Fuzheado,
Gamaliel,
Effeietsanders,
Nikikana,
LilyOfTheWest, and
SuperHamster discuss the annual
Wiki Loves Monuments worldwide photography contest
I'm not trying to be rude, just correct. Since multiple free nations such as the United States view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization I must credit anyone helping their cause or working for them as a terrorist.
British usage on WikipediaUnfortunatley, I've ran into trouble (in the past) trying to push for British usage. The biography articles like Sean Connery (for example), refuse to use British. GoodDay ( talk) 16:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC) If Rab-k thinks Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales & England are/were the only states to merge into a larger state? He's incorrect. GoodDay ( talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, British should be the usage. GoodDay ( talk) 14:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe MI-5 poisoned Tallulah through her lipstick & cigarettes. S2grand ( talk) 22:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)s2grand
What are you? Hall Monitor for the day??!! While I was researching other material to add to a new section some busybody has to stick his or her nose in in the next minute. That's why the info was at the end. It's enough to make people quit contributing!!!
Just a notification, but it appears that 219.23.5.48 ( talk · contribs)--who seemed obsessed with plane crashes--has returned as 125.200.168.91 ( talk · contribs) -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 09:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop vandalising the marriage page.
I have replied to your RfA query about which areas might be a good place to get started garnering the requisite experience. I hope it helps. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers! Wisdom89 ( T / C) 20:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Cosmic Latte. I have closed your Request for Adminship per WP:NOTNOW as it was unlikely to succeed at the time. Please do not take it personally, as it was nothing against you. If you gain more experience and become active in more projects, I am confident you will succeed in the future, should you choose to submit another request. In the meantime, you may consider taking up Editor Review or Admin coaching, if you haven't already. If you have any other questions about my closure, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers, -- Mizu onna sango15/ 水女珊瑚15 21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC).
Hey, I just wanted to say that I appreciated your effort to present yourself in the RfA process. Please let me know when you plan to give it another go. I believe that time is your ally and that you will be a fine admin in the near-future. Be well. Ecoleetage ( talk) 07:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
how is he not notable? he was a former footballer who has made professional league appearances in the past, which is the football notability guideline here on wikipedia, other people of this genre has been added to the death lists in the past and kept, so why not him? 86.148.189.82 ( talk) 21:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You went a little too far adding a last warning on this IP. It was the IP's 1st vandalism warning since November last year. I think a uw-1 would be better.( Planecrash111 ( talk) 02:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC))
Hah thanks for the typo fix, be a bit of a struggle to achieve a neural point of view :)
Can you provide me with a link to the AfD discussion for this article? I can't find it; I'm probably just missing it. Tan | 39 15:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey. Episode 51. Go. Listen. Comment. Enjoy. WODUPbot 04:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Don't want these notifications anymore? Remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. Thank you for your fine message. Yes, please keep me updated on your activities. You will be a fine administrator in the not-too-distant future. Ecoleetage ( talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 20th century boundary revert.Thanks. Unfortunately, he tagged all the other (AD) centuries and millennia also. I think I've got all of them. Perhaps we should create a template, but that would have to violate the AD/Common era "cease fire". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I see the subject interests you. I don't know if this is from an observers POV or as a practitioner, but in 1976 when I held a vigil at the Liberty Memorial Mall in Kansas City after the Republican National Convention (Ref: Kathleen Patterson, 'Prophet Chooses Park for Vigil', The Kansas City Times, 13 September, 1976, pg 3A and Robert W. Butler, 'Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction', The Kansas City Times, 2 November, 1976) I enjoyed frequent access to drop into the studio of a local night radio talk show. One time an astrologist by the name of Gars Austin was on the line from Texas giving brief chart readings based only on the birth date of callers. Coming up to a news break and not knowing me, from the studio I asked if he could do a more in depth reading based on my birth at 8am Sunday morning in Montreal May 21, 1944. The talk show host, the listeners and I were amazed with what he came back with. I asked if the charts showed anything significant around February 1, 1975 the date of my Spiritual resurrection. He didn't know anything about that. We were all surprised when he said, "According to my chart, on that date you had a very powerful Spiritual experience." From that time I had to give more credence to what is written in the stars. Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 13:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I see the discussion to appeal the deletion of Nucular but can't see how to participate. The "edit this page" tab doesn't do the job. Would you kindly divulge the mysteries? Thanks. Thirdbeach ( talk) 20:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Would you consider adding any input to our proposal regarding the DSM-IV. Input is being collected on our talk page. Thanks! Mindsite ( talk) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your support at my RFA, which has now closed as a success. And thank you for your comments about my answer to question 3: outstanding in its thoroughness and thoughtfulness... I'm blushing as I type this!. Seriously though, your support means a great deal to me. As for the issue you raised about magic secrets - I am in aggreement that secrets should be just that: secret. However, the compromise situation that we have of removing unsourced secrets is about as good as we can get at the moment. Maybe in time we will be able to get all secrets removed, and I am quite happy to champion the cause then. But for the moment, wikicalm has settled on this contentious issue, and I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie. Hmmm... any other mixed metephors that I can add to that last sentence? Once again, thanks for your support. StephenBuxton ( talk) 16:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The dictionary is not at the summary page, its at the publication page. If you click on "more information" you will see the official entry. Here. Next time you mock one of the most important mental health research groups, at least get your information correct. Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm just a little confused about why you changed your mind. You're original support was: "An intelligent, honest editor with firm knowledge of admin-related topics and a clear potential to use admin privileges to maintain the integrity of WP:MED, should he so choose. Answered questions thoroughly, candidly, and downright impressively." And Dean B's opposition was: "Don't really want to pile-on, when the user seems a good Wikipedian with excellent intentions. But as well as points raised above, looking through the contribs I don't see evidence the user actually talks and works with others. An admin should be a leader, someone who can work with disparate people and help them work together, a conciliator. An admin has to resolve disputes, to do that you need to be able to understand other points of view. Can I suggest you get involved in some article work and try and act like an admin in adminny places. You don't need the tools to be a leader here." Considering I don't believe his oppose was based upon anything substantial, I have replied to his oppose and I'd like you to review it to see what you think. Contrary to Dean B's beliefs, I have contributed to article work (as backed up there by another user) and have had lots of contact with other users. Thanks for your time, happy editing! — CycloneNimrod Talk? 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
And thank you for trusting me :) Happyme22 ( talk) 05:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I have indented your RFA vote of Cyclonenim 2 in Neutral section as you moved to support. This will fix numbering. I hope you dont mind -- Tinu Cherian - 09:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Cosmic Latte, an edit war seems to be developing between me and Commodore Sloat on the Sigmund Freud article. Your comments/intervention would be welcome. Skoojal ( talk) 09:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for expressing your opinion about retention of the article on " Mononymous persons." There is a parallel discussion going on concerning the category " Category:Mononymous persons," at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_12#Category:Mononymous _persons, if you would care to express your views there. It seems to me that it would be a shame if the article were kept but the category were deleted. Thank you. Nihil novi ( talk) 06:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
On July 21, Cosmic deleted a contribution which sourced Gary West and Mr Pop History. Cosmic opinioned - who's Gary West? and "what was the buying power of a 13-year-old in 1959?" If Cosmic only looked at the site sourced. It would have taken about one minute. I'm the author of the site, now over 14,000 pages of Pop culture week-by-week content from the 1950's through the 2000's. I've also answered about 1400 questions in a weekly print column, which is also available on the site. And, I'm published and heard on national radio. The research has taken about 10 years and about 54,000 hours (1800 weeks x 3 hours each). All off-line. By the time its done - I'm looking at close to 2400 weeks. That's a lot of content from one person. I love doing it. But, hey - you asked! On the sourced site, Mr. Pop History, Cosmic would have learned pop culture evolved from the buying power of baby boomer teens. That buying power was approaching around $1 billion in 1959. And, wouldn't it be nice to know that Dick Clark was the first, true - modern pop culture icon? The wiki-definition of pop culture is a little abstract for the average student to just source. It needs points in pop culture history - names and trends. God-forbid someone who knows this stuff take the time to contribute. Unlike 99.9999% of Wiki entries, I put my name and source place up there (Wiki won't let you put a link - god forbid - so I sourced myself in name only in the paragraph). The idea - so the reader could see where it came from! If I'm wrong, I'll gladly take the responsibility. But, Wiki doesn't work that way. If my factoids are wrong, I get e-mails from readers. And believe me, I've gotten it wrong sometimes. I also made a slight contribution - on the Rolling Stones page. That their first U.S. concert was in San Bernardino, CA. (Swing auditorium). And, it got deleted. What in the world is wrong with you guys??? Same thing - my name and source name. No links. What I do not understand about Wiki and editors like Cosmic, who know very little about what they edit out from those who work hard. I was reluctant to add this fact, because Wiki has a terrible time - and seems to be confused about the real deal. I know several authors and experts who dare not post on Wiki for this very reason. Now I see, first hand - why! What's amazing is - The Pop Culture Wiki page, says, "Please help improve the article." How in the world can you ask this when you've got "editors" deleting decent contributions from those who do and give-a-hoot. And, so much of what's considered pop culture on WIKI can be added to. A ton of factoids. Here's my real name. You can hold me accountable for anything on these sites. Gary West - www.mrpopculture.com www.mrpophistory.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.155.16 ( talk) 00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask. Cheers! J.delanoy gabs adds 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Hello there! New: Episode 58: Wikimania 2008, Jimbo and Reflections. Have a listen. Also, if you haven't heard, all of the other Wikimania episodes are up and accessible through the homepage at http://wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. WODUPbot 09:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Cosmic Latte, I have removed your unnecessary addition of the Freud bibliography to the Freud talk page - please do not restore it, since it serves no purpose, and talk page bloat is already a serious problem, thanks to my arguments with csloat. Skoojal ( talk) 02:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the investment of good faith there; I really appreciated that. It looks like the admin thing didn't come together for me, but in the end it might be for the best — after all, I can find a million other ways to pitch in, and we can't all be admins. Looking forward to working w/ you in the future! Mr. IP 《 Defender of Open Editing》 14:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a movement afoot to delete " Category:Mononymous entertainers," at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 31 — item 1.13. (There is also, slightly below that — item 1.16 — an analogous effort with regard to Category:Mononymous porn actors.) Nihil novi ( talk) 08:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Current venue: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 6, item 1.3: Category:Mononymous persons. Nihil novi ( talk) 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, if you don't mind my asking, what exactly is your academic and/or professional background? You seem to have extensive knowledge in about a zillion different areas, and I must say I'm quite impressed. Excellent work throughout the MDD article, by the way. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 17:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59: An Interview with Sue Gardner at Wikimania 2008 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page (at least one listener thought this could be the best interview ever), and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. WODUPbot 01:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Saw your comment on an RFA, I'm not sure, but it sounds like you're thinking of Doug Stanhope's bit about CNN polls. "Do you think there will be a terrorist attack at the Olympics? 74% thought there would not be, 23% thought highly likely, 3% say don't know. YOU ALL DON'T FUCKING KNOW!!! There should be a big old pizza pie of no fucking clue whatsoever." If that sounds about right that's him. - Optigan13 ( talk) 08:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH ( talk) 10:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC) I thought the previous discussions (entertainer/porn actor) were closed in error by a biased admin. I feel this even more at this junction. How do you assess this process? (I'm querying Nihil novi similarly.) __ meco ( talk) 14:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60: Diplopedia has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page, and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. CL, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. I like the equation. :) If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Deletion guidelines for administrators don't seem to be directly relevant because DRV is a procedural review and not yet another deletion discussion. Insofar as they are relevant, then just as no consensus in a deletion discussion leaves things the way they were, and so too at DRV. That which was kept stays kept, that which was deleted stays deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 — JGHowes talk - 19 August 2008 Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61: Corpus_Linguistics has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 06:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Once major depressive disorder is FA, then we can do borderline personality disorder and really go to town on therapies...I was planning to do that, but when there was a sponateous surge at mdd, I figured striking while the iron was hot was prudent....Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words! I'm thinking I'll give it another go sometime between this and this. :-) The whole experience was informative, but nerve-wracking. Cheers! TN‑ X- Man 14:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Smashville BONK! 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your support on my RFA! It was unsuccessful, but I appreciate your feedback. And thanks for the stated agreement that it was a good thing that I took a wikibreak – I concur ;). I hope to see you around Wikipedia, and I wish you the best,-- daniel folsom 03:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Cosmic Latte: there is a serious disagreement between myself and other editor (Esterson) over the Freud article; it's discussed on the talk page. I would strongly urge you to take an interest in this matter. Skoojal ( talk) 08:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 62 has been released. It's the first episode since Wikimania and it packs a lot of content! You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.
Hi Cosmic Latte. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, — αἰτίας • discussion• 23:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Are we at a point where the treatment section of Major depressive disorder can be trimmed down to a summary with links to Treatment for depression, Psychotherapy, Antidepressant, and Electroconvulsive therapy? -- Ronz ( talk) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 63, an interview with Florence Devouard, has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 06:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Hello, this message is to inform you that User:Foxy Loxy has restarted their RfA. The new discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. Glass Cobra 09:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Cosmic Latte, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, Spencer T♦ C 02:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC) One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so. I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.— Kww( talk) 05:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I much appreciate your vote of support in my recent RfA. Thank you for the trust. Lazulilasher ( talk) 23:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! All the best, Ale_Jrb talk 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC) I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again-- Jac16888 ( talk) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC) I was thinking of a double or triple nom, as you me and Paul Gene had been the most active at a collective push to get this one to FA. I think we are just about there. You around much? Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your edit there. You comments on the issue of relevance (see recent history) would be appreciated. Katzmik ( talk) 09:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Hey wat was wrong with them adding the death of kurt cobain....? he did die on april 5th 1994.... so shudnt he be recognized just like every other famous person....?
Relyt420 ( talk) 18:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Please consider pitching in here Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Hello! Good news, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 64 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. "Instalment" is the standard British spelling. See [1]. No biggie, just letting you know. (For what it's worth, Raul654 ( talk · contribs), among others, made the same mistake.) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on the AFD. I was busy cleaning up the bad writing when you dragged up those sources, making my job to clean things up just that little bit easier. Have a bunch of "thank you"-flowers for the trouble. -
Mgm|
(talk) 12:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 65: Censorship while you sleep has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. I'll try to take a look, but I've been rather busy lately. It might be a few days, though. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Please try to help avoid restarting problematic issues on the FAC: I'm aware of the notifications and I know what WP:CANVASS says. If you've been unjustly accused of canvassing, that can be addressed directly with that editor. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody My talk 02:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Brave of you to put yourself up for it! Don't let yourself be put off from carrying on with MDD. Fainites barley 08:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Hello! As a previous reviewer of Primate at FAC it would be great if you could have another look at the article. The FAC has been restarted, and any comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Jack ( talk) 17:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 66: Searching High and Low has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 07:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. There is a special tool which shows you page sizes? Would you like to know how to use it? Snowman ( talk) 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 Could you drop me an email if you get a chance? You can use the link at my user page. Katzmik ( talk) 07:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Congrats! Fainites barley scribs 08:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey why did you revert my new section there??? i didn't delete any other messages!-- 62.158.69.232 ( talk) 13:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
You made what I thought were some constructive comments on the talk page ... can I convince you to look over the project page and consider making appropriate edits? I think that the community would support making it a policy when certain issues are worked through - specifically:
I hope you will give it some thought and see what improvements you can make, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 67: Fundraising Interview has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 07:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. As a note, I've reduced the number of parties in your recent request to yourself, Guido and William M. Connolley. It's unusual to list all the participants in a debate and has led to confusion (also reducing the probability that the appeal will be heard). Please feel free to revert if you disagree with the rationale. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
THANKS FOR BRINGING ME UP (YOU WRTE THAT IT HAD BEEN BROUGHT UP--NOT THAT YOU DID IT). I GUESS MY OBSERVATIONS ON *SOME* WIKIPEDIANS HIT HOME WITH YOU. LOVE HWO YOU SAID I HAD ATTACKE *ALL* WIKIPEDIANS. I WILL BE SURE TO INCLUDE YOU, HOWEVER. WORRY NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.221.159 ( talk) 13:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
A Nobody
My talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow! Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message. An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 01:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC) W00t w00t! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 68: Wikipedia's Nicotine High has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and even subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 12:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. It is not my intention to keep shooting you down, so I want to explain this—third—reversion. I long since checked all the available online reliable sources I could for the Heather O'Rourke article. Neither the IMDb nor TV.com meet the muster for a reliable source as they're both user-contributed resources, similar in nature to a wiki. I previously brought up "The Memorial Site" to the reliable sources noticeboard and it was consensus that it may be legitimate, but doesn't vet for the information available: too much of the information on the site can be found patently incorrect, and ergo cannot be used as a reliable secondary source for our Wikipedia biography. As I cannot find either "Heather Michele O’Rourke" or "Heather Michelle O'Rourke" in a suitable Google News or Google Scholar search, I'm only left with web results. While the former has more hits (a plethora being copies of a previous version of the Wikipedia article), the latter is where all of our repeatedly accepted, published, reliable sources are found. You're right, "Michelle" probably is her middle name, there's just no explicit references for this; The New York Times, Yahoo! Movies, and the Turner Classic Movies database all list this as "Alternate Name" or "Also Credited As" or "AKA" respectively. There's no listing at a suitably reliable source for her full name to include this. Keep an eye out if you will, I'm not perfect by any means. But either bring it up at the talk page first, or don't get upset if I or somebody else removes/reverts it. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC) How do you do? I feel rather inferior when watching your own user page compared to mine. Anyway, in the James Horner article's last edit summary, you wrote: "again, rm unsourced, original commentary apparently intended to devalue the defense of this composer". Now considering the fact the article states this "Some believe it truly compromises the merits of Horner's music, while others feel it is a minor problem that has been exaggerated, and a common practice generally inclusive of other composers." Doesn't that sound as an unsourced original commentary as well? Of course, I'm a dummy for this kind of thing, so you may know much better about this than I do. Just a slight thought, nothing hostile. Thanks! -- Surten ( talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Surten
Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69: Sixth Sense and 70: Under the Microscope have been released. You can listen and comment at their pages ( 69, 70) and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 06:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. 
A Nobody
My talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
If you're already familiar with policy, please excuse the template. Tom Harrison Talk 23:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Refuted to your satisfaction or not, if you keep reverting someone will report it and request arbitration enforcement. Since you're otherwise doing some good work, as with the billions-of-dollars-worth phrasing, I'd rather not see you banned from the page. Tom Harrison Talk 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I was trying to figure out how to phrase it properly, but couldn't seem to place my finger on the right word. Its 1am, I'm sleepy. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, when you do [[Category:xxy|abc]] The article appears at "category:xxy" listed under the name "abc" If you had looked inside Category:Comets, you would have noticed that this is how comets are categorized. 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 12:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The next time you consider removing well-sourced statements arbitrarily, discuss it first. Thank you! -- bender235 ( talk) 20:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Addbot ( talk) 00:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Maen. K. A. ( talk) 22:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Because it was about age, not race. I also have concerns about his notability. These were views expressed in a TV documentary, but have they met the standard of his academic peers? I am not sure whether he is jus expressing a wack form of social constructionism rather than criticizing it ... This is why i m also concened about whether is is an established significant view (have other anthropologoist considered and debated this view, is it shared by others)? that said I find the views interesting, I really do, although they seem to belong in the article on social construction as he is making a point about social constructionist views in general. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 71: We have no shame has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode page, and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. User try to bias article, removing relevant and sourced facts, most probably also using sock puppet. No respect for guidlines. This user is editing the Komondor dog article under one name, User:Meoconne [2] Probably also edits the article Komondor as User:Lynovella and IP adress 70.121.204.57. Provides third oppinion on Komondor issues and edit war, on talk page under name, User:Lynovella which he or she presents as Thid Person Arbritation, misspelled. (Lynovella also claiming that average height has never been removed). Combined IP adress :70.121.204.57 and red link User:Meoconne repeatedly reverted edits at Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and Komondor dog breed, non-NPOV edits. Remove edits from the Komondor article such as : No upper height limit is given. [1] and other relevant and sourced edits such as the dog breeds average height (most possible influenced by personal bias). Both average height (sourced) has been removed, (several times), [3] [4] [5], [6] [7] [8] upper limit height (sourced) [9], [10] mentioning other similar Hugarian sheepdogs [11], which all of them are extremely relevant information for this encyclopaedia article on this dog breed, and when we (and even ClueBot) [12] [13] [14] [15] put them back he keeps removing them [16], and produce a lot of unhelpful edits isntead [17], removing reference title [18], [19] without any consensus. This qualifies as Wikipedia:Edit war, disruptive editing, [20], [21]copright violation, from the FCI Komondor Standards [22], poorly formulated edits added in upper case, bias, non-NPOV edits Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and [23] most probably sockpuppetry by same editor, the above mentioned newly created new red link user accounts all editing the same articles, Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show Komondor and Alpha Omega Epsilon. They are all concentrated on the same issue at Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and Komondor dog breed, trying to adjust the article in a certain way. Namely that the breed is smaller than it acctually is and it is more like a certain dog the accounts and IP might be related to, or like, which accounts calls Ouincy, thoug they deny this. It is also possible that the account User:Goldie102 has been created to support this issue around this dog, see edit [24]. Which is a smaller Komondor dog with a longer body than the standard call for. They were trying to ignore breed standard, and other sources and pictures presented in argumentation. This breed beeing fairly unknown, not many people check that article, or try to defend it from bias . I would like report them as sockpuppets but it looks like only administrators can do that. Warrington ( talk) 21:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
References Greetings Cosmic I was wondering about the revision that you made to my revision regarding the oath of office. I hope that you do not believe me to be a vandal, by any means. I was pondering how my contribution was unnecessary or unclear. Thanks Elgreggo11 ( talk) 04:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Elgreggo11
I've probably been just as guilty of this as you, but going back and forth between versions of stem cell controversy doesn't do much good when the vandal is obviously enjoying it. Better to wait until an administrator shows up. :-) Natural Cut ( talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. What do you mean my last warning? Warning for what? I am allowed to link the truth. What's wrong with libs? Liberalism in the USA is a sickness. You people are like adult children. When are you ever going to grow up? Don't you realize that you are the laugh of the nation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.174.227 ( talk) 17:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, facts. It is a fact that liberalism is a sickness. Just look at them. Obama, Barney Fwank, Hillary, Turbo Tax Cheat Geihtner, Puff Daschelle. All of them are sick and unstable. Normal adults don't think and behave like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.174.227 ( talk) 18:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC) By NuclearWarfare ( Talk) on 19:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I would appreciate it if you would stop harassing me, and stop trying to vandalize my page. none of your supposive violations you mentioned existed, it is a common left wing attempt to harass and intimidate conservative users. Further acts of harassment and vandalize will be reported, and if you are an admin a request for dyssop will be sent. Neophytesoftware ( talk) 18:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Sir, I wanted to thank you for your assistance in helping to restore some civility to the debate in the AfD article. It has gotten very contentious; my Goodness, if I had known what this would wreak... anyway, I do sincerely appreciate it. Thank you. Ks64q2 ( talk) 05:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought you were asking if organization was spelt organization so I replied in edit summary saying UK english but realise now that you were not spell checking. I just thought that you might be wondering at my edit summary. No need to reply. :-) Good job on improving the major depressive disorder article by the way!-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Cosmic, please stop reverting to misleading information in the Bernard Madoff article. He gave almost 90% of his donations to Democrats so its misleading to say he gave to both parties. He gave mostly to Democrats. If you don't like how I've phrased it please modify it, but this is an encyclopedia and providing accurate information is important regardless of your political bias. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits on Roman Polanski. Touché, there is no need to get into salacious details! Even though Wikipedia is uncensored, sometimes you have to use common sense. Thanks again. LA Movie Buff ( talk) 16:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
1st - You are entirely correct, and my use of rollback for that was an error. I should have reverted in detail, there were not that many edits. 2nd - Thank you very much for your edits there at Polanski. 3rd - I hope you will accept my sincere apologies. I believe this is the 3rd time I have erred in using rollback, and I very much hope it will be the last. I can only assure you that I will do my best. All the best in your continuing Wikipedia-ing endeavors. sinneed ( talk) 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Cosmic Latte, I have noticed your productive editing recently from afar and thus it is nice to meet you. Additionally, through my watch pages I have noticed an ongoing disagreement between you and User:Luis Napoles on Cuba related topics (a subject matter which I heavily edit and deeply interests me as well). I have sent a message to Luis about many of the issues which I believe you may have also had disagreements with him on. I include it here so that you can possibly add to the discussion, or merely be aware that another editor shares some of your same concerns. It is my hope that a neutral solution can be met, which I believe/hope to be your goal as well. Thanks Redthoreau ( talk)RT 04:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Please be more careful in your citation of scientific fact. Citing an article which quotes a scientific study is perfectly fine if the citation refers to the actual quotes. Using the conclusions drawn by the actual citation is not acceptable since the authors are not scientists and therefore do not constitute a reliable source. To avoid this problem, I suggest you restrict yourself to citing articles peer-reviewed journals. CapitalElll ( talk) 00:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Links to articles which explain why the person was imprisoned are highly relevant in the article Black Spring (Cuba). If you don't like red links, you may change or remove them and them only. However, Wikipedia:Red link says "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished". Luis Napoles ( talk) 20:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I copy-edited to add some info, but you may disagree, or may partially agree.
Yeah, this is random and stalkerish, but trust me when I have a reason for asking: where do you edit from? (City and country would be nice, but whatever you feel comfortable telling is fine.) You can just shoot me an email or reply here. It's for a project I have to do involving wikipedia articles and editing patterns, nothing special, but I'll let you see it when I'm finished :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 14:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Hi, I didn't understand the reason for your recent edit at WP:NOR. It looks interesting and I would appreciate it if you'd give more details at WT:NOR. Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 23:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Cosmic Latte: Your reversal of my additions and edits to the Psychology page appears to be unjustified. I believe I can comment on undergraduate education in psychology, having been a psychology professor for 15 years. Moreover, the fact that most psychology majors learn about Freud in history classes is widely known among academics. There is nothing contentious in that assertion, and most any undergraduate would agree. Your comment on my addition to the "Status as a Science" is interesting, but false. Probability testing is widely employed in the natural and social sciences, a fact that is widely known. Please reconsider your deletions. As a psychology professor and researcher I don't see any point in trying to contribute to this page if innocuous and uncontroversial additions are to be vetoed and deleted. Csears77 ( talk) 15:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Further to my comment above, after reviewing a few more of your edits, my impression is that your editing is biased to present psychoanalysis in a very favourable light. Although you may be partial to this approach, I do not think it is in the best interests of readers to allow the article to adopt such a stance, given the unrepresentativeness of psychoanalytic theory to modern psychological teaching and research. Thank you for reconsidering your actions. Csears77 ( talk) 15:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed response to my concerns. I appreciate your perspective. Please realize that many of my issues and concerns with this page may have nothing to do with you personally. With respect to Freud, I don't know what else I can say to reinforce the fact that Freudian psychology is merely a historical curiosity in modern university psychology departments (at least in North America). For psychology, Freud is somewhat akin to who Tycho Brahe is for astronomy -- a person who had a great impact on the discipline but whose ideas were ultimately superseded by others. Although Freud's ideas will of course be mentioned occasionally outside of courses on the history of psychology (for example, in a clinical psychology course), such references (critiques) are almost always designed to illustrate how far the field has advanced from 19th century theorizing. Even in the history classes one will learn that Freud had surprisingly little impact in academic psychology from the 1920's and beyond, once behaviorism came on to the scene (surprising given the popular conception today that psychology is dominated by Freudians). Part of the reason Freud's ideas were largely abandoned is because they are unfalsifiable, a fact recognized long ago by philosophers of science such as Karl Popper and others (Popper actually used Freud's theories as an example of an unfalsifiable theory). With the advent of positivism, behaviorism, and experimental psychology, psychoanalysis was left behind, transformed into a niche therapeutic technique for those with the necessary money and time. With respect to Freud's ideas on consciousness, I can tell you that Freud is treated the same way in cognitive psychology courses (as a history lesson), having taught such courses for 15 years using standard cognition textbooks. Again, this is largely because his ideas were either untestable or unfalsifiable, or both. Modern research on consciousness has virtually nothing to do with Freud, and a casual glance through a few standard cognition textbooks will demonstrate this. And I have never encountered a reference to "depth psychology" in any published journal article on consciousness or in any undergraduate text, junior or advanced. With these facts in mind, my read of the article is that it is biased to present psychoanalysis in a very favorable light. Again, I do not think it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to allow the article to adopt such a stance, given the unrepresentativeness of psychoanalytic theory to modern psychological teaching and research. It seems to me that Wikipedia articles should strive to correct misconceptions and stereotypes, not reinforce them. With respect to statistical inference in psychology, my point was really rather simple. The wording of that section criticized psychology research for using probability tests, as if psychology was unique in this respect. My addition was simply meant to point out that such techniques are widespread in the social and natural sciences and not unique to psychology. Thus, one cannot fault psychology research on this account. I interpreted the former text in that section as an erroneous criticism of psychological research, no doubt by someone who did not realize how common these statistical techniques are in all research settings. My changes simply corrected this misunderstanding. I am not sure how I could go about documenting any of these facts to the satisfaction of those who watch this page, and I am not so sure I am willing to commit the time and debating energy necessary to do so either (I certainly won't get any publication credit for it!). From my perspective, these points are completely obvious. My larger concern, again, is that the article does not provide a novice reader with an accurate portrayal of modern psychology. I am at a loss for how to correct this situation if even the relatively minor contributions of psychology professors are vetoed and deleted. My academic appointment, research, and teaching in psychology is publically documented and can be quickly verified. I am not trying to make an argument from authority here, but on the other hand, it does seem ironic that the information provided by psychologists is rather quickly dismissed in the Wikipedia Psychology article (I wonder if this is also true of the astronomers' contributions to the Astronomy article?). It seems that this Psychology article largely reflects the viewpoints of those who are willing to put a great deal of time and energy into preserving their views in the article. If true, this would be a shame and would fly in the face of Wikipedia's educational objectives. But given the nature of the editing process here I am not sure what the solution is. -- Csears77 ( talk) 17:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I have concerns about some of your edits to Zicam and have asked that other editors contribute to maintaining the article, e.g., here. I trust you do not mind wider visibility of the article but wanted to make you aware of this. Regards - Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 15:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, neutrality concerns over the criminal conviction of Chris Brown have been raised on the talk page. Since you have been previously involved in the discussion, will you answer the request for comment? Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, perhaps only Billy (himself) could've convinced anyone to include his name at that article's death section. GoodDay ( talk) 19:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Religious folks, might say (right now) he's trying to pitch things in Heaven. GoodDay ( talk) 20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I actually didn't notice the source change under voice classification. I was trying to reestablish the non- WP:OVERLINKED lead and remove the overempahsis on his death in the last paragraph. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Just saw your recent edits to the above. If you check the documentation for {{ Infobox Musical artist}} you will see that there is no parameter for "vocal register". – ukexpat ( talk) 03:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cosmic, i also respect and appreciate your work and i agree with some your suggests. According to me, would be written that MJ won also the Grammy Legend Award, the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award and that he holds the record of most AMAs won. Furthermore, i don't sure for "he had 13 number-one singles in the United States in his solo career". Yes, United States is the most important market, but i'm not sure to include it. I think that the introduction would be more focused on his global success than on his United States success. SJ ( talk) 23:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I think you overlooked the part of WP:OC#SMALL that says "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." Category:Musicians by band is a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme with numberous subcategories, so Category:The Jackson 5 members is an acceptable category despite its lack of size. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh.. When I first found the page, I saw "she is crap". I thought it was you but it must have been someone else. Very sorry.
Did you know that it is often a good idea to discuss such moves BEFORE making them? Pdfpdf ( talk) 00:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It was actually SarekOfVulcan ( talk · contribs) who deleted it, so you might want to check in with him. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC) You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I dont understand what this is about User:Kevin Wahlberg User:Chace Watson User:Omoak Fendia and these edits [26] and [27]. Are you able to offer any advice or insight for me Earlypsychosis ( talk) 20:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Biology of obsessive–compulsive disorder If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding
Hi there : ) Thanks very much for the constructive and well-thought out arguments you presented in the Talk:Propofol page. I was getting worn out trying to counter the incessant arguments in favour of the word abuse. Nice work! InternetMeme ( talk) 12:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've noticed that a member of the propofol discussion ( User:Bevinbell) has recently edited Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Drugs to include the word "abuse". The edit was subsequent to our discussion regarding propofil. Is this good practice?
GA reassessment of Hayley WestenraI have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Hayley Westenra/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Hi, the person keeps reverting to the wrong version and that deletes all the information I've gathered and add to it. I wasted many hours by adding information and there is no way anyone can say the sources are unreliable. This Tajik guy is a racist and he's doing everything possible to destroy Pashtun articles. This is his personal way to settle scores with Pashtuns, people he hates. Every article I fix is right away visited by him or other Shias like him, it's like invasion of Shias attacking Pashtuns in Wikipedia and this very frustrating, and is being ignored by everyone. I wish there was some kind of rule here to stop people from one race or ethnicity going around editting articles of another "specific ethnicity" whom they are rival to, unless they agree. This will reduce such disputes and edit-wars. For example, if an article is relating to Hindus and there is a Hindu and a Chinese editors but they can't agree on something then the Chinese should follow a rule to stop editing the Hindu article. I explained in great detail my proofs and evidences at Talk:Muhammad of Ghor and Talk:Ghurids but he and his Shia buddies do not accept a single piece of my argument. He also removed lots of my hard work from Amir Kror Suri. I realized that I have not a single problem with anyone, from any other country on earth, or any other religions, it's just these Iranian (Tajik) Shias who are not leaving me alone. They don't accept any source which doesn't go with their POV.-- 119.73.6.24 ( talk) 23:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You're being very WP:BOLD but making a bunch of changes which will be difficult to REPAIR eg, you removed the line about 'unverified' with this comment: rm obvious; of course the reports were "unverified", hence all of the suspense Which fundamentally misreads or misunderstands the point - which is that the media were NOT regarding the question as uncertain, until it was retrospective. However, this does need a cite to not be WP:OR. I am about to put back the txt that you claim is a synthesis - it's not, its basic calculations which are premitted - if anything the site howthingswork cite should have been excluded is all.-- Jaymax ( talk) 19:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Hi, I reverted your edit because it selectively removed a lot of relevant content. The article is not a featured article candidate. I feel the reference is a good quality reference as it was conducted by the Australian government. The other reason that I reverted was because I believe that you were trying to accomodate one of several sockpuppets of The Sceptical Chymist. I have filed a sockpuppet investigation here regarding this behaviour. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Sceptical Chymist If you are opposed to my revert, I am sure that we can reach some sort of a compromise.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, looks like this drama is not over yet. If you do not mind can I ask you to read this section, Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#benzodiazapine_drug_misuse.2C_lack_of_credible_sourcing and comment. This guy is threatening me now with arbcom over this issue. Another disruptive editor, ugh.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC) My contribution has several sources. I believe I have a valid point, and should not be censored. H1N1 is a serious viral infection, and should not be taken lightly. Just because you think that the news is a hoax, does not changed the fact that there is serious public concern over the spread of this virus. The child vomiting is indicative of the H1N1 virus. My edits are not vandalism. There are several possible explanations for the child vomiting, he may have been upset, or seriously ill. I believe all opinions should be fairly expressed. Just because you disagree, does not mean my contribution is vandalism. Sadman64 ( talk) 02:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
→Hoax allegations and criminal investigation: and this one fails WP:SELFPUB in a flash)
Two questions re: 2012 phenomenonYour edits to the lead left me wondering on two counts. First, shouldn't the 2012 film be listed in the lead, as it has its own section in the article and second, why are you watering down the counterclaims to the pseudoscience? As of right now, the article essentially reads as follows. "Some people claim the sky is green. Others assert, however, that it is blue." Serendi pod ous 17:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cosmic. The rather troublesome Canto 2009 has deleted the social psychology (sociology) article and replaced it with a web of redirects, presumably in order to lose the information. Can you find this article anywhere? He's clearly tried to wipe it under the carpet completely. -- Tomsega ( talk) 10:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Per MOS:BIO: Nationality - the country of which the person was a citizen when the person became notable. Hopkins became a U.S. citizen in 2000, as is already noted in the lead section. Unless he didn't become notable until after 2000, the proper descriptor is Welsh. He passed criteria for notability in the 1960s. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 13:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually shortly before his death in 1997 Viktor Frankl was involved in trying to get his proposed Statue of Responsibility built, but as of today they don't have much of any funding, haven't picked a location, and are basically going nowhere fast. I personally don't think that a 'proposed' statue, and one Austrian man's personal opinion of the symbolism of an existing statue, are notable enough to be listed in the Statue of Liberty article itself. It's got it's own article as it is. OptimumPx ( talk) 00:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
You might want to consider deleting "and wherever the band clearly is being referred to as a single entity rather than as a plurality of members" from your list of exceptions. Look again at each case in your own edit that got revertedd, I think you may agree that this becomes rather nebulous. Wouldn't it be better to allow common sense and WP practice to prevail rather than trying to define the exception. 87.114.175.74 ( talk) 15:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It makes more sense to say common year starting on Friday instead of common year that started on Friday. Homerjay90 ( talk) 19:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Say it either way (starting on, that started on, or began on). However, in the 2008 and 2009 articles, please omit 2008th 2009th year of AD/CE, 8th 9th year of 3rd millennium and 21st century. Many of the previous year articles on Wikipedia don't have that information. Usually, this info is almost only for the ongoing year. 71.33.56.252 ( talk) 19:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to take the time to wish you and your family a Happy New Year!-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC) thank you for this information: [31]. i am thinking you are maybe right but i am not understanding this one all. that is okay with me. thank you for explaineing. 74.234.47.199 ( talk) 02:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you pls let me know the reason for deleting my edit on the article for the movie Avatar? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Avatar_(2009_film)&action=history I had just added links to the reviews of a movie discussion board which has professional reviewers as well and there is a separate score for them. dd Movie Buff ( talk) 15:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi CL. That editor is rather persistent with his pronunciation stuff. I've given him a formal template warning regarding 3RR on top of the more conciliatory one you've given him, but nothing seems to work. Should we proceed through formal channels? Favonian ( talk) 20:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
you are mising the idea so i will try to explain beter to you. i am wondering first by what you say in second edit sumary if maybee you are young. what is happning IS very very new and is very clear to us who are more than fifties years old. in past persons yes are cawt doing things not suposed to be doing. when this happens in past these peoples disapear and are no more in public. if are elected persons they resign from office they are holding. if are movie stars they are geting no more movies to make. this beginned to change before 2000s but idea is still part of thinking of most persons before 2000. when President clinton scandal first happen in winter 1998 the talker heads on tv (both democrats and replubicans) say he is finished. most predict he will resign in only a week or two because of shame. he survive of course. but now in 2000s more then this is hapening. some people are becomeing famous BECAUSE they are doing such things. NO BODY knows who is paris hilton until she has sex tapeing on internet. in past times her family would be saying to her to hide away and not be in public at all and hope someday she can have quiet normal life. but in 2000s it is not this like. in sted she becomes POPLAR for this thing that before would destroy her repetaton. this is a BIG diferent than before 2000s and is biger change in culture than many things in aritcle now. one other thing you say: my refrences dont mention 2000s decade. i am looking at refrences for other facts in aritcle and MOST do not menton this decade. the refrences only show the informaton is true. it is not being needed for refrenceing to menton the decade (let me know if i am misundrestands you). thank you for takeing time to gived your reasons in edit sumrarays and also for reading my words here. 70.153.230.93 ( talk) 02:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
User Flyer22 has suggested on WT:MoS that WP:LQ may need to be rephrased to avoid misinterpretations such as occurred on the Avatar film article. I'm not confident that this is necessary, but if you have any input on the way WP:LQ is interpreted or could be improved, please take a look at WT:MoS#Needed_help_regarding_WP:Logical_quotation. Also, I think you were absolutely right to bring the matter up on the Av talk page. It was about the article, not about Flyer22 and putting the discussion there gave other editors a chance to see and contribute. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 19:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years that we have two kinds of decade articles - one in which the events of a decade are listed ("List of events of the 1940s"), and another shorter decade that takes a top-down approach and explain the main themes and character of the decade ("1940s"). Please share with the community your views or suggestions. Kransky ( talk) 10:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I'm curious cosmic what other word would you prefer beside "transcended"? Do you have an alternative? Cheers A Star Is Here ( talk) 02:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
You make a valid point but "were recognized across generational, racial and cultural boundaries" sound like its not happening anymore and MJ even in death countinues to break records and boundaries. How about an alternative perhaps? Maybe " His distinctive musical style, vocal style, and choreography continues to be recognized across generational, racial, and cultural boundaries." What do you think? A Star Is Here ( talk) 02:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Nothings better then compromise Cosmic. Thanks! A Star Is Here ( talk) 03:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC) You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Thank you for your level-headed input. What a breath of fresh air. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 05:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC) From the edit summary you left in your edits to Reincarnation, it looks like you think that legitimate academic research by psychiatrists and psychologists cannot be called "parapsychology". If that is the case, perhaps parapsychology would be worth reading. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I seem to have found a message on my talk page that slipped under the radar. I don't really remember the specific article content issues that precipitated it, but you had asked a question about some material on my user page I found interesting to rant about. Just so I am not talking to myself I thought I would let you know I replied, 6 months later. Tmtoulouse ( talk) 08:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC) First, good job in eliminating unsourced speculation (I nailed one of those this AM too). Second, the unsourced text you deleted re: gender differentials in suicide rates made an essentially correct assertion. It just wasn't sourced. Ouch! I'll see if I can grab an appropriate source - but first, need to determine that the statement is even needed in the overall narrative. update - OK. That suicide statement, while correct, was not as accurate as it could have been. Much more importantly, it was a non sequitor - merely tacked onto a statement about gender and depression. Gender and suicide is addressed adequately, with sourcing, in the last paragraph of "Prognosis". Good edit. Tom Cloyd ( talk) 17:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
User:TheLittleBlackBear ( talk) 16:21, 24 April 2010 (EST) Hi I need a group of people to help me write an article which I want to ensure does not get deleted. I guess the more people you have, the less likely it can be erased! I was wondering if you could help me write an article about a certain controversial figure in US and UK history?? Contact me back and I'll tell you more ;) User:TheLittleBlackBear ( talk) 8 oclock, 25 April 2010 (EST) Hey check out my user page I replied to your message there... Thank you for your quick response! I am looking forward to working with you. This will be funn,,, :) RAWR! Hello? I want to write this article by Monday~~ I argree with your decision. Greggydude ( talk) 15:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem and i agree with everything you said :) SJ ( talk) 11:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC) For all the fish, and edits. [deleted edits, wrong user page] Casimirpo ( talk) 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I quote your edit summary "almost certainly the ref is being _obscenely_ oversimplified. e.g., the explanation for the Holocaust is just... "race"?! and...what race would this be, anyway?" This made me cringe. How soon people forget. How can they forget? The megalomania, pure insanity. "Volk - a Master Race whose roots lie in the sacred soil fertilized for centuries by the richness of their blood" - Sound familiar? (from The specter of genocide: mass murder in historical perspective By Robert Gellately, Ben Kiernan) What race? Good grief: Aryan_race#Nazism! Note that there is no "only" in the claim. Rationalization is also not the same as "movivation" or "basis". Casimirpo ( talk) 16:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. On 5 January 2010 you substantially edited this page. I have suggested on its Talk page that it be deleted or merged with Mood disorder. Anthony ( talk) 12:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC).
Cool !!! Whatever you have edited is simply a great stuff. I like your ideas about MJ. Aryan song ( talk) 13:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Thanks
I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing. If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages. To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed. The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I thought I would have a go at this now. I plan on importing a few paragraphs from article A into article B, and making A a redirect to B. Do I only need to mention the origin of the content (article A) in the edit summary when I insert it into B, or is there more to it? Anthony ( talk) 02:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Cnilep beat me to it [32] Anthony ( talk) 20:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC) You may be interested in List of legally mononymous people, and helping to expand it. Thanks, Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC) please do not deleate anything like the Manila Hostage crisis. Have you even noticed their are no picture and hardy anything for 2010. Put back Combat troups leave Iraq! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spb10 ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I just posted here: [Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#in_response_to_the_.22who.22_tag_.2F_weasel_word_comments] in response to your edit. I'd be grateful if you'd respond there. Thanks! Cazort ( talk) 16:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Hi, I just read the lead to Race - it has improved a lot by your participation. Thanks! I think it does a particularly good job of explaining in what sense race is socially constructed and what that means - if the rest of the article is as clear then my recent comments about the article not overstarting the point are obsolete. You've done really good work here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cosmic Latte, not sure how the wiki messaging system works but I have a message (response) to you here ( Talk) 2:31PM, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Hi Cosmic Latte, I considered putting something on the talk page because I was afraid the edsum might seem a little terse and I wanted to make sure you knew that I thought the part you added was great (and even better all by itself). The part you fixed did imply philosophers “commonly” find anyone and everyone's concepts of soul “incoherent”, tout court. For such a diverse theological concept with such a short lead, personally, I'd shy away from tackling anything too specific but here are my thoughts... You're correct that dualism (philosophy of mind) has a long history in connection to (european) concepts of soul. And as I recall, something to the effect of eliminative materialism was introduced in the 19th century (maybe?) but in so far as the more popular debates amongst physicalists regarding reductionism/non-reductionism are much more contemporary, and not really intended to further historical monism/ dualism dialogs, (which wouldn't be considered chic for a physicalist), it seemed too anachronistic to frame the “soul” (mind) in terms of dualist and monist camps. I took it you'd agree that harboring spirits in one's ontology isn't so much at issue, but grouping non-reductionism with Cartesian substance dualism is hardly less scandalous (joke). The original poster's claim about the very idea of a soul, incorporeal entity or essence being “incoherent” reminded me of eliminative materialism (reductionism in the extreme) because they call any suggestion of a mental state incoherent, (like feeling pain or having a desire, even having an idea... so they have bigger fish to fry). Anyway, Descartes' concept of the soul/mind seems quite abstract compared to the garden variety. I think Aristotle's concepts of soul (psyche), essence, and substance were too... curiously, he was a pluralist btw, but not due to his particular(ist?) stance regarding to the question of universals lol. (At least I think that's where Aquinas pulls a rabbit out of the hat). Analytic philosophy seems like it might overwhelm such a modest lead, but I've no objection if you'd like to include philosophy of mind with an eye to its history. It's just that Dualism can't easily serve as the other camp in order to balance a Monist “philosophical position of physicalist reductionism”. Of course, it all depends on what one means by “soul” but metaphysically, even ghosts needn't be incompatible with the starkest 19th century materialism, a priori. If something like a jar of ectoplasm were to turn up at the proverbial science fair, it should win a prise. Who would have thought thunderstorms produce antimatter... there's nothing too exotic to be forced into that peculiar brand of monism, except perhaps that of non-dualism (joke).— Machine Elf 1735 09:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, I just wanted to let you know that your User Page is among the more interesting and edifying that I've had the pleasure of perusing. (I placed my own page in dormancy a while back on account of extended periods of absence from Wiki. But I did leave one very special graphic that you may enjoy... ) Btw, I think we are largely in agreement on grammatical issues -- which, of course, made a very favorable impression on me! :) -//- I really appreciate your highlighting the proper use of Latin plurals; I find the rampant misuse of "the media" as a singular term hugely irksome -- especially when it comes out of the mouth of a journalist! (A few years back I completely rewrote the headnote paragraphs for Category:Mass media in order to address that issue in the clearest possible terms; hopefully it has been left intact.) However, I have to say that I am perplexed by the term "agendum", as I have NEVER (to the best of my recollection) seen or heard it used in any context (literary, journalistic, academic, bureaucratic, etc.) Are you actually saying that it is flatly wrong to refer to the "agenda" for a meeting, or am I misconstruing things? Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 09:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Your accusation of obnoxious and disruptive editing is an outright affront to Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith. Furthermore, considering the topic was under discussion, I would like to know your rationale for reverting.-- Screwball23 talk 21:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Please take note of a discussion ( "Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world") about medical ELs and related issues. You may want to follow the links provided to learn more if you are so inclined. Thank you in advance. I'm not looking for more comments, as there have been many already, but you're welcome to add yours if you want to. Presto54 ( talk) 04:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Hi, i'd like to ask your help to review the grammar situation in this article while i review the sources; thanks. Rodrigo18 ( talk) 21:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Hi, Some of your edits on the Psychology page, while clearly well-intentioned and thoughtful, are changing the phrasing to make elements of psychology seem more monolithic and undisputed than they really are. It's important to leave the hedges and qualifiers, as in "some psychologists think" compared to "psychology is", because there is not consensus in the academic or practicing communities on many of these issues. For example, some psychologists believe that the purpose of psychology is to understand human mental life, regardless of whether this endeavor helps or harms people. Other psychologists think psychology is ultimately about helping people. It's misleading to remove the qualifiers. I appreciate your good intent in editing, but request that you refrain from changing the meaning while tidying up the language. (Also, thank you for the heads-up about WP policy on not marking reverts as minor... it seems like that option could be helpfully disabled for reverts). jj1236
Hi. I appreciate your input at the JE article. I hope you are satisfied with the compromises that I have suggested between our preferred versions. I think you have made some very good suggestions, although I don't really agree with your interpretation of "easter egg" - I think the article has lost some value by your removing links to articles that explain, for example, the song titles named. In any case, it is always good to have another pair of eyes. Feel free to use the talk page to bat around ideas about the article. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Hi again. I have received a notice that the fair use image of Evancho with President Obama at the National Christmas Tree lighting is proposed for deletion. I am arguing that it is a unique, historic image, because (1) Evancho was one of the youngest people (probably the youngest) ever to sing a solo at the event; and (2) the event was important to Evancho's career, since Evancho just began her career recently. I believe that the image clearly and substantially adds to the understanding of a reader of the article. Near the image, the article says "On December 9, 2010, Evancho performed at the National Christmas Tree lighting event in Washington, D.C., singing "O Holy Night", with President Obama and his family present.[78] If you wish to add to the discussion, either way, it is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_March_23#File:EvanchoPresSanta.jpg -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Lede image Major depressive disorderHi. I see you are a frequent editor at Major depressive disorder and I would like to draw your attention to a discussion I have initiated on its Talk page in the light of the banned user RobvanderWaal's neutral post that this image is matter of fact one of mortality and sanctity, and not of sorrow, on van Gogh's own say so. I'm suggesting the editors should perhaps be rather using an image such as his Sorrow. A physician Bailisk has replied to some medical issues that I have re-raised as well. I frankly worry about the quality of his contributions and would be grateful if a member of the community building this article might contribute. Finally I intend to re-raise the question originally raised about this image as to whether it's really appropiate as the lede image. Granting that it apparently evokes the idea sorrow today in the viewer, why is it a lede image when in fact sorrow, anguish etc. feature only fleetingly in the article's description of symptoms. Hope this isn't socking or something. Feel free to oppose me vigorously if that's your position! Thank you LHirsig ( talk) 09:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Hello — this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. Jburlinson ( talk) 21:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC) HiI'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders. Hope to see you there! Speed Demon (song), an article that you may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.-- Tomcat ( 7) 16:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC) This is a note to let the main editors of 2012 phenomenon know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 20, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 20, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), Gimmetoo ( talk · contribs), and Bencherlite ( talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.
Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:
If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Hi,  Hello, Cosmic Latte. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Hello, Cosmic Latte. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Greetings, Requesting you to visit lately initiated Draft:Irrational beliefs, If you find topic interested in, please do support topic expansion. Thanks and warm regards Bookku ( talk) 09:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Hi there, Cosmic Latte. I'm part of a group of psychologists, psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, and neuroscientists who are interested in re-activating Wikiproject Psychology and improving the psychology pages, particularly those pertaining to psychodynamic psychology, which as you know does not always get balanced treatment on Wikipedia. We are interested in a multi-disciplinary, integrative approach to psychology, not in trying to whitewash controversies or engage in hagiography of Freud, but we would like to see a clearer, more accurate representation of his important contributions, including pioneering insight-oriented psychotherapy and describing defense mechanisms like denial (which has become a real problem in the domain of public health, interfering with vaccination, etc., and should be talked about openly on Wikipedia!). We would also be able to contribute to creating a fairer, more nuanced, but also clear-eyed account of the field's long history of methodological failings and its marginalized status, which are more complex than the misleading and activist accusation of "pseudoscience." Perhaps you could help us navigate some of the anti-Freudian activism on pages like "Freud" and "Psychoanalysis," where gross violations like sockpuppetry have been an issue. For example, this user Polisher of Cobwebs, who has communicated with you above under one of his/her alleged sockpuppets, Skoojal, has written a great deal of the Freud page, engaged in edit wars to defend his/her idea that only a negative picture of Freud is balanced, and appears to still be active there. You have made important, intelligent contributions to these debates in the past and we'd value your participation. Would you like to join us or explore the possibility of working together? Hypoplectrus ( talk) 01:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
-_Good_pic.jpg)
Fuzheado,
Gamaliel,
Effeietsanders,
Nikikana,
LilyOfTheWest, and
SuperHamster discuss the annual
Wiki Loves Monuments worldwide photography contest
I'm not trying to be rude, just correct. Since multiple free nations such as the United States view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization I must credit anyone helping their cause or working for them as a terrorist.
British usage on WikipediaUnfortunatley, I've ran into trouble (in the past) trying to push for British usage. The biography articles like Sean Connery (for example), refuse to use British. GoodDay ( talk) 16:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC) If Rab-k thinks Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales & England are/were the only states to merge into a larger state? He's incorrect. GoodDay ( talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yep, British should be the usage. GoodDay ( talk) 14:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe MI-5 poisoned Tallulah through her lipstick & cigarettes. S2grand ( talk) 22:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)s2grand
What are you? Hall Monitor for the day??!! While I was researching other material to add to a new section some busybody has to stick his or her nose in in the next minute. That's why the info was at the end. It's enough to make people quit contributing!!!
Just a notification, but it appears that 219.23.5.48 ( talk · contribs)--who seemed obsessed with plane crashes--has returned as 125.200.168.91 ( talk · contribs) -- CalendarWatcher ( talk) 09:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Please stop vandalising the marriage page.
I have replied to your RfA query about which areas might be a good place to get started garnering the requisite experience. I hope it helps. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers! Wisdom89 ( T / C) 20:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Cosmic Latte. I have closed your Request for Adminship per WP:NOTNOW as it was unlikely to succeed at the time. Please do not take it personally, as it was nothing against you. If you gain more experience and become active in more projects, I am confident you will succeed in the future, should you choose to submit another request. In the meantime, you may consider taking up Editor Review or Admin coaching, if you haven't already. If you have any other questions about my closure, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers, -- Mizu onna sango15/ 水女珊瑚15 21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC).
Hey, I just wanted to say that I appreciated your effort to present yourself in the RfA process. Please let me know when you plan to give it another go. I believe that time is your ally and that you will be a fine admin in the near-future. Be well. Ecoleetage ( talk) 07:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
how is he not notable? he was a former footballer who has made professional league appearances in the past, which is the football notability guideline here on wikipedia, other people of this genre has been added to the death lists in the past and kept, so why not him? 86.148.189.82 ( talk) 21:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
You went a little too far adding a last warning on this IP. It was the IP's 1st vandalism warning since November last year. I think a uw-1 would be better.( Planecrash111 ( talk) 02:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC))
Hah thanks for the typo fix, be a bit of a struggle to achieve a neural point of view :)
Can you provide me with a link to the AfD discussion for this article? I can't find it; I'm probably just missing it. Tan | 39 15:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey. Episode 51. Go. Listen. Comment. Enjoy. WODUPbot 04:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Don't want these notifications anymore? Remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. Thank you for your fine message. Yes, please keep me updated on your activities. You will be a fine administrator in the not-too-distant future. Ecoleetage ( talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC) 20th century boundary revert.Thanks. Unfortunately, he tagged all the other (AD) centuries and millennia also. I think I've got all of them. Perhaps we should create a template, but that would have to violate the AD/Common era "cease fire". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I see the subject interests you. I don't know if this is from an observers POV or as a practitioner, but in 1976 when I held a vigil at the Liberty Memorial Mall in Kansas City after the Republican National Convention (Ref: Kathleen Patterson, 'Prophet Chooses Park for Vigil', The Kansas City Times, 13 September, 1976, pg 3A and Robert W. Butler, 'Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction', The Kansas City Times, 2 November, 1976) I enjoyed frequent access to drop into the studio of a local night radio talk show. One time an astrologist by the name of Gars Austin was on the line from Texas giving brief chart readings based only on the birth date of callers. Coming up to a news break and not knowing me, from the studio I asked if he could do a more in depth reading based on my birth at 8am Sunday morning in Montreal May 21, 1944. The talk show host, the listeners and I were amazed with what he came back with. I asked if the charts showed anything significant around February 1, 1975 the date of my Spiritual resurrection. He didn't know anything about that. We were all surprised when he said, "According to my chart, on that date you had a very powerful Spiritual experience." From that time I had to give more credence to what is written in the stars. Peace DoDaCanaDa ( talk) 13:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC) I see the discussion to appeal the deletion of Nucular but can't see how to participate. The "edit this page" tab doesn't do the job. Would you kindly divulge the mysteries? Thanks. Thirdbeach ( talk) 20:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Would you consider adding any input to our proposal regarding the DSM-IV. Input is being collected on our talk page. Thanks! Mindsite ( talk) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your support at my RFA, which has now closed as a success. And thank you for your comments about my answer to question 3: outstanding in its thoroughness and thoughtfulness... I'm blushing as I type this!. Seriously though, your support means a great deal to me. As for the issue you raised about magic secrets - I am in aggreement that secrets should be just that: secret. However, the compromise situation that we have of removing unsourced secrets is about as good as we can get at the moment. Maybe in time we will be able to get all secrets removed, and I am quite happy to champion the cause then. But for the moment, wikicalm has settled on this contentious issue, and I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie. Hmmm... any other mixed metephors that I can add to that last sentence? Once again, thanks for your support. StephenBuxton ( talk) 16:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The dictionary is not at the summary page, its at the publication page. If you click on "more information" you will see the official entry. Here. Next time you mock one of the most important mental health research groups, at least get your information correct. Ottava Rima ( talk) 21:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm just a little confused about why you changed your mind. You're original support was: "An intelligent, honest editor with firm knowledge of admin-related topics and a clear potential to use admin privileges to maintain the integrity of WP:MED, should he so choose. Answered questions thoroughly, candidly, and downright impressively." And Dean B's opposition was: "Don't really want to pile-on, when the user seems a good Wikipedian with excellent intentions. But as well as points raised above, looking through the contribs I don't see evidence the user actually talks and works with others. An admin should be a leader, someone who can work with disparate people and help them work together, a conciliator. An admin has to resolve disputes, to do that you need to be able to understand other points of view. Can I suggest you get involved in some article work and try and act like an admin in adminny places. You don't need the tools to be a leader here." Considering I don't believe his oppose was based upon anything substantial, I have replied to his oppose and I'd like you to review it to see what you think. Contrary to Dean B's beliefs, I have contributed to article work (as backed up there by another user) and have had lots of contact with other users. Thanks for your time, happy editing! — CycloneNimrod Talk? 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
And thank you for trusting me :) Happyme22 ( talk) 05:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I have indented your RFA vote of Cyclonenim 2 in Neutral section as you moved to support. This will fix numbering. I hope you dont mind -- Tinu Cherian - 09:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Cosmic Latte, an edit war seems to be developing between me and Commodore Sloat on the Sigmund Freud article. Your comments/intervention would be welcome. Skoojal ( talk) 09:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for expressing your opinion about retention of the article on " Mononymous persons." There is a parallel discussion going on concerning the category " Category:Mononymous persons," at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_12#Category:Mononymous _persons, if you would care to express your views there. It seems to me that it would be a shame if the article were kept but the category were deleted. Thank you. Nihil novi ( talk) 06:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
On July 21, Cosmic deleted a contribution which sourced Gary West and Mr Pop History. Cosmic opinioned - who's Gary West? and "what was the buying power of a 13-year-old in 1959?" If Cosmic only looked at the site sourced. It would have taken about one minute. I'm the author of the site, now over 14,000 pages of Pop culture week-by-week content from the 1950's through the 2000's. I've also answered about 1400 questions in a weekly print column, which is also available on the site. And, I'm published and heard on national radio. The research has taken about 10 years and about 54,000 hours (1800 weeks x 3 hours each). All off-line. By the time its done - I'm looking at close to 2400 weeks. That's a lot of content from one person. I love doing it. But, hey - you asked! On the sourced site, Mr. Pop History, Cosmic would have learned pop culture evolved from the buying power of baby boomer teens. That buying power was approaching around $1 billion in 1959. And, wouldn't it be nice to know that Dick Clark was the first, true - modern pop culture icon? The wiki-definition of pop culture is a little abstract for the average student to just source. It needs points in pop culture history - names and trends. God-forbid someone who knows this stuff take the time to contribute. Unlike 99.9999% of Wiki entries, I put my name and source place up there (Wiki won't let you put a link - god forbid - so I sourced myself in name only in the paragraph). The idea - so the reader could see where it came from! If I'm wrong, I'll gladly take the responsibility. But, Wiki doesn't work that way. If my factoids are wrong, I get e-mails from readers. And believe me, I've gotten it wrong sometimes. I also made a slight contribution - on the Rolling Stones page. That their first U.S. concert was in San Bernardino, CA. (Swing auditorium). And, it got deleted. What in the world is wrong with you guys??? Same thing - my name and source name. No links. What I do not understand about Wiki and editors like Cosmic, who know very little about what they edit out from those who work hard. I was reluctant to add this fact, because Wiki has a terrible time - and seems to be confused about the real deal. I know several authors and experts who dare not post on Wiki for this very reason. Now I see, first hand - why! What's amazing is - The Pop Culture Wiki page, says, "Please help improve the article." How in the world can you ask this when you've got "editors" deleting decent contributions from those who do and give-a-hoot. And, so much of what's considered pop culture on WIKI can be added to. A ton of factoids. Here's my real name. You can hold me accountable for anything on these sites. Gary West - www.mrpopculture.com www.mrpophistory.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.155.16 ( talk) 00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask. Cheers! J.delanoy gabs adds 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC) Hello there! New: Episode 58: Wikimania 2008, Jimbo and Reflections. Have a listen. Also, if you haven't heard, all of the other Wikimania episodes are up and accessible through the homepage at http://wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. WODUPbot 09:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Cosmic Latte, I have removed your unnecessary addition of the Freud bibliography to the Freud talk page - please do not restore it, since it serves no purpose, and talk page bloat is already a serious problem, thanks to my arguments with csloat. Skoojal ( talk) 02:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the investment of good faith there; I really appreciated that. It looks like the admin thing didn't come together for me, but in the end it might be for the best — after all, I can find a million other ways to pitch in, and we can't all be admins. Looking forward to working w/ you in the future! Mr. IP 《 Defender of Open Editing》 14:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a movement afoot to delete " Category:Mononymous entertainers," at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 31 — item 1.13. (There is also, slightly below that — item 1.16 — an analogous effort with regard to Category:Mononymous porn actors.) Nihil novi ( talk) 08:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Current venue: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 6, item 1.3: Category:Mononymous persons. Nihil novi ( talk) 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, if you don't mind my asking, what exactly is your academic and/or professional background? You seem to have extensive knowledge in about a zillion different areas, and I must say I'm quite impressed. Excellent work throughout the MDD article, by the way. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 17:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59: An Interview with Sue Gardner at Wikimania 2008 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page (at least one listener thought this could be the best interview ever), and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. WODUPbot 01:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Saw your comment on an RFA, I'm not sure, but it sounds like you're thinking of Doug Stanhope's bit about CNN polls. "Do you think there will be a terrorist attack at the Olympics? 74% thought there would not be, 23% thought highly likely, 3% say don't know. YOU ALL DON'T FUCKING KNOW!!! There should be a big old pizza pie of no fucking clue whatsoever." If that sounds about right that's him. - Optigan13 ( talk) 08:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH ( talk) 10:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC) I thought the previous discussions (entertainer/porn actor) were closed in error by a biased admin. I feel this even more at this junction. How do you assess this process? (I'm querying Nihil novi similarly.) __ meco ( talk) 14:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60: Diplopedia has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page, and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. CL, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. I like the equation. :) If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Deletion guidelines for administrators don't seem to be directly relevant because DRV is a procedural review and not yet another deletion discussion. Insofar as they are relevant, then just as no consensus in a deletion discussion leaves things the way they were, and so too at DRV. That which was kept stays kept, that which was deleted stays deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
— JGHowes talk - 19 August 2008 Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61: Corpus_Linguistics has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 06:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Once major depressive disorder is FA, then we can do borderline personality disorder and really go to town on therapies...I was planning to do that, but when there was a sponateous surge at mdd, I figured striking while the iron was hot was prudent....Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words! I'm thinking I'll give it another go sometime between this and this. :-) The whole experience was informative, but nerve-wracking. Cheers! TN‑ X- Man 14:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
-- Smashville BONK! 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your support on my RFA! It was unsuccessful, but I appreciate your feedback. And thanks for the stated agreement that it was a good thing that I took a wikibreak – I concur ;). I hope to see you around Wikipedia, and I wish you the best,-- daniel folsom 03:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC) Cosmic Latte: there is a serious disagreement between myself and other editor (Esterson) over the Freud article; it's discussed on the talk page. I would strongly urge you to take an interest in this matter. Skoojal ( talk) 08:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 62 has been released. It's the first episode since Wikimania and it packs a lot of content! You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.
Hi Cosmic Latte. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, — αἰτίας • discussion• 23:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Are we at a point where the treatment section of Major depressive disorder can be trimmed down to a summary with links to Treatment for depression, Psychotherapy, Antidepressant, and Electroconvulsive therapy? -- Ronz ( talk) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 63, an interview with Florence Devouard, has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 06:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. Hello, this message is to inform you that User:Foxy Loxy has restarted their RfA. The new discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. Glass Cobra 09:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Cosmic Latte, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again, Spencer T♦ C 02:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC) One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so. I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.— Kww( talk) 05:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I much appreciate your vote of support in my recent RfA. Thank you for the trust. Lazulilasher ( talk) 23:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! All the best, Ale_Jrb talk 20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC) I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC) Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again-- Jac16888 ( talk) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC) I was thinking of a double or triple nom, as you me and Paul Gene had been the most active at a collective push to get this one to FA. I think we are just about there. You around much? Cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 22:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for your edit there. You comments on the issue of relevance (see recent history) would be appreciated. Katzmik ( talk) 09:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Hey wat was wrong with them adding the death of kurt cobain....? he did die on april 5th 1994.... so shudnt he be recognized just like every other famous person....?
Relyt420 ( talk) 18:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Please consider pitching in here Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Hello! Good news, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 64 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. "Instalment" is the standard British spelling. See [1]. No biggie, just letting you know. (For what it's worth, Raul654 ( talk · contribs), among others, made the same mistake.) — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on the AFD. I was busy cleaning up the bad writing when you dragged up those sources, making my job to clean things up just that little bit easier. Have a bunch of "thank you"-flowers for the trouble. -
Mgm|
(talk) 12:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 65: Censorship while you sleep has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. I'll try to take a look, but I've been rather busy lately. It might be a few days, though. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 02:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC) Please try to help avoid restarting problematic issues on the FAC: I'm aware of the notifications and I know what WP:CANVASS says. If you've been unjustly accused of canvassing, that can be addressed directly with that editor. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody My talk 02:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Brave of you to put yourself up for it! Don't let yourself be put off from carrying on with MDD. Fainites barley 08:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC) Hello! As a previous reviewer of Primate at FAC it would be great if you could have another look at the article. The FAC has been restarted, and any comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Jack ( talk) 17:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 66: Searching High and Low has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 07:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. There is a special tool which shows you page sizes? Would you like to know how to use it? Snowman ( talk) 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Could you drop me an email if you get a chance? You can use the link at my user page. Katzmik ( talk) 07:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Congrats! Fainites barley scribs 08:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey why did you revert my new section there??? i didn't delete any other messages!-- 62.158.69.232 ( talk) 13:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
You made what I thought were some constructive comments on the talk page ... can I convince you to look over the project page and consider making appropriate edits? I think that the community would support making it a policy when certain issues are worked through - specifically:
I hope you will give it some thought and see what improvements you can make, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 67: Fundraising Interview has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 07:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. As a note, I've reduced the number of parties in your recent request to yourself, Guido and William M. Connolley. It's unusual to list all the participants in a debate and has led to confusion (also reducing the probability that the appeal will be heard). Please feel free to revert if you disagree with the rationale. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
THANKS FOR BRINGING ME UP (YOU WRTE THAT IT HAD BEEN BROUGHT UP--NOT THAT YOU DID IT). I GUESS MY OBSERVATIONS ON *SOME* WIKIPEDIANS HIT HOME WITH YOU. LOVE HWO YOU SAID I HAD ATTACKE *ALL* WIKIPEDIANS. I WILL BE SURE TO INCLUDE YOU, HOWEVER. WORRY NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.221.159 ( talk) 13:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
A Nobody
My talk is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow! Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message. An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel ( talk) 01:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC) W00t w00t! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 68: Wikipedia's Nicotine High has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and even subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 12:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. It is not my intention to keep shooting you down, so I want to explain this—third—reversion. I long since checked all the available online reliable sources I could for the Heather O'Rourke article. Neither the IMDb nor TV.com meet the muster for a reliable source as they're both user-contributed resources, similar in nature to a wiki. I previously brought up "The Memorial Site" to the reliable sources noticeboard and it was consensus that it may be legitimate, but doesn't vet for the information available: too much of the information on the site can be found patently incorrect, and ergo cannot be used as a reliable secondary source for our Wikipedia biography. As I cannot find either "Heather Michele O’Rourke" or "Heather Michelle O'Rourke" in a suitable Google News or Google Scholar search, I'm only left with web results. While the former has more hits (a plethora being copies of a previous version of the Wikipedia article), the latter is where all of our repeatedly accepted, published, reliable sources are found. You're right, "Michelle" probably is her middle name, there's just no explicit references for this; The New York Times, Yahoo! Movies, and the Turner Classic Movies database all list this as "Alternate Name" or "Also Credited As" or "AKA" respectively. There's no listing at a suitably reliable source for her full name to include this. Keep an eye out if you will, I'm not perfect by any means. But either bring it up at the talk page first, or don't get upset if I or somebody else removes/reverts it. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC) How do you do? I feel rather inferior when watching your own user page compared to mine. Anyway, in the James Horner article's last edit summary, you wrote: "again, rm unsourced, original commentary apparently intended to devalue the defense of this composer". Now considering the fact the article states this "Some believe it truly compromises the merits of Horner's music, while others feel it is a minor problem that has been exaggerated, and a common practice generally inclusive of other composers." Doesn't that sound as an unsourced original commentary as well? Of course, I'm a dummy for this kind of thing, so you may know much better about this than I do. Just a slight thought, nothing hostile. Thanks! -- Surten ( talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Surten
Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69: Sixth Sense and 70: Under the Microscope have been released. You can listen and comment at their pages ( 69, 70) and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 06:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.
A Nobody
My talk has smiled at you! Smiles promote
WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing!
If you're already familiar with policy, please excuse the template. Tom Harrison Talk 23:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Refuted to your satisfaction or not, if you keep reverting someone will report it and request arbitration enforcement. Since you're otherwise doing some good work, as with the billions-of-dollars-worth phrasing, I'd rather not see you banned from the page. Tom Harrison Talk 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I was trying to figure out how to phrase it properly, but couldn't seem to place my finger on the right word. Its 1am, I'm sleepy. :) The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 08:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, when you do [[Category:xxy|abc]] The article appears at "category:xxy" listed under the name "abc" If you had looked inside Category:Comets, you would have noticed that this is how comets are categorized. 76.66.193.90 ( talk) 12:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
The next time you consider removing well-sourced statements arbitrarily, discuss it first. Thank you! -- bender235 ( talk) 20:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
-- Addbot ( talk) 00:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Maen. K. A. ( talk) 22:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Because it was about age, not race. I also have concerns about his notability. These were views expressed in a TV documentary, but have they met the standard of his academic peers? I am not sure whether he is jus expressing a wack form of social constructionism rather than criticizing it ... This is why i m also concened about whether is is an established significant view (have other anthropologoist considered and debated this view, is it shared by others)? that said I find the views interesting, I really do, although they seem to belong in the article on social construction as he is making a point about social constructionist views in general. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 71: We have no shame has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode page, and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC) You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list. User try to bias article, removing relevant and sourced facts, most probably also using sock puppet. No respect for guidlines. This user is editing the Komondor dog article under one name, User:Meoconne [2] Probably also edits the article Komondor as User:Lynovella and IP adress 70.121.204.57. Provides third oppinion on Komondor issues and edit war, on talk page under name, User:Lynovella which he or she presents as Thid Person Arbritation, misspelled. (Lynovella also claiming that average height has never been removed). Combined IP adress :70.121.204.57 and red link User:Meoconne repeatedly reverted edits at Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and Komondor dog breed, non-NPOV edits. Remove edits from the Komondor article such as : No upper height limit is given. [1] and other relevant and sourced edits such as the dog breeds average height (most possible influenced by personal bias). Both average height (sourced) has been removed, (several times), [3] [4] [5], [6] [7] [8] upper limit height (sourced) [9], [10] mentioning other similar Hugarian sheepdogs [11], which all of them are extremely relevant information for this encyclopaedia article on this dog breed, and when we (and even ClueBot) [12] [13] [14] [15] put them back he keeps removing them [16], and produce a lot of unhelpful edits isntead [17], removing reference title [18], [19] without any consensus. This qualifies as Wikipedia:Edit war, disruptive editing, [20], [21]copright violation, from the FCI Komondor Standards [22], poorly formulated edits added in upper case, bias, non-NPOV edits Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and [23] most probably sockpuppetry by same editor, the above mentioned newly created new red link user accounts all editing the same articles, Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show Komondor and Alpha Omega Epsilon. They are all concentrated on the same issue at Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show and Komondor dog breed, trying to adjust the article in a certain way. Namely that the breed is smaller than it acctually is and it is more like a certain dog the accounts and IP might be related to, or like, which accounts calls Ouincy, thoug they deny this. It is also possible that the account User:Goldie102 has been created to support this issue around this dog, see edit [24]. Which is a smaller Komondor dog with a longer body than the standard call for. They were trying to ignore breed standard, and other sources and pictures presented in argumentation. This breed beeing fairly unknown, not many people check that article, or try to defend it from bias . I would like report them as sockpuppets but it looks like only administrators can do that. Warrington ( talk) 21:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
References Greetings Cosmic I was wondering about the revision that you made to my revision regarding the oath of office. I hope that you do not believe me to be a vandal, by any means. I was pondering how my contribution was unnecessary or unclear. Thanks Elgreggo11 ( talk) 04:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Elgreggo11
I've probably been just as guilty of this as you, but going back and forth between versions of stem cell controversy doesn't do much good when the vandal is obviously enjoying it. Better to wait until an administrator shows up. :-) Natural Cut ( talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. What do you mean my last warning? Warning for what? I am allowed to link the truth. What's wrong with libs? Liberalism in the USA is a sickness. You people are like adult children. When are you ever going to grow up? Don't you realize that you are the laugh of the nation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.174.227 ( talk) 17:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, facts. It is a fact that liberalism is a sickness. Just look at them. Obama, Barney Fwank, Hillary, Turbo Tax Cheat Geihtner, Puff Daschelle. All of them are sick and unstable. Normal adults don't think and behave like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.174.227 ( talk) 18:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC) By NuclearWarfare ( Talk) on 19:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC) I would appreciate it if you would stop harassing me, and stop trying to vandalize my page. none of your supposive violations you mentioned existed, it is a common left wing attempt to harass and intimidate conservative users. Further acts of harassment and vandalize will be reported, and if you are an admin a request for dyssop will be sent. Neophytesoftware ( talk) 18:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Sir, I wanted to thank you for your assistance in helping to restore some civility to the debate in the AfD article. It has gotten very contentious; my Goodness, if I had known what this would wreak... anyway, I do sincerely appreciate it. Thank you. Ks64q2 ( talk) 05:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I thought you were asking if organization was spelt organization so I replied in edit summary saying UK english but realise now that you were not spell checking. I just thought that you might be wondering at my edit summary. No need to reply. :-) Good job on improving the major depressive disorder article by the way!-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Cosmic, please stop reverting to misleading information in the Bernard Madoff article. He gave almost 90% of his donations to Democrats so its misleading to say he gave to both parties. He gave mostly to Democrats. If you don't like how I've phrased it please modify it, but this is an encyclopedia and providing accurate information is important regardless of your political bias. Thanks. ChildofMidnight ( talk) 17:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits on Roman Polanski. Touché, there is no need to get into salacious details! Even though Wikipedia is uncensored, sometimes you have to use common sense. Thanks again. LA Movie Buff ( talk) 16:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
1st - You are entirely correct, and my use of rollback for that was an error. I should have reverted in detail, there were not that many edits. 2nd - Thank you very much for your edits there at Polanski. 3rd - I hope you will accept my sincere apologies. I believe this is the 3rd time I have erred in using rollback, and I very much hope it will be the last. I can only assure you that I will do my best. All the best in your continuing Wikipedia-ing endeavors. sinneed ( talk) 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello Cosmic Latte, I have noticed your productive editing recently from afar and thus it is nice to meet you. Additionally, through my watch pages I have noticed an ongoing disagreement between you and User:Luis Napoles on Cuba related topics (a subject matter which I heavily edit and deeply interests me as well). I have sent a message to Luis about many of the issues which I believe you may have also had disagreements with him on. I include it here so that you can possibly add to the discussion, or merely be aware that another editor shares some of your same concerns. It is my hope that a neutral solution can be met, which I believe/hope to be your goal as well. Thanks Redthoreau ( talk)RT 04:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Please be more careful in your citation of scientific fact. Citing an article which quotes a scientific study is perfectly fine if the citation refers to the actual quotes. Using the conclusions drawn by the actual citation is not acceptable since the authors are not scientists and therefore do not constitute a reliable source. To avoid this problem, I suggest you restrict yourself to citing articles peer-reviewed journals. CapitalElll ( talk) 00:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Links to articles which explain why the person was imprisoned are highly relevant in the article Black Spring (Cuba). If you don't like red links, you may change or remove them and them only. However, Wikipedia:Red link says "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished". Luis Napoles ( talk) 20:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I copy-edited to add some info, but you may disagree, or may partially agree.
Yeah, this is random and stalkerish, but trust me when I have a reason for asking: where do you edit from? (City and country would be nice, but whatever you feel comfortable telling is fine.) You can just shoot me an email or reply here. It's for a project I have to do involving wikipedia articles and editing patterns, nothing special, but I'll let you see it when I'm finished :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 14:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC) Hi, I didn't understand the reason for your recent edit at WP:NOR. It looks interesting and I would appreciate it if you'd give more details at WT:NOR. Thanks. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 23:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello Cosmic Latte: Your reversal of my additions and edits to the Psychology page appears to be unjustified. I believe I can comment on undergraduate education in psychology, having been a psychology professor for 15 years. Moreover, the fact that most psychology majors learn about Freud in history classes is widely known among academics. There is nothing contentious in that assertion, and most any undergraduate would agree. Your comment on my addition to the "Status as a Science" is interesting, but false. Probability testing is widely employed in the natural and social sciences, a fact that is widely known. Please reconsider your deletions. As a psychology professor and researcher I don't see any point in trying to contribute to this page if innocuous and uncontroversial additions are to be vetoed and deleted. Csears77 ( talk) 15:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Further to my comment above, after reviewing a few more of your edits, my impression is that your editing is biased to present psychoanalysis in a very favourable light. Although you may be partial to this approach, I do not think it is in the best interests of readers to allow the article to adopt such a stance, given the unrepresentativeness of psychoanalytic theory to modern psychological teaching and research. Thank you for reconsidering your actions. Csears77 ( talk) 15:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your detailed response to my concerns. I appreciate your perspective. Please realize that many of my issues and concerns with this page may have nothing to do with you personally. With respect to Freud, I don't know what else I can say to reinforce the fact that Freudian psychology is merely a historical curiosity in modern university psychology departments (at least in North America). For psychology, Freud is somewhat akin to who Tycho Brahe is for astronomy -- a person who had a great impact on the discipline but whose ideas were ultimately superseded by others. Although Freud's ideas will of course be mentioned occasionally outside of courses on the history of psychology (for example, in a clinical psychology course), such references (critiques) are almost always designed to illustrate how far the field has advanced from 19th century theorizing. Even in the history classes one will learn that Freud had surprisingly little impact in academic psychology from the 1920's and beyond, once behaviorism came on to the scene (surprising given the popular conception today that psychology is dominated by Freudians). Part of the reason Freud's ideas were largely abandoned is because they are unfalsifiable, a fact recognized long ago by philosophers of science such as Karl Popper and others (Popper actually used Freud's theories as an example of an unfalsifiable theory). With the advent of positivism, behaviorism, and experimental psychology, psychoanalysis was left behind, transformed into a niche therapeutic technique for those with the necessary money and time. With respect to Freud's ideas on consciousness, I can tell you that Freud is treated the same way in cognitive psychology courses (as a history lesson), having taught such courses for 15 years using standard cognition textbooks. Again, this is largely because his ideas were either untestable or unfalsifiable, or both. Modern research on consciousness has virtually nothing to do with Freud, and a casual glance through a few standard cognition textbooks will demonstrate this. And I have never encountered a reference to "depth psychology" in any published journal article on consciousness or in any undergraduate text, junior or advanced. With these facts in mind, my read of the article is that it is biased to present psychoanalysis in a very favorable light. Again, I do not think it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to allow the article to adopt such a stance, given the unrepresentativeness of psychoanalytic theory to modern psychological teaching and research. It seems to me that Wikipedia articles should strive to correct misconceptions and stereotypes, not reinforce them. With respect to statistical inference in psychology, my point was really rather simple. The wording of that section criticized psychology research for using probability tests, as if psychology was unique in this respect. My addition was simply meant to point out that such techniques are widespread in the social and natural sciences and not unique to psychology. Thus, one cannot fault psychology research on this account. I interpreted the former text in that section as an erroneous criticism of psychological research, no doubt by someone who did not realize how common these statistical techniques are in all research settings. My changes simply corrected this misunderstanding. I am not sure how I could go about documenting any of these facts to the satisfaction of those who watch this page, and I am not so sure I am willing to commit the time and debating energy necessary to do so either (I certainly won't get any publication credit for it!). From my perspective, these points are completely obvious. My larger concern, again, is that the article does not provide a novice reader with an accurate portrayal of modern psychology. I am at a loss for how to correct this situation if even the relatively minor contributions of psychology professors are vetoed and deleted. My academic appointment, research, and teaching in psychology is publically documented and can be quickly verified. I am not trying to make an argument from authority here, but on the other hand, it does seem ironic that the information provided by psychologists is rather quickly dismissed in the Wikipedia Psychology article (I wonder if this is also true of the astronomers' contributions to the Astronomy article?). It seems that this Psychology article largely reflects the viewpoints of those who are willing to put a great deal of time and energy into preserving their views in the article. If true, this would be a shame and would fly in the face of Wikipedia's educational objectives. But given the nature of the editing process here I am not sure what the solution is. -- Csears77 ( talk) 17:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I have concerns about some of your edits to Zicam and have asked that other editors contribute to maintaining the article, e.g., here. I trust you do not mind wider visibility of the article but wanted to make you aware of this. Regards - Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 15:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, neutrality concerns over the criminal conviction of Chris Brown have been raised on the talk page. Since you have been previously involved in the discussion, will you answer the request for comment? Thankyou. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Ironically, perhaps only Billy (himself) could've convinced anyone to include his name at that article's death section. GoodDay ( talk) 19:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Religious folks, might say (right now) he's trying to pitch things in Heaven. GoodDay ( talk) 20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I actually didn't notice the source change under voice classification. I was trying to reestablish the non- WP:OVERLINKED lead and remove the overempahsis on his death in the last paragraph. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 00:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Just saw your recent edits to the above. If you check the documentation for {{ Infobox Musical artist}} you will see that there is no parameter for "vocal register". – ukexpat ( talk) 03:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cosmic, i also respect and appreciate your work and i agree with some your suggests. According to me, would be written that MJ won also the Grammy Legend Award, the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award and that he holds the record of most AMAs won. Furthermore, i don't sure for "he had 13 number-one singles in the United States in his solo career". Yes, United States is the most important market, but i'm not sure to include it. I think that the introduction would be more focused on his global success than on his United States success. SJ ( talk) 23:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC) I think you overlooked the part of WP:OC#SMALL that says "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." Category:Musicians by band is a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme with numberous subcategories, so Category:The Jackson 5 members is an acceptable category despite its lack of size. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh.. When I first found the page, I saw "she is crap". I thought it was you but it must have been someone else. Very sorry.
Did you know that it is often a good idea to discuss such moves BEFORE making them? Pdfpdf ( talk) 00:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It was actually SarekOfVulcan ( talk · contribs) who deleted it, so you might want to check in with him. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC) You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. SarekOfVulcan ( talk) 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC) I dont understand what this is about User:Kevin Wahlberg User:Chace Watson User:Omoak Fendia and these edits [26] and [27]. Are you able to offer any advice or insight for me Earlypsychosis ( talk) 20:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Biology of obsessive–compulsive disorderIf the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding
Hi there : ) Thanks very much for the constructive and well-thought out arguments you presented in the Talk:Propofol page. I was getting worn out trying to counter the incessant arguments in favour of the word abuse. Nice work! InternetMeme ( talk) 12:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I've noticed that a member of the propofol discussion ( User:Bevinbell) has recently edited Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Drugs to include the word "abuse". The edit was subsequent to our discussion regarding propofil. Is this good practice?
GA reassessment of Hayley WestenraI have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Hayley Westenra/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells ( talk) 20:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC) Hi, the person keeps reverting to the wrong version and that deletes all the information I've gathered and add to it. I wasted many hours by adding information and there is no way anyone can say the sources are unreliable. This Tajik guy is a racist and he's doing everything possible to destroy Pashtun articles. This is his personal way to settle scores with Pashtuns, people he hates. Every article I fix is right away visited by him or other Shias like him, it's like invasion of Shias attacking Pashtuns in Wikipedia and this very frustrating, and is being ignored by everyone. I wish there was some kind of rule here to stop people from one race or ethnicity going around editting articles of another "specific ethnicity" whom they are rival to, unless they agree. This will reduce such disputes and edit-wars. For example, if an article is relating to Hindus and there is a Hindu and a Chinese editors but they can't agree on something then the Chinese should follow a rule to stop editing the Hindu article. I explained in great detail my proofs and evidences at Talk:Muhammad of Ghor and Talk:Ghurids but he and his Shia buddies do not accept a single piece of my argument. He also removed lots of my hard work from Amir Kror Suri. I realized that I have not a single problem with anyone, from any other country on earth, or any other religions, it's just these Iranian (Tajik) Shias who are not leaving me alone. They don't accept any source which doesn't go with their POV.-- 119.73.6.24 ( talk) 23:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
You're being very WP:BOLD but making a bunch of changes which will be difficult to REPAIR eg, you removed the line about 'unverified' with this comment: rm obvious; of course the reports were "unverified", hence all of the suspense Which fundamentally misreads or misunderstands the point - which is that the media were NOT regarding the question as uncertain, until it was retrospective. However, this does need a cite to not be WP:OR. I am about to put back the txt that you claim is a synthesis - it's not, its basic calculations which are premitted - if anything the site howthingswork cite should have been excluded is all.-- Jaymax ( talk) 19:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Hi, I reverted your edit because it selectively removed a lot of relevant content. The article is not a featured article candidate. I feel the reference is a good quality reference as it was conducted by the Australian government. The other reason that I reverted was because I believe that you were trying to accomodate one of several sockpuppets of The Sceptical Chymist. I have filed a sockpuppet investigation here regarding this behaviour. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Sceptical Chymist If you are opposed to my revert, I am sure that we can reach some sort of a compromise.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, looks like this drama is not over yet. If you do not mind can I ask you to read this section, Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#benzodiazapine_drug_misuse.2C_lack_of_credible_sourcing and comment. This guy is threatening me now with arbcom over this issue. Another disruptive editor, ugh.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC) My contribution has several sources. I believe I have a valid point, and should not be censored. H1N1 is a serious viral infection, and should not be taken lightly. Just because you think that the news is a hoax, does not changed the fact that there is serious public concern over the spread of this virus. The child vomiting is indicative of the H1N1 virus. My edits are not vandalism. There are several possible explanations for the child vomiting, he may have been upset, or seriously ill. I believe all opinions should be fairly expressed. Just because you disagree, does not mean my contribution is vandalism. Sadman64 ( talk) 02:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
→Hoax allegations and criminal investigation: and this one fails WP:SELFPUB in a flash)
Two questions re: 2012 phenomenonYour edits to the lead left me wondering on two counts. First, shouldn't the 2012 film be listed in the lead, as it has its own section in the article and second, why are you watering down the counterclaims to the pseudoscience? As of right now, the article essentially reads as follows. "Some people claim the sky is green. Others assert, however, that it is blue." Serendi pod ous 17:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Cosmic. The rather troublesome Canto 2009 has deleted the social psychology (sociology) article and replaced it with a web of redirects, presumably in order to lose the information. Can you find this article anywhere? He's clearly tried to wipe it under the carpet completely. -- Tomsega ( talk) 10:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Per MOS:BIO: Nationality - the country of which the person was a citizen when the person became notable. Hopkins became a U.S. citizen in 2000, as is already noted in the lead section. Unless he didn't become notable until after 2000, the proper descriptor is Welsh. He passed criteria for notability in the 1960s. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 13:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually shortly before his death in 1997 Viktor Frankl was involved in trying to get his proposed Statue of Responsibility built, but as of today they don't have much of any funding, haven't picked a location, and are basically going nowhere fast. I personally don't think that a 'proposed' statue, and one Austrian man's personal opinion of the symbolism of an existing statue, are notable enough to be listed in the Statue of Liberty article itself. It's got it's own article as it is. OptimumPx ( talk) 00:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
You might want to consider deleting "and wherever the band clearly is being referred to as a single entity rather than as a plurality of members" from your list of exceptions. Look again at each case in your own edit that got revertedd, I think you may agree that this becomes rather nebulous. Wouldn't it be better to allow common sense and WP practice to prevail rather than trying to define the exception. 87.114.175.74 ( talk) 15:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
It makes more sense to say common year starting on Friday instead of common year that started on Friday. Homerjay90 ( talk) 19:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Say it either way (starting on, that started on, or began on). However, in the 2008 and 2009 articles, please omit 2008th 2009th year of AD/CE, 8th 9th year of 3rd millennium and 21st century. Many of the previous year articles on Wikipedia don't have that information. Usually, this info is almost only for the ongoing year. 71.33.56.252 ( talk) 19:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I just wanted to take the time to wish you and your family a Happy New Year!-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC) thank you for this information: [31]. i am thinking you are maybe right but i am not understanding this one all. that is okay with me. thank you for explaineing. 74.234.47.199 ( talk) 02:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Can you pls let me know the reason for deleting my edit on the article for the movie Avatar? http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Avatar_(2009_film)&action=history I had just added links to the reviews of a movie discussion board which has professional reviewers as well and there is a separate score for them. dd Movie Buff ( talk) 15:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Hi CL. That editor is rather persistent with his pronunciation stuff. I've given him a formal template warning regarding 3RR on top of the more conciliatory one you've given him, but nothing seems to work. Should we proceed through formal channels? Favonian ( talk) 20:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
you are mising the idea so i will try to explain beter to you. i am wondering first by what you say in second edit sumary if maybee you are young. what is happning IS very very new and is very clear to us who are more than fifties years old. in past persons yes are cawt doing things not suposed to be doing. when this happens in past these peoples disapear and are no more in public. if are elected persons they resign from office they are holding. if are movie stars they are geting no more movies to make. this beginned to change before 2000s but idea is still part of thinking of most persons before 2000. when President clinton scandal first happen in winter 1998 the talker heads on tv (both democrats and replubicans) say he is finished. most predict he will resign in only a week or two because of shame. he survive of course. but now in 2000s more then this is hapening. some people are becomeing famous BECAUSE they are doing such things. NO BODY knows who is paris hilton until she has sex tapeing on internet. in past times her family would be saying to her to hide away and not be in public at all and hope someday she can have quiet normal life. but in 2000s it is not this like. in sted she becomes POPLAR for this thing that before would destroy her repetaton. this is a BIG diferent than before 2000s and is biger change in culture than many things in aritcle now. one other thing you say: my refrences dont mention 2000s decade. i am looking at refrences for other facts in aritcle and MOST do not menton this decade. the refrences only show the informaton is true. it is not being needed for refrenceing to menton the decade (let me know if i am misundrestands you). thank you for takeing time to gived your reasons in edit sumrarays and also for reading my words here. 70.153.230.93 ( talk) 02:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
User Flyer22 has suggested on WT:MoS that WP:LQ may need to be rephrased to avoid misinterpretations such as occurred on the Avatar film article. I'm not confident that this is necessary, but if you have any input on the way WP:LQ is interpreted or could be improved, please take a look at WT:MoS#Needed_help_regarding_WP:Logical_quotation. Also, I think you were absolutely right to bring the matter up on the Av talk page. It was about the article, not about Flyer22 and putting the discussion there gave other editors a chance to see and contribute. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 19:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I have proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years that we have two kinds of decade articles - one in which the events of a decade are listed ("List of events of the 1940s"), and another shorter decade that takes a top-down approach and explain the main themes and character of the decade ("1940s"). Please share with the community your views or suggestions. Kransky ( talk) 10:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC) I'm curious cosmic what other word would you prefer beside "transcended"? Do you have an alternative? Cheers A Star Is Here ( talk) 02:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
You make a valid point but "were recognized across generational, racial and cultural boundaries" sound like its not happening anymore and MJ even in death countinues to break records and boundaries. How about an alternative perhaps? Maybe " His distinctive musical style, vocal style, and choreography continues to be recognized across generational, racial, and cultural boundaries." What do you think? A Star Is Here ( talk) 02:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Nothings better then compromise Cosmic. Thanks! A Star Is Here ( talk) 03:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC) You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. Thank you for your level-headed input. What a breath of fresh air. GnarlyLikeWhoa ( talk) 05:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC) From the edit summary you left in your edits to Reincarnation, it looks like you think that legitimate academic research by psychiatrists and psychologists cannot be called "parapsychology". If that is the case, perhaps parapsychology would be worth reading. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
I seem to have found a message on my talk page that slipped under the radar. I don't really remember the specific article content issues that precipitated it, but you had asked a question about some material on my user page I found interesting to rant about. Just so I am not talking to myself I thought I would let you know I replied, 6 months later. Tmtoulouse ( talk) 08:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC) First, good job in eliminating unsourced speculation (I nailed one of those this AM too). Second, the unsourced text you deleted re: gender differentials in suicide rates made an essentially correct assertion. It just wasn't sourced. Ouch! I'll see if I can grab an appropriate source - but first, need to determine that the statement is even needed in the overall narrative. update - OK. That suicide statement, while correct, was not as accurate as it could have been. Much more importantly, it was a non sequitor - merely tacked onto a statement about gender and depression. Gender and suicide is addressed adequately, with sourcing, in the last paragraph of "Prognosis". Good edit. Tom Cloyd ( talk) 17:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
User:TheLittleBlackBear ( talk) 16:21, 24 April 2010 (EST) Hi I need a group of people to help me write an article which I want to ensure does not get deleted. I guess the more people you have, the less likely it can be erased! I was wondering if you could help me write an article about a certain controversial figure in US and UK history?? Contact me back and I'll tell you more ;) User:TheLittleBlackBear ( talk) 8 oclock, 25 April 2010 (EST) Hey check out my user page I replied to your message there... Thank you for your quick response! I am looking forward to working with you. This will be funn,,, :) RAWR! Hello? I want to write this article by Monday~~ I argree with your decision. Greggydude ( talk) 15:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
No problem and i agree with everything you said :) SJ ( talk) 11:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC) For all the fish, and edits. [deleted edits, wrong user page] Casimirpo ( talk) 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC) I quote your edit summary "almost certainly the ref is being _obscenely_ oversimplified. e.g., the explanation for the Holocaust is just... "race"?! and...what race would this be, anyway?" This made me cringe. How soon people forget. How can they forget? The megalomania, pure insanity. "Volk - a Master Race whose roots lie in the sacred soil fertilized for centuries by the richness of their blood" - Sound familiar? (from The specter of genocide: mass murder in historical perspective By Robert Gellately, Ben Kiernan) What race? Good grief: Aryan_race#Nazism! Note that there is no "only" in the claim. Rationalization is also not the same as "movivation" or "basis". Casimirpo ( talk) 16:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi. On 5 January 2010 you substantially edited this page. I have suggested on its Talk page that it be deleted or merged with Mood disorder. Anthony ( talk) 12:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC).
Cool !!! Whatever you have edited is simply a great stuff. I like your ideas about MJ. Aryan song ( talk) 13:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Thanks
I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing. If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages. To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed. The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC) I thought I would have a go at this now. I plan on importing a few paragraphs from article A into article B, and making A a redirect to B. Do I only need to mention the origin of the content (article A) in the edit summary when I insert it into B, or is there more to it? Anthony ( talk) 02:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Cnilep beat me to it [32] Anthony ( talk) 20:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC) You may be interested in List of legally mononymous people, and helping to expand it. Thanks, Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC) please do not deleate anything like the Manila Hostage crisis. Have you even noticed their are no picture and hardy anything for 2010. Put back Combat troups leave Iraq! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spb10 ( talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I just posted here: [Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#in_response_to_the_.22who.22_tag_.2F_weasel_word_comments] in response to your edit. I'd be grateful if you'd respond there. Thanks! Cazort ( talk) 16:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Hi, I just read the lead to Race - it has improved a lot by your participation. Thanks! I think it does a particularly good job of explaining in what sense race is socially constructed and what that means - if the rest of the article is as clear then my recent comments about the article not overstarting the point are obsolete. You've done really good work here. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cosmic Latte, not sure how the wiki messaging system works but I have a message (response) to you here ( Talk) 2:31PM, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Hi Cosmic Latte, I considered putting something on the talk page because I was afraid the edsum might seem a little terse and I wanted to make sure you knew that I thought the part you added was great (and even better all by itself). The part you fixed did imply philosophers “commonly” find anyone and everyone's concepts of soul “incoherent”, tout court. For such a diverse theological concept with such a short lead, personally, I'd shy away from tackling anything too specific but here are my thoughts... You're correct that dualism (philosophy of mind) has a long history in connection to (european) concepts of soul. And as I recall, something to the effect of eliminative materialism was introduced in the 19th century (maybe?) but in so far as the more popular debates amongst physicalists regarding reductionism/non-reductionism are much more contemporary, and not really intended to further historical monism/ dualism dialogs, (which wouldn't be considered chic for a physicalist), it seemed too anachronistic to frame the “soul” (mind) in terms of dualist and monist camps. I took it you'd agree that harboring spirits in one's ontology isn't so much at issue, but grouping non-reductionism with Cartesian substance dualism is hardly less scandalous (joke). The original poster's claim about the very idea of a soul, incorporeal entity or essence being “incoherent” reminded me of eliminative materialism (reductionism in the extreme) because they call any suggestion of a mental state incoherent, (like feeling pain or having a desire, even having an idea... so they have bigger fish to fry). Anyway, Descartes' concept of the soul/mind seems quite abstract compared to the garden variety. I think Aristotle's concepts of soul (psyche), essence, and substance were too... curiously, he was a pluralist btw, but not due to his particular(ist?) stance regarding to the question of universals lol. (At least I think that's where Aquinas pulls a rabbit out of the hat). Analytic philosophy seems like it might overwhelm such a modest lead, but I've no objection if you'd like to include philosophy of mind with an eye to its history. It's just that Dualism can't easily serve as the other camp in order to balance a Monist “philosophical position of physicalist reductionism”. Of course, it all depends on what one means by “soul” but metaphysically, even ghosts needn't be incompatible with the starkest 19th century materialism, a priori. If something like a jar of ectoplasm were to turn up at the proverbial science fair, it should win a prise. Who would have thought thunderstorms produce antimatter... there's nothing too exotic to be forced into that peculiar brand of monism, except perhaps that of non-dualism (joke).— Machine Elf 1735 09:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey there, I just wanted to let you know that your User Page is among the more interesting and edifying that I've had the pleasure of perusing. (I placed my own page in dormancy a while back on account of extended periods of absence from Wiki. But I did leave one very special graphic that you may enjoy... ) Btw, I think we are largely in agreement on grammatical issues -- which, of course, made a very favorable impression on me! :) -//- I really appreciate your highlighting the proper use of Latin plurals; I find the rampant misuse of "the media" as a singular term hugely irksome -- especially when it comes out of the mouth of a journalist! (A few years back I completely rewrote the headnote paragraphs for Category:Mass media in order to address that issue in the clearest possible terms; hopefully it has been left intact.) However, I have to say that I am perplexed by the term "agendum", as I have NEVER (to the best of my recollection) seen or heard it used in any context (literary, journalistic, academic, bureaucratic, etc.) Are you actually saying that it is flatly wrong to refer to the "agenda" for a meeting, or am I misconstruing things? Regards, Cgingold ( talk) 09:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Your accusation of obnoxious and disruptive editing is an outright affront to Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith. Furthermore, considering the topic was under discussion, I would like to know your rationale for reverting.-- Screwball23 talk 21:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Please take note of a discussion ( "Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world") about medical ELs and related issues. You may want to follow the links provided to learn more if you are so inclined. Thank you in advance. I'm not looking for more comments, as there have been many already, but you're welcome to add yours if you want to. Presto54 ( talk) 04:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC) Hi, i'd like to ask your help to review the grammar situation in this article while i review the sources; thanks. Rodrigo18 ( talk) 21:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC) Hi, Some of your edits on the Psychology page, while clearly well-intentioned and thoughtful, are changing the phrasing to make elements of psychology seem more monolithic and undisputed than they really are. It's important to leave the hedges and qualifiers, as in "some psychologists think" compared to "psychology is", because there is not consensus in the academic or practicing communities on many of these issues. For example, some psychologists believe that the purpose of psychology is to understand human mental life, regardless of whether this endeavor helps or harms people. Other psychologists think psychology is ultimately about helping people. It's misleading to remove the qualifiers. I appreciate your good intent in editing, but request that you refrain from changing the meaning while tidying up the language. (Also, thank you for the heads-up about WP policy on not marking reverts as minor... it seems like that option could be helpfully disabled for reverts). jj1236
Hi. I appreciate your input at the JE article. I hope you are satisfied with the compromises that I have suggested between our preferred versions. I think you have made some very good suggestions, although I don't really agree with your interpretation of "easter egg" - I think the article has lost some value by your removing links to articles that explain, for example, the song titles named. In any case, it is always good to have another pair of eyes. Feel free to use the talk page to bat around ideas about the article. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Hi again. I have received a notice that the fair use image of Evancho with President Obama at the National Christmas Tree lighting is proposed for deletion. I am arguing that it is a unique, historic image, because (1) Evancho was one of the youngest people (probably the youngest) ever to sing a solo at the event; and (2) the event was important to Evancho's career, since Evancho just began her career recently. I believe that the image clearly and substantially adds to the understanding of a reader of the article. Near the image, the article says "On December 9, 2010, Evancho performed at the National Christmas Tree lighting event in Washington, D.C., singing "O Holy Night", with President Obama and his family present.[78] If you wish to add to the discussion, either way, it is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_March_23#File:EvanchoPresSanta.jpg -- Ssilvers ( talk) 17:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Lede image Major depressive disorderHi. I see you are a frequent editor at Major depressive disorder and I would like to draw your attention to a discussion I have initiated on its Talk page in the light of the banned user RobvanderWaal's neutral post that this image is matter of fact one of mortality and sanctity, and not of sorrow, on van Gogh's own say so. I'm suggesting the editors should perhaps be rather using an image such as his Sorrow. A physician Bailisk has replied to some medical issues that I have re-raised as well. I frankly worry about the quality of his contributions and would be grateful if a member of the community building this article might contribute. Finally I intend to re-raise the question originally raised about this image as to whether it's really appropiate as the lede image. Granting that it apparently evokes the idea sorrow today in the viewer, why is it a lede image when in fact sorrow, anguish etc. feature only fleetingly in the article's description of symptoms. Hope this isn't socking or something. Feel free to oppose me vigorously if that's your position! Thank you LHirsig ( talk) 09:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Hello — this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band "THE BEATLES" mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. Jburlinson ( talk) 21:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC) HiI'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders. Hope to see you there! Speed Demon (song), an article that you may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.-- Tomcat ( 7) 16:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC) This is a note to let the main editors of 2012 phenomenon know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 20, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 20, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 ( talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 ( talk · contribs), Gimmetoo ( talk · contribs), and Bencherlite ( talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:
UcuchaBot ( talk) 23:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.
Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:
If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Hi, Hello, Cosmic Latte. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Hello, Cosmic Latte. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC) Greetings, Requesting you to visit lately initiated Draft:Irrational beliefs, If you find topic interested in, please do support topic expansion. Thanks and warm regards Bookku ( talk) 09:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC) Hi there, Cosmic Latte. I'm part of a group of psychologists, psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, and neuroscientists who are interested in re-activating Wikiproject Psychology and improving the psychology pages, particularly those pertaining to psychodynamic psychology, which as you know does not always get balanced treatment on Wikipedia. We are interested in a multi-disciplinary, integrative approach to psychology, not in trying to whitewash controversies or engage in hagiography of Freud, but we would like to see a clearer, more accurate representation of his important contributions, including pioneering insight-oriented psychotherapy and describing defense mechanisms like denial (which has become a real problem in the domain of public health, interfering with vaccination, etc., and should be talked about openly on Wikipedia!). We would also be able to contribute to creating a fairer, more nuanced, but also clear-eyed account of the field's long history of methodological failings and its marginalized status, which are more complex than the misleading and activist accusation of "pseudoscience." Perhaps you could help us navigate some of the anti-Freudian activism on pages like "Freud" and "Psychoanalysis," where gross violations like sockpuppetry have been an issue. For example, this user Polisher of Cobwebs, who has communicated with you above under one of his/her alleged sockpuppets, Skoojal, has written a great deal of the Freud page, engaged in edit wars to defend his/her idea that only a negative picture of Freud is balanced, and appears to still be active there. You have made important, intelligent contributions to these debates in the past and we'd value your participation. Would you like to join us or explore the possibility of working together? Hypoplectrus ( talk) 01:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||