear Anjouli, copy-vios go to Wikipedia:Possible copyrights infringements. You should also use the boilerplate...
Have fun!, Muriel Victoria 13:19, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Redirects go to wikipedia:redirects for deletion. I've moved (not deleted!) your nomination... Martin 00:36, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Since you moved the page, could you fix all the links directing to Charles Taylor: [1]? -- Jiang| (Talk) 07:09, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I'm working on it. Help if you like! Anjouli 07:17, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I finished the move. Normally, the software allows you to overwrite the redirects (w/o having to delete them instead), but this time (for some strange reason) it didn't. Now that it's been moved back, the links don't need to be changed. -- Jiang| (Talk) 07:38, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Seems to be fine now. Just a few links to fix. Thanks everybody! Anjouli 07:43, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments at Talk:Student Pugwash USA/Delete. I'm going to try to keep out of it from now on. - Anthropos 17:44, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Dear Anjouli, you are the only person defending to keep the Horrible stories in Dec 10 (11?). There was some discussion afterwards, can you please see if that chenges your opinion? I would like a consensus on this. Thanks, Muriel Victoria 10:47, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Apologies. Secretlondon 18:09, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
Anjouli, what on earth is going on at Talk:Carmen by Horace? I can't make any sense out of the discussion there! It's been listed on VfD for 10 days, so I'm assuming others are having the same problem and ignoring it. As far as I can tell, 80.255 wants to keep (but gives no reason why), RickK, yourself and Daniel Quinlan want to delete it. MIRV and Smerdis of Tlön either want it deleted or moved. Bmills wants it merged with Horace. But I honestly have no idea what Onebyone, Binky or Domatrios are talking about. You seem to have to been following the discussion closely. Do you have any feeling over whether consensus to delete it has been reached? By the way, my only thought on it is that I don't want it at Wikisource. Angela . 10:47, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Agreed - someone's already changed it back anyway. The Indian political parties are a mess - but that was wrong. Thanks. Secretlondon 14:55, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)
You might be interested to know you are mentioned on the village pump as a result of this edit. See Wikipedia:Village_pump#Policy on Signed_Pages. I assumed you'd signed the page accidentally so I removed it. :) Angela .
I used to faithfully add the VfD notice on every page I listed on the VfD page, but then The Cunctator came along and started deleting them willy-nilly, and I got no support when I objected, so I figured, "Why bother?" RickK 19:19, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the Éothéod links in various articles! Jor 21:52, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)
Hi Anjouli, Why don't you have a look at the brilliant symbols.com website: http://www.symbols.com/encyclopedia/26/268.html re your query some time ago about "circumpunct"? --Dieter Simon 01:18, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I am sure you are right about the Latin term, Anjouli, but what troubles me on second thoughts, after I had been convinced it was just a matter of time before it would be in all dictionaries/encyclopedias, is the lack of supporting reference material for the term. What it is actually about is whether we can really introduce neologisms in a general, even though free encyclopedia such as Wiki, rather than garner them from other sources who have created/used them first, or at least refer back to them.
Now, I did in fact check it out in the OED Second Edition of 1989, the only one available in the local library, and it wasn't in there. So, as you say if someone can lay their hands on the most recent edition of 2002, and search for us that would indeed be a great help.
The way it looks at the moment, it is as though someone is pulling our leg about this, and it doesn't look terribly convincing. In fact, it does come over like some kind of vandalism because it just isn't supported by any other than Wikipedia sources. Sorry about that.--
Dieter Simon 23:20, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I am sorry to be so brusque about it, Anjouli, but Menchi did check the word out in the up-to-date version as I did in the preceding edition of the OED, the full edition that is, and circumpunct isn't there. I earnestly beg you to redirect the article to roundel because that is what it really is and where it belongs. You can elaborate as much as you like then, introduce all the other types of roundel and make it a pretty good article.
Here are the various relevant entries for "roundel" in the OED edition, the 1989 one, I looked at:
As far as I noticed a few days ago, there is no article for roundel as yet. Why don't you make it a circumscribed dot or point? "To circmscribe" means "to draw a line tound", among other things. I leave that up to you. At least it would make it quite legit. What do you think? I would urge you to bear in mind Nos 8 and 14 which seem particularly relevant, because more countries than not have these "roundels" on their military aircraft with various designs, including the United States ( a white star surrounded by a circle), and they all call them roundel. -- Dieter Simon 23:23, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)
It should be moved to "roundel" rather than redirected. Moving a page moves the history as well to the new page (roundel). Redirecting a page does not. -- Dieter Simon 01:06, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I expect you'll notice anyway as you're often at VfD, but I wanted to make sure you were aware that Brianism has been listed there. Angela . 06:52, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)
(Response to my defending the Brianism website in VfD.) Anjouli
Sister, withdraw. You will just upset yourself. What is your house? 62.3.32.33 13:05, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Avalon, since you ask. Don't worry. It's not a problem. Do I call you Sister or Brother? Anjouli 15:36, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sister of Albion, Mother of Amethyst. Nevermore! 62.3.32.33 05:55, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Nevermore yourself, Sister. Please spare me the "Reverend Mother" nonsense. E-mail me if you have anything to say. Anjouli 09:28, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
(Response to my notifying her of the open letter from brianism.org) Anjouli
Thanks all fine. I saw it on VfD. Secretlondon 14:24, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
I don't agree with the vote count UtherSRG made, and I have suggested the period of discussion be extended beyond 5 days so that more of a consensus may be reached, particularly in view of the fact that people may wish to change their vote after seeing the letter. Thanks for letting me know about it. Angela . 23:26, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)
I will change my vote, if the Brianism people don't want to be on the wikipedia. Where should I do it at? Thanks for the heads up, Jack 04:44, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I've replied on my talk page. Angela . 06:17, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
Hi Anjouli, thank you for drawing attention to Rex Mundy's open letter. I appreciate your note very much. Mr Mundy seems a man of integrity, and I find it highly regrettable that he should have been attacked through offensive e-mails and and that people have attempted hacking into his website's server. That is not the way to conduct a civilised discourse. If you can pass this on to Mr Mundy I would be grateful. I do, however still stand by my two main objections which are:
These are still the points I adhere to. But of course, this is all subject to the vote of the Wickipedia community as a whole. Thank you again -- Dieter Simon 13:54, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hello Dieter. Thank you for your reply. I was originally under the impression that Circumpunct was a regular English word. It seems it is not and I do not contest that. Brianism apart, it is a correct description of the symbol in Latin, but of course that does not mean it should go in WP. It is a shame that all the data about the symbol, whatever we choose to call it, was moved to Sun symbol as it is not only a Sun symbol. We may as well have moved it to Town center symbol. I have been toying with the idea of recreating it under Circle with a dot in it and removing any reference to Circumpunct or Brianism. What do you think?
As far as Brianism is concerned, I have withdrawn totally from that argument. I remain privately a Brianist, but have no further interest in whether or not it appears in WP. It may well be that it is too obscure a movement and I do not dispute that. Some other Brianists have behaved like trolls over this and have not done Brianism any good. Since even I lost my temper and asked for The Anome to be blocked when he replaced the entire article, the only ones who emerge from the argument with any dignity or credibility are the owners of brianism.org. Anjouli 14:16, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
You are of course right in your comment. Where are you located? Paul, in Saudi
Hello Paul. I am currently in Germany, still on New Year holiday, but I normally live in Jeddah. See my user page for further details. Anjouli 16:11, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Hi, no need to apologise. I just tend to get a bit overly defensive of the deletion policy. Regarding the notes on a vote that should not be counted; the only time I have ever done this was with RickK (a sysop). He took offense to some things said on the mailing list recently and reacted to that by voting keep on every single item on VfD. This was discussed on the talk page of VfD as well when Jiang noticed it. These votes were not made in good faith. I doubt he had even looked at the articles he was voting on, so I thought it only fair to mention it. I didn't do it because he was voting keep for everything, but because they were not real votes at all, but just statements to prove a point.
Regarding the VfD rules, the discussions on the deletion policy pages certainly imply that users must give a reason with their vote. I've reworded it now to make that clear. However, I would emphasise that the policy is flexible, so in reality, people's votes won't generally be discounted without reason. Anyway, all this could be set to change with the proposed new system being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, where the reasoning and votes will occur on separate pages and at separate times.
I hope this makes things a bit clearer. Let me know if not. You later point about having a a "fixed" version of WP is discussed on various places on Meta, and on Adam Carr's user/talk pages. See m:Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles, m:Referees, m:Wikipedia needs editors and Wikipedia 1.0 for example. Angela . 18:15, Jan 17, 2004 (UTC)
Would you consider changing your vote again? It's about 50/50 right now. I know you believe in this and you just ducked out because you were sick of the arguing. I think you voted against because this Rex Mundy said he did not want the article. I think that's just because somebody was hacking them and don't think they would mind if that stopped. SpellBott 12:39, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Sister, I would appreciate your input on talk:Yeti. Thanks! - UtherSRG 01:41, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on Talk:Saudi Arabia. I was waiting a couple of days to go back there to avoid an edit war with that fellow.... BCorr¤ Брайен 13:28, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
OR
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man ( comment| talk)
Dear Anjouli,
Could you please check the
Arabic version of the Lord's Prayer and tell me if there are any mistakes. Unfortunately, my Arabic is not good enough.
REX 17:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Glad to see the page you initiated (I believe) on Charlie. I spoke to author 3 years back on phone (from UK) and reviewed his book. Made me quite emotional, his story of finding and handling original supports for engine block, proving all work could have been done with the equipment Charlie had to hand in Dayton.
It looks like the sysop deleted the article for its csd tag. It met the csd criteria without question. I usually nominate csd articles if they have been tagged and contested for more than an hour or so. I went ahead and closed the debate, since there was no more article to debate. Navou talk 08:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI, I have completely rewritten the Mark Lund article from external published sources. You might want to reconsider your AfD vote, since the article is no longer autobiography. Dr.frog 15:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of Saudi Arabia related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the Saudi Arabian WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) A M M A R 19:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you feel so strongly about it why don't you just fix the article and make it as good as possible, and probably !votes will be ajdusted accordingly. Spaceheatercozitiscold ( talk) 15:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Because I don't have time right now. Just don't want to see a stub on a notable historic character go down the drain. Why don't you fix it? I've given you the references. Anjouli ( talk) 15:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
GEORDIE
Anjouli, you ,rightly, criticise WP saying that "any idiot" can write a comment here and then on an article on the Geordie and north eastern dialects you promptly prove the point by agreeing to some nonesense written by another user on the uses of the word "canny" when you clearly don't know anything about it. I have inserted my own comment on the relevant page Khasab ( talk) 23:21, 16 September 2008 (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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Cottage until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Sideswipe9th ( talk) 20:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)