This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Hi. That Kosovo was the secular and ecclesiastical centre of mid to late medieval Serbia is beyond dispute. The capitals were there, as was the archbishopric. See added reference. That it was the "cradle of identity', of course this was a Serb belief, subjectivity is the norm when it comes to national heritage and historical narratives (no different for any other country). The point is Serbs beleived and saw it as their "cradle" - & this belief is a reality. The sentence is not there to judge whether such a beleief was historically justified, or if other countries also believed this. Slovenski Volk ( talk) 23:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Xeworlebi ( talk) 14:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Well since a discussion is brewing down there you might be interested in the History Channel documentary on the person :). Its the only documentary ever made about him outside Yugoslavia (and I think the only documentary ever made about any Croat outside Yugoslavia :)), and features such published experts as Stevan K. Pavlowitch (Emeritus Professor of Balkan History at Southampton University, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, etc...) -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be an astute form of vandalism. I'll check the one he removed at electric shock (print-only), but I suspect he's bullshitting us. Tijfo098 ( talk) 18:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why the Cold fusion article seems to generate more controversy than other science related articles on wiki? There seem to be several RfC's and arguments Pass a Method talk 00:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Most scientists simply haven't passed judgment because they don't think that there is anything to judge. They simply assume that the CF phenomena was only a flawed experiment, that it died time ago, and that's it's a fossilized example of bad science. And then they are surprised that CF is still an active research field.
You are now warned against pushing your personal agenda at Mexican–American War. I will report you to ANI if you persist. Tony (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry to have ever involved Sandstein at this point. I feel his involvement is simply unhelpful and making things more painful and more trouble. :( -- Avanu ( talk) 01:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you somehow use all of the government links and references and citations to improve the AAFM Article. Nobody wants to whitewash the article, but rather include government links, the top US accreditation agencies, and FINRA and US Government referneces to AAFM.
Hundreds of news articles have been published about AAFM. Interpreting the one negative article as a negative event is Black Washing. Please do not black wash the AAFM Article.
Most of the information that is included in todays article was OK with you last year. Not sure why you think it should be deleted at this time?
Please help get this article right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.102.39 ( talk) 17:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
rather than RfCing it at this point I brought the issue up here at wp:NOR for further discussion. maybe we can resolve this just by talking it out. -- Ludwigs2 18:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It might now be impossible to edit this without removing or altering the link, as JzG just repeated his action of more than two years ago, unilaterally blacklisting the site, ignoring multiple decisions about copyvio to the contrary, and ignoring ArbComm's prior remedy about his use of tools while involved. I will not be able to handle this here. Thought you should know. He's also trying, again, to globally blacklist the site at meta, I suspect that won't fly this time. I'm not at all restricted at meta, and almost certainly will not be.
I've mentioned you, as I recall, very peripherally, at RfAr/Clarification. This was purely a request for lifting the topic bans for myself and Pcarbonn, but it was obviously necessary to mention JzG, as he was behind much of the mess. He seems to be pushing his point, however, with today's blacklisting. -- Abd ( talk) 17:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I've requested delisting, [2], but I'm prohibited from my topic ban from what it would take to allege usability, if that's needed. You might want to take a look. Thanks. -- Abd ( talk) 18:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The revert-warring continues. The idea of a binding RfC has gone nowhere, although you persuaded me to agree to it.
Would you be interested in cosigning (since two people have to agree to the existence of a dispute) a User RFC? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Move war over typography of en dash versus hyphen regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 06:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not appreciate being treated as a krank-supporter. On Dowsing: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Other topics: [9] [10] [11] [12] -- Otheus ( talk) 19:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, the article should stay. But then perhaps it should be cleaned up a little to make it more obvious that it's not dealing with theories that are not mainstream science. I don't think as it is now is enough. Bstoica ( talk) 17:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
If you are not out at break yet you might wish to weigh in on modified proposal. Bard गीता 02:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You wrote on my talk: "when editing wikipedia, the most important goal is that the articles are improved. Everything else is just a means for this goal"
Yes, I absolutely agree, which is why I rarely log-in, let alone deal with policy pages anymore. The best I can do is dive-bomb in and try to WP:Point out when some policy has gotten utterly ridiculous as flamboyantly as possible.
I was particularly disappointed here, because I spend a week convincing User:Blueboar that banning minority views from the 'pedia would lead to more or less insane results. [13] But then to see that, while he's still actively editing these policies, I check back a year later and WP:NPOV was completely SNAFU'd again ( WP:PRESERVE actually seems ok though upon cursory reading).
Anyway, I'm not checking back just now to see if I slapped any WP:COMMON sense into the active maintainers of NPOV, but I hope I did. You gotta do what you gotta do. Like Mr. Wolf says in Pulp Fiction (movie) "if I'm curt with you it's because time is a factor." I have far more passion for the innards of the project than time these days. -- Kendrick7 talk 06:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Enric, I really appreciate all your contributions to Pashtun People. The references didnt have to go. The Hindu Pashtun topic needs some discussion and consensus from all users especially Pashtun users and there is also a lack of good references for it. It will take some time to put that info in. On the talk pages there has been much discussion about it, though without a conclusion. Please give it some time. Take care. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan ( talk) 11:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Enric Naval, I apologise for the delayed reply but I have been very busy! I believe the the IP Address is a sock of User:Bk2006 or User:NHPak. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam Talk 21:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there... Long time no see. I was taking a look at some of the edits I made some years ago and I fell into this conversation we had (together with User:Dúnadan) 3 years ago. The main problems pointed out are nowadays solved (I believe) and I would like to continue with that idea of splitting both articles. Would you like to give me a hand? Cheers. --Maurice27 About Me, Talk, Vandalize. 18:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Enric Naval, I hope this message finds you doing well. I would like to inform you that many of the articles regarding Pathans in India have been moved, resulting in the name change from Pathans --> Pashtuns (e.g. Pathans in Uttar Pradesh article). In my opinion, this was not a wise idea because throughout India, the ethnic group is referred to by the name Pathan and not Pashtun, although both are acceptable English words. I would appreciate if you could kindly look into this matter and consider reverting the unilateral changes. Thanks, Anupam Talk 19:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Enric,
I think I have read a lot in the last months on CF and feel that I am able to tell a nice story. The WP article is not the place to tell that story, but luckily there are some very well written press articles that already do. I came to the conclusion that there are already enough sources available on the internet for interested readers to be able to paint there own picture. So I asked myself the question: why keep plowing through the WP-article ? Where is the benefit for me ? Well, I conclude that there isn't. My phD friend, who happens to be a true ignorant CF non-believer also has a clear opinion on the Wikipedia project. He told me many times that he is convinced that WP doesn't work and that it is a waste of time. I see his point now.
Keep up the good work, I really appreciated it. Regards -- POVbrigand ( talk) 07:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I really don't know you, and so I wanted to make sure and drop you a line after my reply to you a moment ago on the 'Surturz AdminWatch' MfD.
My reply was a bit terse and a bit annoyed, and a bit surprised, but I really don't have anything against you personally, I'm sure I've appreciated your input on articles in past, and I didn't want to leave with the impression it was just a bit of snarkyness or something against you personally.
I notice above, someone quotes you as saying "when editing wikipedia, the most important goal is that the articles are improved. Everything else is just a means for this goal". I'm not an admin, but if I were, I think I would try and work with people who start a so-called 'shitlist', to see if they just had a crappy encounter with someone. One of the first lines on the Administrators page here in Wikipedia is that admins are never required to use their tools, and I think what that line is really saying is that being an admin is about being a leader. Peacemaker, guide, counselor, mentor, you name it. I know from my own experiences that leadership is mostly about simply being gaining support from others and that in many ways a volunteer organization has a lot in common with a paid organization because most of the time the same techniques work for managing either.
That's why I don't understand why we don't have more people saying that we don't override complaints with orders, but with a positive engagement of the person complaining to help them see things better. If we just order them to get the complaints off Wikipedia, they still have complaints, we just don't have any idea. At least having them out in the open let's us look it over and address them or not. Happy Editing. -- Avanu ( talk) 11:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
For your guidance regarding Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries over at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise. It's very much appreciated. Faustus37 ( talk) 08:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Enric, I saw your edit to MoS (and Noetica's revert). One problem I had is that this distinction introduced a complexity that will leave many editors befuddled (including me, as to where each might be used). I should say that I'm probably on the side of doing dashes for comets named after two scientists, since that's the signal used elsewhere in WP, and it's consistent with a number of stylistic authorities, too. WP has increasingly come up against this tension between one professional group and WP's house style: whether to make an exception. It's a particular problem in punctuation/typography. There's no simple answer, but may I ask whether you think Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Allowable_typographical_changes is bad advice in principle? It seems to have a bearing on broader matters of our house style, don't you think? Tony (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you notice that this edit of yours changed the text case to disagree with the linked IAU source? This, and your late warnings after Trovatore and I talked it out, suggest that you are more interested in provoking an edit war than in preventing one. We can talk. Which document did you get the comet example from? Dicklyon ( talk) 18:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Please wait, I am trying to open a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters), and I am still checking the sources to make sure that I am making a good edit. I was searching for examples just as you were messaging me. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Letting you know that Web app has been nominated for deletion (or redirection to Web application) because the contents attempt to duplicate the already existing and industry-accepted term Rich Internet application. Please share your thoughts here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Web_app - Object404 ( talk) 02:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
First, do not template a regular. And do not place threatening posts on my talk page.
Second, one reversion of text that was ungrammatical and included at least one example of an article name you have been arguing about was a reasonable call. Get your edits in basic good English and perhaps they won't be reverted. I don't have a dog in that Halley's Comet thing, although I don't agree with the capitalisation; but it's no big deal to me.
Third, I apologised to you somewhere—I can't remember the page—for reverting. I expect more courtesy that you've given. You are actually the one who stands to be blocked if you carry on like this. Tony (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Could we start this exchange again? I said, "we could try different ways that are more positive ... there's no reason we can't all collaborate ...". Now, if you can't recognise goodwill, I suppose I can do no more, but the suggestion is still open. Tony (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The offensive image on [[autofellatio] was removed for violating U.S. federal law, as you'd know if you read the comments on edits and/or the discussion page. Reverting to again show the image will be an illegal act that will be imputed to Wikipedia, but also to you. Google on "2257 record keeping requirements" to learn more. Please, no more edit warring. KirthMersenne ( talk) 18:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Enric, I see you have a lot of trouble accepting WP's style of only capitalizing proper names. I've reverted some of your recent over-capitalizations, and see that some other editors have as well. I hope you'll reconsider this, and work instead toward a sensible consistent style. While admitting that such capitalization is common in sources, we don't need to follow that; only in cases where the evidence really supports interpretation as a proper name should we be capitalizing. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
On the ring road thing, I asked for help (and mentioned you) here. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I don't mind the other reversals you made, but "Cognitive process profile (CPP)" seems to be upcased just because it's abbreviated. So, you do a cognitive case profile on someone; it's weird to write that you do a Cognitive Case Profile on someone. (BTW, does the title have to include the abbreviation? I don't see the point.) Tony (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ring road (Cairo) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring road (Cairo) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
"Also, is there really any encyclopedic usage for "schedule" in the context of construction?" do a google for "construction schedule research" - all in good faith but you should know Granite07 ( talk) 00:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
causa sui ( talk) 17:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Enric, here's an instance where I'd appreciate your advice. I leapt in, probably too soon, and downcased The Evolution of Cooperation, BTW forgetting that "The" shouldn't normally be the first item in a generic title. I was fooled by the very opening of the article text, which is firmly generic (until you get to the third point, which is about the eponymous book). Then I realised the mess: there's a book infobox, and the article title is italicised (I can't see the template for that, either). Could you advise on a possible solution, since it's now uncomfortably between two roles. I've raised it on the talk page. I think the lead needs to be rewritten, at least. Thanks. Tony (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Enric, I didn't understand this edit. How can you on the one hand preserve capitalization, and on the other hand describe the topic as a generic, and all without so much as a source in sight? From a quick look at books, I'd say this one is probably the proper name of a program, which seems to be what Noetica is saying. You agree, or not? Want to revert your edit, and try defining the topic as a proper? Or some other direction? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
hi, I was curious. When a bunch of university professors start a journal together [20], what wikipedia mechanism makes it not a journal? It is covered in the news as if a journal. [21] I was wondering if you knew, (assuming this [22] is correct), what makes it not a journal? 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 04:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Please just revert anything you don't like. I'm not going to war over it. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 12:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you please copy your reply from here to the article talk page or should I reply on my talk page? 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 15:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Enric,
can you have a look over this list I am working on. Please feel free to modify or leave comments on the page. Thanks -- POVbrigand ( talk) 13:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Enric. Do you mean about the diacritics change, or about me not finding the Romanian diacritics in the character map? or both? Dahn ( talk) 11:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you mean by "move them" ( Talk:Evolutionary biology). Do you mean move the talk page content of a deleted article to the talk page of another article? I am only asking because I have seen the talk page of deleted articles redirected to the talk page of the merged article without moving any content. e.g., Talk:Neurobiology. As far as I am aware, this is standard practice. Besides, if readers want to read past comments, they can look through the history section. danielkueh ( talk) 00:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
One solution I use is archiving all the discussions, then leaving in the talk page a "softredirect" and a link to the archive pages. Sometimes, also a link to the archived merge discussion. The discussions are searcheable, and people can now see that the page has been moved and why. People following links to old discussions will still be able to find the discussions. If you only leave a redirect then they get sent to a page that never held the discussion they are looking for, they won't show up in the history of the page they landed in, causing much confusion. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 01:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is to notify you that I have started a more indept discussion about whether the Evolutionary Biology article should be restored and in what form exactly. Please see Talk:Evolutionary_biology#Restoration_of_Evolutionary_biology for the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The article DZBN (Biñan) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. —
KuyaBriBri
Talk 16:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 4, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
What's the deal on practice direction upcasing? Many sources use lower case for the generic, and only capitalize specific named ones. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
While I would agree that the discussion was off-topic that you removed on this page, it was already collapsed and "put away" without the need to go to the more drastic step that you went to here. It is sort of a pet peeve of mine when people start to remove content from talk pages, even if the content seems to be slightly off topic or going places that doesn't make sense. At least what was written could be somewhat tangentially said to be related to the topic at hand and certainly was not blatant vandalism. I would appreciate it if you would revert your own action, but that is up to you if you want to do that. It certainly is an action I would never have done. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 21:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I previously provided a three paragraph explanation (requiring no scientific background to understand) of not only why the (second) statement in the perpetual motion controversy section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Energy_Machine_of_Joseph_Newman was inconsistent with established rules of logic, but that there is no actual question of whether or not the machine is a perpetual motion machine. This section should be removed.
The creator/inventor of the device does not argue that it is such a device, nor do any of the cited sources within that section. This statement, "Skeptics argue...", can not be attributed to the source cited. This statement is attributed to a book written by a scientist (PhD Physics), using language that indicates a lack of understanding of the underlying scientific principles and is improperly imprecise as to be meaningless. I already explained all of this. This source was likely included to avoid deletion of this statement, as it cannot be cited. This statement should be removed, and section deleted.
Disordered.information ( talk) 01:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock ( talk) 23:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
My statement to Elen of the Roads ( talk · contribs) about our dispute regarding WT:AT recognizability was so long I put it in a separate file, User:Born2cycle/DearElen. If you have a chance to look it over, and let me know if you find any inaccuracies or other problems with it, I would appreciate it. If you don't mind, please leave comments about it at User talk:Born2cycle/DearElen. Thanks! -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Enric, I am disappointed by your statement at ArbCom (see this section, and this edit). You have included an incorrect comment about me. Please amend the section by striking that comment out (so that it remains visible as an amendment), and leave a brief explanation. That is a very serious forum; inaccuracies and false impressions are to be avoided at all costs. I will await your apology at my talkpage.
Noetica Tea? 00:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
"It's an interesting issue, Pyro, and one that I recently discussed with User:Noetica, who doesn't have an immediate answer; but I asked him to think about it and get back when his timeframe is freer (I hope soon)."
Enric, if you're interested in making your statement accurate, you might also want to review things like "Dicklyon then tried a 'compromise' by inserting the hyphen anyways, after the RM failed"; I can't see any failed RM. And "you have Tony1 telling an expert that he doesn't know how to spell names in his profession" for a conversation that never mentioned spelling, and where Tony didn't impugne the knowledge of the guy who inquired about why the hyphens. And "Dicklyon changes the rest of the article anyways" for . And "After this RM failed" for an RM that was deferred with "close for now with no move, pending outcome of RFCs. Once these have closed, a new discussion may be initiated", and the characterizing subsequent discussion as "badgering" and "trying to force". I understand that we have differing strong opinions on where to draw the line on caps, but this kind of misrepresentation can hardly be expected to be a useful part of resolving that. Your bolded suspicion also seems inappropriate; have you seen other editors give up in disgust over hyphenation? It seems so unlikely.
Dicklyon (
talk) 23:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 28, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
hey Enric Naval, waddya think of my edit proposal? Any questions? Please read the paper and the book sourced in the sentence I propose to remove. Let's open it up for discussion (I thought I did) and post comments to: discource one, discource two, and summary on this edit request (no new sources are referenced). I welcome your input and clarifying comments or requests. Simply put, the sentence takes the authors (of referenced material) statements out of context and should be removed.-- Gregory Goble ( talk) 12:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
Revert is supposed to be used only in cases of obvious vandalism. Could you explain why you used revert here? Thank you, — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Giovanni Di Stefano (businessman), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunday Mail ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Enric Naval, since you participated in a previous poll on the wording of the "recognizability" provision in WT:TITLE, your perspective would be valued in this new poll that asks a somewhat different question: WT:TITLE#Poll to plan for future discussion on Recognizability. – Dicklyon ( talk) 05:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your thoughtful post at my talk-page, and kudos for checking the source credentials so thoroughly. I think it's probably OK to use as reference. As far as I can see it's not been subjected to a published peer-review - at least, none that yields to a Google Scholar search - but it gives a fair summary of the scholarly consensus position, and justifies itself with a fair smattering of relevant sources. Ideally, we'd read and cite those sources too, hopefully without citation-overkill. All in good time. I'm afraid I've gotten to the point where I won't even sneeze without a WP:RS. I'm not proud of that; it killed any confidence I ever had in my own writing.
Anyway, yes, lazy round-robins and the regurgitation of errors in journalism and the popular press (diatribe warning ahoy!) are always with us. Especially on the net. But so's historiography, and scholarship, and both are littered with the once-respected, now-discarded and hugely unfashionable consensus opinions of magnificent scholars, living or dead. On the whole, I don't think we need be embroiled in all that; but see how the excellent and exemplary Charon's obol article deals sotto voce with an even more prevalent error. For contrast, take a peep at the nest of controversy and grief that is Sol Invictus - you might wish you hadn't, and I no longer watch the page. In general, I think we can address "common misconceptions" obliquely, by simply writing articles based on reliably sourced scholarly opinion. If the scholarship addresses specific errors, so do we. Most of my specialist sources on Roman society and religion are pretty well up-to-date and I've glanced through the index of one or two, but no mention yet of St Valentine. I'll keep looking.
I'm just wittering on now, and will shut up. Briefly; I think St Valentine's non-connection with the Lupercalia merits a brief sentence on Lupercalia's extinction, with a footnote reference to St Valentine. In the St Valentine's Day article, Lupercalia's of historiographic interest but I'd certainly avoid lending it undue weight, or its own heading. Best regards, Haploidavey ( talk) 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Your change to Li Hongzhi has made the section incomprehensible again. I explained why on the talk page. Would you please fix it, such that the section actually makes sense, and also explain why you believe the Time quote should be paraphrased, rather than simply quoted in full? Thanks. Homunculus ( duihua) 18:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's better now. I appreciate your reading Palmer and Porter, really. OhConfucius had put the Changchun faction anecdote into the "Falun Gong" section, but since you restored it elsewhere, I just removed it from that section. It was much too long anyway. Homunculus ( duihua) 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you please tell me why are you doing this. These "votes" will not be counted, as only uninvolved editors will agree on new name. None other should comment here. -- WhiteWriter speaks 16:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Please comment in Talk:University of Pristina#Break ASAP! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 16:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Saint Valentine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pope Julius ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Enric. This is the Shadow Fighter, the much talked-about "9 year-old Wikipedian". I'm 13 now, and I've been editing Wikipedia more productively. I'm writing to you because I'm having a bit of a problem with a guy called MikeWazowski on the Army of Darkness article. I try writing messages to him, but he just erases them and ignores me. It's kind of a trivial issue and my dad doesn't seem to care about it, but I definately need someone to back me up on this. So the thing is, on the Army of Darkness article, It says "Also known as Evil Dead III: Army of Darkness or simply Evil Dead III or Bruce Campbell vs Army of Darkness", and I find that grammatically innacurate, so I tried to change it to "also known as Bruce Campbell vs Army of Darkness, Evil Dead III: Army of Darkness or just Evil Dead III", which is accurate. But whenever I try to do that, MikeWazowski keeps reverting me. What's the deal with that? You know, it's not even realy that issue that I need your help on, it's also just that, well, maybe you could talk to him and inform him of my age, or tell him to take it a little easy on me. I don't mean to act like a sychofant, but I didn't know who else to turn to. The Shadow-Fighter ( talk) 23:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I feel the need to inform you that I've put your comment under a different header here.
/info/en/?search=Talk:Cold_fusion#Section:_Publications
Some of it's relevance to previous comments may be lost but mixing topics in a talk page section isn't likely to be very productive.
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 16:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not following you around, I came there through WT:NPOV
User_talk:MesserKruse#Re:_The_.27Undue_Weight.27_of_Truth_on_Wikipedia
I am amazed that you give this guy this advice. When I follow your advice "make a reasonable educated complaint in the talk page", the promised effect never materializes. On the contrary, I am dragged to Arbcom over it. How come ? -- POVbrigand ( talk) 10:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
nothing like it, i was discussing about changing the pages, you should not have removed my writings-- Frizstyler ( talk) 09:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has now opened a Review of the background relating to the Request for Amendment at which you submitted a statement. A Review is a streamlined version of case, with a short window for presenting evidence.
The Committee invites any evidence you may wish to give directly related to any of the following matters:
Evidence should be presented on the review evidence page and should be posted by 26 March 2012 at the very latest.
For the Arbitration Committee
Mlpearc ( powwow) 16:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect University of Mitrovica. Since you had some involvement with the University of Mitrovica redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 11:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mobile_security. Karl.brown ( talk) 00:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Crop circle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Copycat effect ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Enric Naval. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
The source you cited only mentions majority of Christians being sided with Otomans and not with Lazar. Also it mention that during a period of Milutin and tzar Dusan it was common for them to hire Turkish mercenaries. But both Dusan and Milutin died decades before Battle of Kosovo. You should read it better. I don't care if you "posted false info" on purpose or by accident, but i advise you to edit article or i'm going to do it. Even your source confirms my point. Danilo018 ( talk) 15:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The source you cited only mentions majority of Christians being sided with Otomans and not with Lazar. Also it mention that during a period of Milutin and tzar Dusan it was common for them to hire Turkish mercenaries. But both Dusan and Milutin died decades before Battle of Kosovo. You should read it better. I don't care if you "posted false info" on purpose or by accident, but i advise you to edit article or i'm going to do it. Even your source confirms my point. Danilo018 ( talk) 15:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Enric Naval. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Wikipedians who like Atlantis, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Category is not empty. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 00:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Enric Naval. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Wikipedians who like Bewitched, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Category is not empty. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 00:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no doubt that this article is premature, but as the topic of a planned Transformers 4 film IS being spoken about in reliable souces, [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] might you not agree that a merge and redirect per policy instruction for such premature articles to either Transformers (film series)#Future OR Transformers: Dark of the Moon#Sequel per policy instruction for such premature film articles might be worth conideration? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Trivial_hatnote_links. KarlB ( talk) 19:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on the ViSalus article. I see your tag and will be looking for additional references. In the meantime, please let me know what you think of the article. I saw it while doing research on Blyth, Inc. and see that they purchased the company. The old article that was submitted I was able to get a copy of (read like an affiliate site). Either way, let me know what you think of the posted revision. -- Morning277 ( talk) 17:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Enric. My inexperience here perhaps will be evident. There are some wiki complications that I would like be able to speak (email) about with one knowledgeable of the wiki system. There are general considerations and a specific concern as well, namely as to why the article "Georeactor" was removed. Contact by email would be helpful. In advance, thanks for your attention. Marvin Herndon ( talk) 17:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Marvin Herndon
hi you was in the new utopia article but suddenly quiet in the discussion page any idea what happened to new utopia ? the official website did say that in did start construction now maybe it should be update the wikipeida artickel but at the same time it need to update its pasport infomation... the links have not been updated to maybe its should be added in the wiki artick? l I also found by look up new utopia citizenship or something like that a investors bank in Antigua get closed because of fraud was used to transfer fees and money by the new utopia project... one of the owner of the domain name was made bankrupt in Florida fort Meyers court if it get sued for fraud in Florida why did the charter citizens get their office in Cayman island (that shows in the YouTube video )now when Cayman island can give information abut Americans convicted of crime ? when many of the cariben island did give clients lists the last 5 years why did not charter citise get there money back (if it is a fraud) because look like many of them(investoer/conslats/govounoers have money offshore? got sued ? what happen to charter citizens? Investors’ did sue them for fraud and made the project somewhere else ? because all the business /project did stop in 2007/2008 and the site did move to Florida then to uk (just look it the dictionary that was the domain name ) sorry for my bad enghlis 82.147.38.2 ( talk) 15:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)murkaiam sorry if i typed this before start ti be a bit and sunny here in europe :)
I'm afraid that the charter citizens lost their money. You remember when he got sued by the SEC? The judge said that Lazarus should return the money. But Lazarus was too poor to pay it, so he got away without having to return any money to investors.
Also, some other guy tried to build in the Misteriosa bank, using some sort of oil rig thing. He had it blown by a hurricane before he could place it [51]. If Lazarus tries to build there, he is going to run into lots of problems.
And, of course, the government of Honduras is not going to like that someone is setting a new country so near their coast. It could become a source of troubles, and the new country could make territorial claims, and eat into Honduras sovereignity. And it could be used as base of operations by rival nations, or taken by pirates, and the pirates could then attack passing ships. If Lazarus builds anything, it's very likely that a nearby government takes over the construction site. This article is very interesting. It explains the problems with micronations.
All in all, I seriously doubt that Lazarus ever builds anything. I think that investing money in his project is like throwing money to the fire. It's beautiful, but you get nothing solid.
hi what abut this if you look this foks up (eh sorry for bad enghlis and eh puns :) mayeb you get more facts http://web.archive.org/web/20040123024638/http://www.new-utopia.com/
and this http://web.archive.org/web/20031221195119/http://www.mccbuilds.com/index2.cfm
yes to build a island that use a russian constuction comapny fram a tax heavn is at best risky :) but can you look this foks up since as a usa you porbely beeter acces to places too look for them me ? hmmm do you think that 3600 ppl (if not the whole think are totaly made up... )of rugged indvulist capitlsit walk away from there mony ???can it be that they get sued a place that dont have income taxs and those foks like it that way and let the mony stay therte ;)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.33.189 ( talk) 12:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
If you can get a recent source talking about New Utopia, then you can add it to the article. But we don't usually add stuff without a reliable source. --
Enric Naval (
talk) 22:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
soryy a bit messy replay but this guy dont look poor just look new utopia on youtube... yhe new utopia website says he are dead a prove a farud are not to say to sec your pennylsees but have a office in caymensiland and can affored to go there (ther are probely not cheap there...) a fraud in itself ?
i did look on a form of pasport of a frind it did not have any agreemen abut time tabel just check if you wanted bussnis or house (the was a notice on the abut 2002 new utopia webiste (a proof that they got sued ?)that they could not promise anything but it was not there in the 2004 and beyond website hmm guibel if they not allredy settelt outside court somwhere and theyn sued later by class action in outside usa his office was in caymen his trust was in belize and the counstrcution comapnys did have adres in texasa and florida
is it not fraud to promis constrction by a date and a membership orgazation (i guss thats what micornation are that have fancy membership cards)thats promis to build and close dowen the citizenship program first by 1400 memebers then by 3000 members and then by 4000 members? when they change there bussnis paln and what they want to cosntruct are not that allso a fraud ?flordia did make the infmation actarnes act(a stronger version of patroit act/anti terroer/fraud act )so i think they have good tools to use if they want... you can use the way back machinne and you willl look that they change ofen
(the new utopia flotilla company but the adres changhe twice was sued they guy was in court papers online in north florida court for banckrupice closeed dowen the comapny and mved back to tulsa look like on the website )since lazerus moved form oklhahoma to a probely more expensiv state ( fort meyer then too sarisota or somthing like that in florida he must have mony somwhere ) hmmm guilbel will not a aritielc in a boradsheet like indepentent/times/guardien/dallas morings post (i guss a sd reputaityon as el pasi and el mondo??)be realisitc ?its not a tabloid newspaper and the boardsheet are not read by with trash or those that want to earn money fast...
they did look for main bilogys and tax lawyer and ennginerigers in abut year 2000 (even if only 5 % citizens are i means abut 150 ppl that are university and phd foks this are good eductated ppl they will not by fraud and not strike back, some of the so called conslates did say its a fraud and they allso have insed info too bew usefull in court case....
not hard too proove i think when those constction build and golf and hotels comapnys that suposed to build are at best newliy start trust in tax hevans/ a hotmail adres and resdientl adreses or inisit they have a mulitbillion planb but have a office in a waht look like a watorage house on gogel map thaht would nto been hard to provwe . a certian bharing breivik did have fake passport and school diploma bussnis but got closed dowen in florida for id fraud will not not sombody sell pasports that actuly promis to build a place allso be the same ? hmm how many of this investoers are from ppl that have nothing to lose ?reffuges and freedom fighter ? after 16 years they also probely do somthing else now and have saved up or build there way up somwhere else so they have time and mony to invest .. im not sure alle the investoer do this oute of greed or stupidetey that can be that they nothing to lose just look at ajamn project in uae a lots of middel class (to us poor?) invested in aperments in buildings in the new planned citys of a emirate becuse they could get visa and work premitt in a uae state (but the sheik closed dowen the whole thing and now they want to sue ) ppl did allso invest in duabi not all of those proejct got eh a flying start they sue or they get comapnys to change ther aperments/offices to projects that are going to be build , a gated comunity in nevada was got sued becuse he did not bild his gun owners (shooting range rhigt to carry armens ) paredise but failed,
if you are a higer middel europen class you maybe dont care but if your 1500 was 2 years salary and can join some amricans law erperts that lost 200 0000 on a investment and put that into a projects that got build on the pices of new utopia (bunch of contatcs, ideas, enrtuopners and ppl) a agted comunity somwher or permant resident deal in a conutry like honduras or samoa just look at freesatte proejct usa end up i 3 difrent projects (wioming montana new hampsire, paulvill as got a projects in texas and nevada and seasting got 2 proejcts offshot one in blize and one colmbia a other is blusead or what it was called a ship that have permenat ressident geeks oustide silicon vally to me 3700 some of them would do the same ? sorry got a bit long :) 82.147.33.189 ( talk) 13:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)murakaimi
IMHO THIS
http://web.archive.org/web/19991104104005/http://www.new-utopia.org/plan.html and this
http://web.archive.org/web/20010721220305/http://new-utopia.com/ look very difrent from waht they promis now ... fraud ? (just read the constuion and the info artickels .... look like they moved from a gated comunity in a nomral island tax heavn too some kind of dubai mixed whit nevada and alabama/the south/redneck laws that it are now... would not that make unhappy cousntmers ;)
82.147.33.189 (
talk) 15:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)murakaimi
like asking for a lawsuite
just look at thise form ther website
Anyone with expertise in the areas of law, banking, insurance (including re-insurance), architecture, engineering (all disciplines), sciences, medicine, marine biology, law enforcement, customs and immigration, and who would like to be a part of this grand undertaking are invited to E-mail info@new-utopia.com or write to:
http://web.archive.org/web/19991104120951/http://www.new-utopia.org/principles.html refferance
will not they use the alredy statement from the sec to sue them ? i guss a charter citizens would be a inevstoer?
eh could you anwser my quastins since they was real quastines pilosphycal quastins not just statmens whit quasteins markes
murkamaim 82.147.33.187 ( talk) 12:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey Enric. I'm not here to give you a hard time, but just wanted to ask a question. I was a bit surprised by your comment at AE. To be honest, I only recall having one interaction with you, and it was one where I found your contributions constructive and helpful, and I came here to say so. I think I thanked you for reading books or something. If you ever feel that I am somehow not sufficiently nice, or you want to talk through something, or whatever, let me know. I think I may not always be too cognizant of how I come across maybe. Regards, Homunculus ( duihua) 21:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Please don't put dogs in a hearth. Dogs are not for cooking. Homunculus ( duihua) 04:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
You added the tags, so your input would be good at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recovered_memory_therapy#Dubious Thanks! -- 76.180.172.75 ( talk) 05:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm bowing out of the article at this point to avoid conflict that I have no faith would be justly dealt with. Thank you for your efforts to improve the article and for treating me like a real editor. I very much appreciate both. -- 76.180.172.75 ( talk) 01:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 28, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem ( talk) 18:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
A crop circle with the logo of Swedish Railways.
I realise that we have a slight difference of opinion. But can I just say that this picture is a beautiful addition to the article? It is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia both informative and a joy to read. Thank you. -- Andrewaskew ( talk) 05:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Enric. This isn't about the MikeWazowski issue, I'm actually wondering something else: I recently created 100 Tears and I want to post an image on the page but I don't know how. Could you help? The Shadow-Fighter ( talk) 00:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Sooo.... I don't get how the file upload page works--once you follow the upload steps, I don't see how you finish the process. It's this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard&?withJS=MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js --this page looks different from how it did the last time I tried it, btw. The Shadow-Fighter ( talk) 02:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! The Shadow-Fighter ( talk) 17:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Enric, at Talk:Chief_mechanical_engineer#Requested_move.2C_re-opened you seem to suggest that a move of List of Chief Mechanical Engineers of the Great Western Railway to lowercase the CME job name might be controversial. If that's how you feel, perhaps we'll need RMs for those. It would be easier if you'd agree with everyone else that it's not controversial. What say? Dicklyon ( talk) 05:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner ( talk) 21:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
sorted, my apologies for not having fixed this earlier. We need more mainstream sources on this Dougweller ( talk) 15:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "edits that go against sources, strange unexplained removals" [57]? Did you view the references like I did? It appears that you didn't because if you did you wouldn't have reverted me.-- Nasir Ghobar ( talk) 18:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have been tracking down most of the missing citations for this article. Could you please add the citation for Close 1993? You can install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to see problems with the harvard templates... Thanks. -- Mirokado ( talk) 00:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
harvnb|Reger|Goode|Ball|2009|pp=814–815}}
).{{
citation}}
which does not end in a full stop. Changing that would certainly require agreement on the talk page, until then we should use {{
sfn|ps=|...}}
to suppress the full stops in the short form inlines. The current use of harvnb where there is other text or more than one short form in an inline reference is fine. --
Mirokado (
talk) 14:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
|ref={{
harvid|USDE}}
in the citation and {{
harvnb|USDE|etc}}
for the short forms. I'll have a look at Saeta now. Nice recent changes. --
Mirokado (
talk) 14:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Monavie article and talk page". Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 19:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, with this [58] I would consider that to be a large BLP claim to attribute to an unreliable self-published source (the other source has just repeated the claim but not verified it it seems). IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
Hi. That Kosovo was the secular and ecclesiastical centre of mid to late medieval Serbia is beyond dispute. The capitals were there, as was the archbishopric. See added reference. That it was the "cradle of identity', of course this was a Serb belief, subjectivity is the norm when it comes to national heritage and historical narratives (no different for any other country). The point is Serbs beleived and saw it as their "cradle" - & this belief is a reality. The sentence is not there to judge whether such a beleief was historically justified, or if other countries also believed this. Slovenski Volk ( talk) 23:00, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Xeworlebi ( talk) 14:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Well since a discussion is brewing down there you might be interested in the History Channel documentary on the person :). Its the only documentary ever made about him outside Yugoslavia (and I think the only documentary ever made about any Croat outside Yugoslavia :)), and features such published experts as Stevan K. Pavlowitch (Emeritus Professor of Balkan History at Southampton University, Fellow of the Royal Historical Society, etc...) -- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 20:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Seems to be an astute form of vandalism. I'll check the one he removed at electric shock (print-only), but I suspect he's bullshitting us. Tijfo098 ( talk) 18:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why the Cold fusion article seems to generate more controversy than other science related articles on wiki? There seem to be several RfC's and arguments Pass a Method talk 00:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Most scientists simply haven't passed judgment because they don't think that there is anything to judge. They simply assume that the CF phenomena was only a flawed experiment, that it died time ago, and that's it's a fossilized example of bad science. And then they are surprised that CF is still an active research field.
You are now warned against pushing your personal agenda at Mexican–American War. I will report you to ANI if you persist. Tony (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm terribly sorry to have ever involved Sandstein at this point. I feel his involvement is simply unhelpful and making things more painful and more trouble. :( -- Avanu ( talk) 01:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Can you somehow use all of the government links and references and citations to improve the AAFM Article. Nobody wants to whitewash the article, but rather include government links, the top US accreditation agencies, and FINRA and US Government referneces to AAFM.
Hundreds of news articles have been published about AAFM. Interpreting the one negative article as a negative event is Black Washing. Please do not black wash the AAFM Article.
Most of the information that is included in todays article was OK with you last year. Not sure why you think it should be deleted at this time?
Please help get this article right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.17.102.39 ( talk) 17:21, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
rather than RfCing it at this point I brought the issue up here at wp:NOR for further discussion. maybe we can resolve this just by talking it out. -- Ludwigs2 18:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
It might now be impossible to edit this without removing or altering the link, as JzG just repeated his action of more than two years ago, unilaterally blacklisting the site, ignoring multiple decisions about copyvio to the contrary, and ignoring ArbComm's prior remedy about his use of tools while involved. I will not be able to handle this here. Thought you should know. He's also trying, again, to globally blacklist the site at meta, I suspect that won't fly this time. I'm not at all restricted at meta, and almost certainly will not be.
I've mentioned you, as I recall, very peripherally, at RfAr/Clarification. This was purely a request for lifting the topic bans for myself and Pcarbonn, but it was obviously necessary to mention JzG, as he was behind much of the mess. He seems to be pushing his point, however, with today's blacklisting. -- Abd ( talk) 17:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I've requested delisting, [2], but I'm prohibited from my topic ban from what it would take to allege usability, if that's needed. You might want to take a look. Thanks. -- Abd ( talk) 18:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
The revert-warring continues. The idea of a binding RfC has gone nowhere, although you persuaded me to agree to it.
Would you be interested in cosigning (since two people have to agree to the existence of a dispute) a User RFC? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Move war over typography of en dash versus hyphen regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 06:14, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I do not appreciate being treated as a krank-supporter. On Dowsing: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
Other topics: [9] [10] [11] [12] -- Otheus ( talk) 19:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, the article should stay. But then perhaps it should be cleaned up a little to make it more obvious that it's not dealing with theories that are not mainstream science. I don't think as it is now is enough. Bstoica ( talk) 17:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
If you are not out at break yet you might wish to weigh in on modified proposal. Bard गीता 02:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
You wrote on my talk: "when editing wikipedia, the most important goal is that the articles are improved. Everything else is just a means for this goal"
Yes, I absolutely agree, which is why I rarely log-in, let alone deal with policy pages anymore. The best I can do is dive-bomb in and try to WP:Point out when some policy has gotten utterly ridiculous as flamboyantly as possible.
I was particularly disappointed here, because I spend a week convincing User:Blueboar that banning minority views from the 'pedia would lead to more or less insane results. [13] But then to see that, while he's still actively editing these policies, I check back a year later and WP:NPOV was completely SNAFU'd again ( WP:PRESERVE actually seems ok though upon cursory reading).
Anyway, I'm not checking back just now to see if I slapped any WP:COMMON sense into the active maintainers of NPOV, but I hope I did. You gotta do what you gotta do. Like Mr. Wolf says in Pulp Fiction (movie) "if I'm curt with you it's because time is a factor." I have far more passion for the innards of the project than time these days. -- Kendrick7 talk 06:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Enric, I really appreciate all your contributions to Pashtun People. The references didnt have to go. The Hindu Pashtun topic needs some discussion and consensus from all users especially Pashtun users and there is also a lack of good references for it. It will take some time to put that info in. On the talk pages there has been much discussion about it, though without a conclusion. Please give it some time. Take care. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan ( talk) 11:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Dear Enric Naval, I apologise for the delayed reply but I have been very busy! I believe the the IP Address is a sock of User:Bk2006 or User:NHPak. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam Talk 21:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there... Long time no see. I was taking a look at some of the edits I made some years ago and I fell into this conversation we had (together with User:Dúnadan) 3 years ago. The main problems pointed out are nowadays solved (I believe) and I would like to continue with that idea of splitting both articles. Would you like to give me a hand? Cheers. --Maurice27 About Me, Talk, Vandalize. 18:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Hello Enric Naval, I hope this message finds you doing well. I would like to inform you that many of the articles regarding Pathans in India have been moved, resulting in the name change from Pathans --> Pashtuns (e.g. Pathans in Uttar Pradesh article). In my opinion, this was not a wise idea because throughout India, the ethnic group is referred to by the name Pathan and not Pashtun, although both are acceptable English words. I would appreciate if you could kindly look into this matter and consider reverting the unilateral changes. Thanks, Anupam Talk 19:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Enric,
I think I have read a lot in the last months on CF and feel that I am able to tell a nice story. The WP article is not the place to tell that story, but luckily there are some very well written press articles that already do. I came to the conclusion that there are already enough sources available on the internet for interested readers to be able to paint there own picture. So I asked myself the question: why keep plowing through the WP-article ? Where is the benefit for me ? Well, I conclude that there isn't. My phD friend, who happens to be a true ignorant CF non-believer also has a clear opinion on the Wikipedia project. He told me many times that he is convinced that WP doesn't work and that it is a waste of time. I see his point now.
Keep up the good work, I really appreciated it. Regards -- POVbrigand ( talk) 07:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I really don't know you, and so I wanted to make sure and drop you a line after my reply to you a moment ago on the 'Surturz AdminWatch' MfD.
My reply was a bit terse and a bit annoyed, and a bit surprised, but I really don't have anything against you personally, I'm sure I've appreciated your input on articles in past, and I didn't want to leave with the impression it was just a bit of snarkyness or something against you personally.
I notice above, someone quotes you as saying "when editing wikipedia, the most important goal is that the articles are improved. Everything else is just a means for this goal". I'm not an admin, but if I were, I think I would try and work with people who start a so-called 'shitlist', to see if they just had a crappy encounter with someone. One of the first lines on the Administrators page here in Wikipedia is that admins are never required to use their tools, and I think what that line is really saying is that being an admin is about being a leader. Peacemaker, guide, counselor, mentor, you name it. I know from my own experiences that leadership is mostly about simply being gaining support from others and that in many ways a volunteer organization has a lot in common with a paid organization because most of the time the same techniques work for managing either.
That's why I don't understand why we don't have more people saying that we don't override complaints with orders, but with a positive engagement of the person complaining to help them see things better. If we just order them to get the complaints off Wikipedia, they still have complaints, we just don't have any idea. At least having them out in the open let's us look it over and address them or not. Happy Editing. -- Avanu ( talk) 11:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
For your guidance regarding Wikipedia:Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries over at User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise. It's very much appreciated. Faustus37 ( talk) 08:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Enric, I saw your edit to MoS (and Noetica's revert). One problem I had is that this distinction introduced a complexity that will leave many editors befuddled (including me, as to where each might be used). I should say that I'm probably on the side of doing dashes for comets named after two scientists, since that's the signal used elsewhere in WP, and it's consistent with a number of stylistic authorities, too. WP has increasingly come up against this tension between one professional group and WP's house style: whether to make an exception. It's a particular problem in punctuation/typography. There's no simple answer, but may I ask whether you think Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Allowable_typographical_changes is bad advice in principle? It seems to have a bearing on broader matters of our house style, don't you think? Tony (talk) 05:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Did you notice that this edit of yours changed the text case to disagree with the linked IAU source? This, and your late warnings after Trovatore and I talked it out, suggest that you are more interested in provoking an edit war than in preventing one. We can talk. Which document did you get the comet example from? Dicklyon ( talk) 18:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Please wait, I am trying to open a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters), and I am still checking the sources to make sure that I am making a good edit. I was searching for examples just as you were messaging me. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Letting you know that Web app has been nominated for deletion (or redirection to Web application) because the contents attempt to duplicate the already existing and industry-accepted term Rich Internet application. Please share your thoughts here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Web_app - Object404 ( talk) 02:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
First, do not template a regular. And do not place threatening posts on my talk page.
Second, one reversion of text that was ungrammatical and included at least one example of an article name you have been arguing about was a reasonable call. Get your edits in basic good English and perhaps they won't be reverted. I don't have a dog in that Halley's Comet thing, although I don't agree with the capitalisation; but it's no big deal to me.
Third, I apologised to you somewhere—I can't remember the page—for reverting. I expect more courtesy that you've given. You are actually the one who stands to be blocked if you carry on like this. Tony (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Could we start this exchange again? I said, "we could try different ways that are more positive ... there's no reason we can't all collaborate ...". Now, if you can't recognise goodwill, I suppose I can do no more, but the suggestion is still open. Tony (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The offensive image on [[autofellatio] was removed for violating U.S. federal law, as you'd know if you read the comments on edits and/or the discussion page. Reverting to again show the image will be an illegal act that will be imputed to Wikipedia, but also to you. Google on "2257 record keeping requirements" to learn more. Please, no more edit warring. KirthMersenne ( talk) 18:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Enric, I see you have a lot of trouble accepting WP's style of only capitalizing proper names. I've reverted some of your recent over-capitalizations, and see that some other editors have as well. I hope you'll reconsider this, and work instead toward a sensible consistent style. While admitting that such capitalization is common in sources, we don't need to follow that; only in cases where the evidence really supports interpretation as a proper name should we be capitalizing. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
On the ring road thing, I asked for help (and mentioned you) here. Dicklyon ( talk) 05:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I don't mind the other reversals you made, but "Cognitive process profile (CPP)" seems to be upcased just because it's abbreviated. So, you do a cognitive case profile on someone; it's weird to write that you do a Cognitive Case Profile on someone. (BTW, does the title have to include the abbreviation? I don't see the point.) Tony (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ring road (Cairo) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ring road (Cairo) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
"Also, is there really any encyclopedic usage for "schedule" in the context of construction?" do a google for "construction schedule research" - all in good faith but you should know Granite07 ( talk) 00:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
causa sui ( talk) 17:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Enric, here's an instance where I'd appreciate your advice. I leapt in, probably too soon, and downcased The Evolution of Cooperation, BTW forgetting that "The" shouldn't normally be the first item in a generic title. I was fooled by the very opening of the article text, which is firmly generic (until you get to the third point, which is about the eponymous book). Then I realised the mess: there's a book infobox, and the article title is italicised (I can't see the template for that, either). Could you advise on a possible solution, since it's now uncomfortably between two roles. I've raised it on the talk page. I think the lead needs to be rewritten, at least. Thanks. Tony (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Enric, I didn't understand this edit. How can you on the one hand preserve capitalization, and on the other hand describe the topic as a generic, and all without so much as a source in sight? From a quick look at books, I'd say this one is probably the proper name of a program, which seems to be what Noetica is saying. You agree, or not? Want to revert your edit, and try defining the topic as a proper? Or some other direction? Dicklyon ( talk) 04:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
hi, I was curious. When a bunch of university professors start a journal together [20], what wikipedia mechanism makes it not a journal? It is covered in the news as if a journal. [21] I was wondering if you knew, (assuming this [22] is correct), what makes it not a journal? 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 04:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Please just revert anything you don't like. I'm not going to war over it. 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 12:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you please copy your reply from here to the article talk page or should I reply on my talk page? 84.106.26.81 ( talk) 15:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Enric,
can you have a look over this list I am working on. Please feel free to modify or leave comments on the page. Thanks -- POVbrigand ( talk) 13:53, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Enric. Do you mean about the diacritics change, or about me not finding the Romanian diacritics in the character map? or both? Dahn ( talk) 11:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you mean by "move them" ( Talk:Evolutionary biology). Do you mean move the talk page content of a deleted article to the talk page of another article? I am only asking because I have seen the talk page of deleted articles redirected to the talk page of the merged article without moving any content. e.g., Talk:Neurobiology. As far as I am aware, this is standard practice. Besides, if readers want to read past comments, they can look through the history section. danielkueh ( talk) 00:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
One solution I use is archiving all the discussions, then leaving in the talk page a "softredirect" and a link to the archive pages. Sometimes, also a link to the archived merge discussion. The discussions are searcheable, and people can now see that the page has been moved and why. People following links to old discussions will still be able to find the discussions. If you only leave a redirect then they get sent to a page that never held the discussion they are looking for, they won't show up in the history of the page they landed in, causing much confusion. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 01:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, this is to notify you that I have started a more indept discussion about whether the Evolutionary Biology article should be restored and in what form exactly. Please see Talk:Evolutionary_biology#Restoration_of_Evolutionary_biology for the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 03:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The article DZBN (Biñan) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. —
KuyaBriBri
Talk 16:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 4, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Muhammad images/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
What's the deal on practice direction upcasing? Many sources use lower case for the generic, and only capitalize specific named ones. Dicklyon ( talk) 17:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
While I would agree that the discussion was off-topic that you removed on this page, it was already collapsed and "put away" without the need to go to the more drastic step that you went to here. It is sort of a pet peeve of mine when people start to remove content from talk pages, even if the content seems to be slightly off topic or going places that doesn't make sense. At least what was written could be somewhat tangentially said to be related to the topic at hand and certainly was not blatant vandalism. I would appreciate it if you would revert your own action, but that is up to you if you want to do that. It certainly is an action I would never have done. -- Robert Horning ( talk) 21:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
I previously provided a three paragraph explanation (requiring no scientific background to understand) of not only why the (second) statement in the perpetual motion controversy section of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Energy_Machine_of_Joseph_Newman was inconsistent with established rules of logic, but that there is no actual question of whether or not the machine is a perpetual motion machine. This section should be removed.
The creator/inventor of the device does not argue that it is such a device, nor do any of the cited sources within that section. This statement, "Skeptics argue...", can not be attributed to the source cited. This statement is attributed to a book written by a scientist (PhD Physics), using language that indicates a lack of understanding of the underlying scientific principles and is improperly imprecise as to be meaningless. I already explained all of this. This source was likely included to avoid deletion of this statement, as it cannot be cited. This statement should be removed, and section deleted.
Disordered.information ( talk) 01:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. aprock ( talk) 23:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
My statement to Elen of the Roads ( talk · contribs) about our dispute regarding WT:AT recognizability was so long I put it in a separate file, User:Born2cycle/DearElen. If you have a chance to look it over, and let me know if you find any inaccuracies or other problems with it, I would appreciate it. If you don't mind, please leave comments about it at User talk:Born2cycle/DearElen. Thanks! -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Enric, I am disappointed by your statement at ArbCom (see this section, and this edit). You have included an incorrect comment about me. Please amend the section by striking that comment out (so that it remains visible as an amendment), and leave a brief explanation. That is a very serious forum; inaccuracies and false impressions are to be avoided at all costs. I will await your apology at my talkpage.
Noetica Tea? 00:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
"It's an interesting issue, Pyro, and one that I recently discussed with User:Noetica, who doesn't have an immediate answer; but I asked him to think about it and get back when his timeframe is freer (I hope soon)."
Enric, if you're interested in making your statement accurate, you might also want to review things like "Dicklyon then tried a 'compromise' by inserting the hyphen anyways, after the RM failed"; I can't see any failed RM. And "you have Tony1 telling an expert that he doesn't know how to spell names in his profession" for a conversation that never mentioned spelling, and where Tony didn't impugne the knowledge of the guy who inquired about why the hyphens. And "Dicklyon changes the rest of the article anyways" for . And "After this RM failed" for an RM that was deferred with "close for now with no move, pending outcome of RFCs. Once these have closed, a new discussion may be initiated", and the characterizing subsequent discussion as "badgering" and "trying to force". I understand that we have differing strong opinions on where to draw the line on caps, but this kind of misrepresentation can hardly be expected to be a useful part of resolving that. Your bolded suspicion also seems inappropriate; have you seen other editors give up in disgust over hyphenation? It seems so unlikely.
Dicklyon (
talk) 23:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 28, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article titles and capitalisation/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 15:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
hey Enric Naval, waddya think of my edit proposal? Any questions? Please read the paper and the book sourced in the sentence I propose to remove. Let's open it up for discussion (I thought I did) and post comments to: discource one, discource two, and summary on this edit request (no new sources are referenced). I welcome your input and clarifying comments or requests. Simply put, the sentence takes the authors (of referenced material) statements out of context and should be removed.-- Gregory Goble ( talk) 12:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
Revert is supposed to be used only in cases of obvious vandalism. Could you explain why you used revert here? Thank you, — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 20:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Giovanni Di Stefano (businessman), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sunday Mail ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Enric Naval, since you participated in a previous poll on the wording of the "recognizability" provision in WT:TITLE, your perspective would be valued in this new poll that asks a somewhat different question: WT:TITLE#Poll to plan for future discussion on Recognizability. – Dicklyon ( talk) 05:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your thoughtful post at my talk-page, and kudos for checking the source credentials so thoroughly. I think it's probably OK to use as reference. As far as I can see it's not been subjected to a published peer-review - at least, none that yields to a Google Scholar search - but it gives a fair summary of the scholarly consensus position, and justifies itself with a fair smattering of relevant sources. Ideally, we'd read and cite those sources too, hopefully without citation-overkill. All in good time. I'm afraid I've gotten to the point where I won't even sneeze without a WP:RS. I'm not proud of that; it killed any confidence I ever had in my own writing.
Anyway, yes, lazy round-robins and the regurgitation of errors in journalism and the popular press (diatribe warning ahoy!) are always with us. Especially on the net. But so's historiography, and scholarship, and both are littered with the once-respected, now-discarded and hugely unfashionable consensus opinions of magnificent scholars, living or dead. On the whole, I don't think we need be embroiled in all that; but see how the excellent and exemplary Charon's obol article deals sotto voce with an even more prevalent error. For contrast, take a peep at the nest of controversy and grief that is Sol Invictus - you might wish you hadn't, and I no longer watch the page. In general, I think we can address "common misconceptions" obliquely, by simply writing articles based on reliably sourced scholarly opinion. If the scholarship addresses specific errors, so do we. Most of my specialist sources on Roman society and religion are pretty well up-to-date and I've glanced through the index of one or two, but no mention yet of St Valentine. I'll keep looking.
I'm just wittering on now, and will shut up. Briefly; I think St Valentine's non-connection with the Lupercalia merits a brief sentence on Lupercalia's extinction, with a footnote reference to St Valentine. In the St Valentine's Day article, Lupercalia's of historiographic interest but I'd certainly avoid lending it undue weight, or its own heading. Best regards, Haploidavey ( talk) 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Your change to Li Hongzhi has made the section incomprehensible again. I explained why on the talk page. Would you please fix it, such that the section actually makes sense, and also explain why you believe the Time quote should be paraphrased, rather than simply quoted in full? Thanks. Homunculus ( duihua) 18:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's better now. I appreciate your reading Palmer and Porter, really. OhConfucius had put the Changchun faction anecdote into the "Falun Gong" section, but since you restored it elsewhere, I just removed it from that section. It was much too long anyway. Homunculus ( duihua) 18:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you please tell me why are you doing this. These "votes" will not be counted, as only uninvolved editors will agree on new name. None other should comment here. -- WhiteWriter speaks 16:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Please comment in Talk:University of Pristina#Break ASAP! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 16:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Saint Valentine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pope Julius ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Enric. This is the Shadow Fighter, the much talked-about "9 year-old Wikipedian". I'm 13 now, and I've been editing Wikipedia more productively. I'm writing to you because I'm having a bit of a problem with a guy called MikeWazowski on the Army of Darkness article. I try writing messages to him, but he just erases them and ignores me. It's kind of a trivial issue and my dad doesn't seem to care about it, but I definately need someone to back me up on this. So the thing is, on the Army of Darkness article, It says "Also known as Evil Dead III: Army of Darkness or simply Evil Dead III or Bruce Campbell vs Army of Darkness", and I find that grammatically innacurate, so I tried to change it to "also known as Bruce Campbell vs Army of Darkness, Evil Dead III: Army of Darkness or just Evil Dead III", which is accurate. But whenever I try to do that, MikeWazowski keeps reverting me. What's the deal with that? You know, it's not even realy that issue that I need your help on, it's also just that, well, maybe you could talk to him and inform him of my age, or tell him to take it a little easy on me. I don't mean to act like a sychofant, but I didn't know who else to turn to. The Shadow-Fighter ( talk) 23:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I feel the need to inform you that I've put your comment under a different header here.
/info/en/?search=Talk:Cold_fusion#Section:_Publications
Some of it's relevance to previous comments may be lost but mixing topics in a talk page section isn't likely to be very productive.
84.106.26.81 ( talk) 16:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not following you around, I came there through WT:NPOV
User_talk:MesserKruse#Re:_The_.27Undue_Weight.27_of_Truth_on_Wikipedia
I am amazed that you give this guy this advice. When I follow your advice "make a reasonable educated complaint in the talk page", the promised effect never materializes. On the contrary, I am dragged to Arbcom over it. How come ? -- POVbrigand ( talk) 10:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
nothing like it, i was discussing about changing the pages, you should not have removed my writings-- Frizstyler ( talk) 09:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has now opened a Review of the background relating to the Request for Amendment at which you submitted a statement. A Review is a streamlined version of case, with a short window for presenting evidence.
The Committee invites any evidence you may wish to give directly related to any of the following matters:
Evidence should be presented on the review evidence page and should be posted by 26 March 2012 at the very latest.
For the Arbitration Committee
Mlpearc ( powwow) 16:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect University of Mitrovica. Since you had some involvement with the University of Mitrovica redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff ( talk) 11:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Mobile_security. Karl.brown ( talk) 00:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Crop circle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Copycat effect ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Enric Naval. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
The source you cited only mentions majority of Christians being sided with Otomans and not with Lazar. Also it mention that during a period of Milutin and tzar Dusan it was common for them to hire Turkish mercenaries. But both Dusan and Milutin died decades before Battle of Kosovo. You should read it better. I don't care if you "posted false info" on purpose or by accident, but i advise you to edit article or i'm going to do it. Even your source confirms my point. Danilo018 ( talk) 15:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The source you cited only mentions majority of Christians being sided with Otomans and not with Lazar. Also it mention that during a period of Milutin and tzar Dusan it was common for them to hire Turkish mercenaries. But both Dusan and Milutin died decades before Battle of Kosovo. You should read it better. I don't care if you "posted false info" on purpose or by accident, but i advise you to edit article or i'm going to do it. Even your source confirms my point. Danilo018 ( talk) 15:08, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Enric Naval. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Wikipedians who like Atlantis, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Category is not empty. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 00:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello Enric Naval. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Category:Wikipedians who like Bewitched, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Category is not empty. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 00:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
There is no doubt that this article is premature, but as the topic of a planned Transformers 4 film IS being spoken about in reliable souces, [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] might you not agree that a merge and redirect per policy instruction for such premature articles to either Transformers (film series)#Future OR Transformers: Dark of the Moon#Sequel per policy instruction for such premature film articles might be worth conideration? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Trivial_hatnote_links. KarlB ( talk) 19:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the work on the ViSalus article. I see your tag and will be looking for additional references. In the meantime, please let me know what you think of the article. I saw it while doing research on Blyth, Inc. and see that they purchased the company. The old article that was submitted I was able to get a copy of (read like an affiliate site). Either way, let me know what you think of the posted revision. -- Morning277 ( talk) 17:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Enric. My inexperience here perhaps will be evident. There are some wiki complications that I would like be able to speak (email) about with one knowledgeable of the wiki system. There are general considerations and a specific concern as well, namely as to why the article "Georeactor" was removed. Contact by email would be helpful. In advance, thanks for your attention. Marvin Herndon ( talk) 17:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Marvin Herndon
hi you was in the new utopia article but suddenly quiet in the discussion page any idea what happened to new utopia ? the official website did say that in did start construction now maybe it should be update the wikipeida artickel but at the same time it need to update its pasport infomation... the links have not been updated to maybe its should be added in the wiki artick? l I also found by look up new utopia citizenship or something like that a investors bank in Antigua get closed because of fraud was used to transfer fees and money by the new utopia project... one of the owner of the domain name was made bankrupt in Florida fort Meyers court if it get sued for fraud in Florida why did the charter citizens get their office in Cayman island (that shows in the YouTube video )now when Cayman island can give information abut Americans convicted of crime ? when many of the cariben island did give clients lists the last 5 years why did not charter citise get there money back (if it is a fraud) because look like many of them(investoer/conslats/govounoers have money offshore? got sued ? what happen to charter citizens? Investors’ did sue them for fraud and made the project somewhere else ? because all the business /project did stop in 2007/2008 and the site did move to Florida then to uk (just look it the dictionary that was the domain name ) sorry for my bad enghlis 82.147.38.2 ( talk) 15:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)murkaiam sorry if i typed this before start ti be a bit and sunny here in europe :)
I'm afraid that the charter citizens lost their money. You remember when he got sued by the SEC? The judge said that Lazarus should return the money. But Lazarus was too poor to pay it, so he got away without having to return any money to investors.
Also, some other guy tried to build in the Misteriosa bank, using some sort of oil rig thing. He had it blown by a hurricane before he could place it [51]. If Lazarus tries to build there, he is going to run into lots of problems.
And, of course, the government of Honduras is not going to like that someone is setting a new country so near their coast. It could become a source of troubles, and the new country could make territorial claims, and eat into Honduras sovereignity. And it could be used as base of operations by rival nations, or taken by pirates, and the pirates could then attack passing ships. If Lazarus builds anything, it's very likely that a nearby government takes over the construction site. This article is very interesting. It explains the problems with micronations.
All in all, I seriously doubt that Lazarus ever builds anything. I think that investing money in his project is like throwing money to the fire. It's beautiful, but you get nothing solid.
hi what abut this if you look this foks up (eh sorry for bad enghlis and eh puns :) mayeb you get more facts http://web.archive.org/web/20040123024638/http://www.new-utopia.com/
and this http://web.archive.org/web/20031221195119/http://www.mccbuilds.com/index2.cfm
yes to build a island that use a russian constuction comapny fram a tax heavn is at best risky :) but can you look this foks up since as a usa you porbely beeter acces to places too look for them me ? hmmm do you think that 3600 ppl (if not the whole think are totaly made up... )of rugged indvulist capitlsit walk away from there mony ???can it be that they get sued a place that dont have income taxs and those foks like it that way and let the mony stay therte ;)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.147.33.189 ( talk) 12:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
If you can get a recent source talking about New Utopia, then you can add it to the article. But we don't usually add stuff without a reliable source. --
Enric Naval (
talk) 22:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
soryy a bit messy replay but this guy dont look poor just look new utopia on youtube... yhe new utopia website says he are dead a prove a farud are not to say to sec your pennylsees but have a office in caymensiland and can affored to go there (ther are probely not cheap there...) a fraud in itself ?
i did look on a form of pasport of a frind it did not have any agreemen abut time tabel just check if you wanted bussnis or house (the was a notice on the abut 2002 new utopia webiste (a proof that they got sued ?)that they could not promise anything but it was not there in the 2004 and beyond website hmm guibel if they not allredy settelt outside court somwhere and theyn sued later by class action in outside usa his office was in caymen his trust was in belize and the counstrcution comapnys did have adres in texasa and florida
is it not fraud to promis constrction by a date and a membership orgazation (i guss thats what micornation are that have fancy membership cards)thats promis to build and close dowen the citizenship program first by 1400 memebers then by 3000 members and then by 4000 members? when they change there bussnis paln and what they want to cosntruct are not that allso a fraud ?flordia did make the infmation actarnes act(a stronger version of patroit act/anti terroer/fraud act )so i think they have good tools to use if they want... you can use the way back machinne and you willl look that they change ofen
(the new utopia flotilla company but the adres changhe twice was sued they guy was in court papers online in north florida court for banckrupice closeed dowen the comapny and mved back to tulsa look like on the website )since lazerus moved form oklhahoma to a probely more expensiv state ( fort meyer then too sarisota or somthing like that in florida he must have mony somwhere ) hmmm guilbel will not a aritielc in a boradsheet like indepentent/times/guardien/dallas morings post (i guss a sd reputaityon as el pasi and el mondo??)be realisitc ?its not a tabloid newspaper and the boardsheet are not read by with trash or those that want to earn money fast...
they did look for main bilogys and tax lawyer and ennginerigers in abut year 2000 (even if only 5 % citizens are i means abut 150 ppl that are university and phd foks this are good eductated ppl they will not by fraud and not strike back, some of the so called conslates did say its a fraud and they allso have insed info too bew usefull in court case....
not hard too proove i think when those constction build and golf and hotels comapnys that suposed to build are at best newliy start trust in tax hevans/ a hotmail adres and resdientl adreses or inisit they have a mulitbillion planb but have a office in a waht look like a watorage house on gogel map thaht would nto been hard to provwe . a certian bharing breivik did have fake passport and school diploma bussnis but got closed dowen in florida for id fraud will not not sombody sell pasports that actuly promis to build a place allso be the same ? hmm how many of this investoers are from ppl that have nothing to lose ?reffuges and freedom fighter ? after 16 years they also probely do somthing else now and have saved up or build there way up somwhere else so they have time and mony to invest .. im not sure alle the investoer do this oute of greed or stupidetey that can be that they nothing to lose just look at ajamn project in uae a lots of middel class (to us poor?) invested in aperments in buildings in the new planned citys of a emirate becuse they could get visa and work premitt in a uae state (but the sheik closed dowen the whole thing and now they want to sue ) ppl did allso invest in duabi not all of those proejct got eh a flying start they sue or they get comapnys to change ther aperments/offices to projects that are going to be build , a gated comunity in nevada was got sued becuse he did not bild his gun owners (shooting range rhigt to carry armens ) paredise but failed,
if you are a higer middel europen class you maybe dont care but if your 1500 was 2 years salary and can join some amricans law erperts that lost 200 0000 on a investment and put that into a projects that got build on the pices of new utopia (bunch of contatcs, ideas, enrtuopners and ppl) a agted comunity somwher or permant resident deal in a conutry like honduras or samoa just look at freesatte proejct usa end up i 3 difrent projects (wioming montana new hampsire, paulvill as got a projects in texas and nevada and seasting got 2 proejcts offshot one in blize and one colmbia a other is blusead or what it was called a ship that have permenat ressident geeks oustide silicon vally to me 3700 some of them would do the same ? sorry got a bit long :) 82.147.33.189 ( talk) 13:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)murakaimi
IMHO THIS
http://web.archive.org/web/19991104104005/http://www.new-utopia.org/plan.html and this
http://web.archive.org/web/20010721220305/http://new-utopia.com/ look very difrent from waht they promis now ... fraud ? (just read the constuion and the info artickels .... look like they moved from a gated comunity in a nomral island tax heavn too some kind of dubai mixed whit nevada and alabama/the south/redneck laws that it are now... would not that make unhappy cousntmers ;)
82.147.33.189 (
talk) 15:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)murakaimi
like asking for a lawsuite
just look at thise form ther website
Anyone with expertise in the areas of law, banking, insurance (including re-insurance), architecture, engineering (all disciplines), sciences, medicine, marine biology, law enforcement, customs and immigration, and who would like to be a part of this grand undertaking are invited to E-mail info@new-utopia.com or write to:
http://web.archive.org/web/19991104120951/http://www.new-utopia.org/principles.html refferance
will not they use the alredy statement from the sec to sue them ? i guss a charter citizens would be a inevstoer?
eh could you anwser my quastins since they was real quastines pilosphycal quastins not just statmens whit quasteins markes
murkamaim 82.147.33.187 ( talk) 12:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Hey Enric. I'm not here to give you a hard time, but just wanted to ask a question. I was a bit surprised by your comment at AE. To be honest, I only recall having one interaction with you, and it was one where I found your contributions constructive and helpful, and I came here to say so. I think I thanked you for reading books or something. If you ever feel that I am somehow not sufficiently nice, or you want to talk through something, or whatever, let me know. I think I may not always be too cognizant of how I come across maybe. Regards, Homunculus ( duihua) 21:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Please don't put dogs in a hearth. Dogs are not for cooking. Homunculus ( duihua) 04:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
You added the tags, so your input would be good at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Recovered_memory_therapy#Dubious Thanks! -- 76.180.172.75 ( talk) 05:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm bowing out of the article at this point to avoid conflict that I have no faith would be justly dealt with. Thank you for your efforts to improve the article and for treating me like a real editor. I very much appreciate both. -- 76.180.172.75 ( talk) 01:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 28, 2012, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Perth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lord Roem ( talk) 18:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
A crop circle with the logo of Swedish Railways.
I realise that we have a slight difference of opinion. But can I just say that this picture is a beautiful addition to the article? It is the sort of thing that makes Wikipedia both informative and a joy to read. Thank you. -- Andrewaskew ( talk) 05:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Enric. This isn't about the MikeWazowski issue, I'm actually wondering something else: I recently created 100 Tears and I want to post an image on the page but I don't know how. Could you help? The Shadow-Fighter ( talk) 00:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Sooo.... I don't get how the file upload page works--once you follow the upload steps, I don't see how you finish the process. It's this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard&?withJS=MediaWiki:FileUploadWizard.js --this page looks different from how it did the last time I tried it, btw. The Shadow-Fighter ( talk) 02:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! The Shadow-Fighter ( talk) 17:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Enric, at Talk:Chief_mechanical_engineer#Requested_move.2C_re-opened you seem to suggest that a move of List of Chief Mechanical Engineers of the Great Western Railway to lowercase the CME job name might be controversial. If that's how you feel, perhaps we'll need RMs for those. It would be easier if you'd agree with everyone else that it's not controversial. What say? Dicklyon ( talk) 05:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
RfC: Should the spelling of Vietnamese names follow the general usage of English-language reliable sources? Examples: Ngo Dinh Diem, Ho Chi Minh, and Saigon, or Ngô Đình Diệm, Hồ Chí Minh, and Sài Gòn. The RfC is here. Kauffner ( talk) 21:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
sorted, my apologies for not having fixed this earlier. We need more mainstream sources on this Dougweller ( talk) 15:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
What do you mean by "edits that go against sources, strange unexplained removals" [57]? Did you view the references like I did? It appears that you didn't because if you did you wouldn't have reverted me.-- Nasir Ghobar ( talk) 18:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I have been tracking down most of the missing citations for this article. Could you please add the citation for Close 1993? You can install User:Ucucha/HarvErrors to see problems with the harvard templates... Thanks. -- Mirokado ( talk) 00:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
harvnb|Reger|Goode|Ball|2009|pp=814–815}}
).{{
citation}}
which does not end in a full stop. Changing that would certainly require agreement on the talk page, until then we should use {{
sfn|ps=|...}}
to suppress the full stops in the short form inlines. The current use of harvnb where there is other text or more than one short form in an inline reference is fine. --
Mirokado (
talk) 14:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
|ref={{
harvid|USDE}}
in the citation and {{
harvnb|USDE|etc}}
for the short forms. I'll have a look at Saeta now. Nice recent changes. --
Mirokado (
talk) 14:59, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is " Monavie article and talk page". Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ( have a chat) 19:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, with this [58] I would consider that to be a large BLP claim to attribute to an unreliable self-published source (the other source has just repeated the claim but not verified it it seems). IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)