Hi Glaucus, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!
- Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia.
- Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images.
- How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status.
- Manual of Style, how articles should be written.
Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :
Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)
- Mailer Diablo 03:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for reversing the blanking of my user page. Take Care of You and Yours - Skysmith 08:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. -- Canderson7 17:19, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Glaucus, just thought I'd welcome you back - five years is an impressively long break! SmartSE ( talk) 11:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Glaucus, I notice you've been nominating some stuff for speedy deletion. I wonder if the criteria have changed while you've been away, as I've declined the first few I've looked at. A7 for a person means that there is no claim that the person is significant - Aaron Ansarov for example lists enough about the person to escape the strict requirements of A7. Of course, he still might not be notable enough for a wikipedia article, so you are welcome to try WP:PRODding the article. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 00:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I notice the edits of the Creativity Movement article in which pictures are removed. Please cease doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlKraft ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Recently you reverted an edit to the Barry Zito article, stating the previous IP editor (12.68.41.130) added something non-notable. I have found the user has changed their ways to a degree and inquired with an admin (who has blocked the user before) as to whether their most current edits might still be regarded as spam. You might leave any comments on the admin's talk page. Zepppep ( talk) 12:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey G, this subject is about the issue of anti-White racism in France in general, not specifically as it relates to Cope, Sarkozy and Le Pen. That's why it belongs in here as it's broad.
There is also plenty of room for articles on anti-Arab and Black racism, however I have no expertise in this area.
Herbertheever ( talk) 08:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Herbertheever
Hello, I'm Grammarxxx. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Connie Mack IV without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 23:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Glaucus,
As you know I added a line informing readers of the Wiki that the subject matter evokes strong emotions in some people and has on occasion been edited using Loaded Words which rob it of a Neutral Point Of View, I wondered why you stated that was "Completely innappropriate" ?
Surely the purpose of the Wiki is to provide facts and balance rather than slanted views ?
In articles on subjects with an emotive matter, reading an unbiased page cannot always be guaranteed and readers should be made aware of the possibility of mis- or disinformation being contained therein.
Regards,
TCG. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tiredcleangate2 (
talk •
contribs) 15:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Glaucus,
Thank you for your rapid reply.
I see the comment was in the incorrect template, I'll address that.
However I must admit that I fail to see how you can interpret the line as disrespectful to anyone.
It read as follows: "it should be noted that it [Rhodesia] evokes strong emotions among some and they have at times used Loaded Words in their editing, so this page will not always give a balanced view"
It mentions no particular group or collection of groups, nor does it infer that any person has intentionally lied, but you must admit that Loaded Words have been used, possibly unintentionally, on more than a few occassions.
Perhaps it could be better phrased: "it should be noted that this subject evokes strong emotions among some and at times the article has been edited using Loaded Words , so this page may not always give a balanced view"
Shall we move this to the article talk page ?
Regards,
TCG
Tiredcleangate2 (
talk) 16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem with this is that you are having Wikipedia state this absolutely. Was the IPCC of the view that Mann "contributed substantially"? Doesn't matter if the IPCC says that because Wikipedia says that! In fact it does matter. The cite you call attention to does not support the absolute contention you want to have included here (in addition to all other talking up of this particular recognition which I believe is overdone when the actual Prize awarders acknowledge none of it). What the cite you offer (to Facebook) supports is that the IPCC was of this view which is not the same thing.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 19:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The IPCC leadership agreed to present personalized certificates “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC” to scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports. Such certificates, which feature a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize diploma, were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points.
The content is not violation of POV and your edits appear to constitute vandalism. -- PESO44 ( talk) 13:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
What did you mean by "very definition of OR?" The reference that supported the post is part of the university system of Hawaii. SimonATL ( talk) 19:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi Glaucus, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!
- Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia.
- Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images.
- How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status.
- Manual of Style, how articles should be written.
Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :
Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)
- Mailer Diablo 03:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for reversing the blanking of my user page. Take Care of You and Yours - Skysmith 08:14, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page. -- Canderson7 17:19, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Glaucus, just thought I'd welcome you back - five years is an impressively long break! SmartSE ( talk) 11:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi Glaucus, I notice you've been nominating some stuff for speedy deletion. I wonder if the criteria have changed while you've been away, as I've declined the first few I've looked at. A7 for a person means that there is no claim that the person is significant - Aaron Ansarov for example lists enough about the person to escape the strict requirements of A7. Of course, he still might not be notable enough for a wikipedia article, so you are welcome to try WP:PRODding the article. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 00:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I notice the edits of the Creativity Movement article in which pictures are removed. Please cease doing that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KarlKraft ( talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. Recently you reverted an edit to the Barry Zito article, stating the previous IP editor (12.68.41.130) added something non-notable. I have found the user has changed their ways to a degree and inquired with an admin (who has blocked the user before) as to whether their most current edits might still be regarded as spam. You might leave any comments on the admin's talk page. Zepppep ( talk) 12:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey G, this subject is about the issue of anti-White racism in France in general, not specifically as it relates to Cope, Sarkozy and Le Pen. That's why it belongs in here as it's broad.
There is also plenty of room for articles on anti-Arab and Black racism, however I have no expertise in this area.
Herbertheever ( talk) 08:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Herbertheever
Hello, I'm Grammarxxx. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Connie Mack IV without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Grammarxxx ( What'd I do this time?) 23:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Glaucus,
As you know I added a line informing readers of the Wiki that the subject matter evokes strong emotions in some people and has on occasion been edited using Loaded Words which rob it of a Neutral Point Of View, I wondered why you stated that was "Completely innappropriate" ?
Surely the purpose of the Wiki is to provide facts and balance rather than slanted views ?
In articles on subjects with an emotive matter, reading an unbiased page cannot always be guaranteed and readers should be made aware of the possibility of mis- or disinformation being contained therein.
Regards,
TCG. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Tiredcleangate2 (
talk •
contribs) 15:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi Glaucus,
Thank you for your rapid reply.
I see the comment was in the incorrect template, I'll address that.
However I must admit that I fail to see how you can interpret the line as disrespectful to anyone.
It read as follows: "it should be noted that it [Rhodesia] evokes strong emotions among some and they have at times used Loaded Words in their editing, so this page will not always give a balanced view"
It mentions no particular group or collection of groups, nor does it infer that any person has intentionally lied, but you must admit that Loaded Words have been used, possibly unintentionally, on more than a few occassions.
Perhaps it could be better phrased: "it should be noted that this subject evokes strong emotions among some and at times the article has been edited using Loaded Words , so this page may not always give a balanced view"
Shall we move this to the article talk page ?
Regards,
TCG
Tiredcleangate2 (
talk) 16:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem with this is that you are having Wikipedia state this absolutely. Was the IPCC of the view that Mann "contributed substantially"? Doesn't matter if the IPCC says that because Wikipedia says that! In fact it does matter. The cite you call attention to does not support the absolute contention you want to have included here (in addition to all other talking up of this particular recognition which I believe is overdone when the actual Prize awarders acknowledge none of it). What the cite you offer (to Facebook) supports is that the IPCC was of this view which is not the same thing.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 19:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The IPCC leadership agreed to present personalized certificates “for contributing to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC” to scientists that had contributed substantially to the preparation of IPCC reports. Such certificates, which feature a copy of the Nobel Peace Prize diploma, were sent to coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, Bureau members, staff of the technical support units and staff of the secretariat from the IPCC’s inception in 1988 until the award of the prize in 2007. The IPCC has not sent such certificates to contributing authors, expert reviewers and focal points.
The content is not violation of POV and your edits appear to constitute vandalism. -- PESO44 ( talk) 13:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
What did you mean by "very definition of OR?" The reference that supported the post is part of the university system of Hawaii. SimonATL ( talk) 19:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to the original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)