Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
Good luck!
Meelar (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see that you've been inserting in various articles the terminology for wehich you've argued and which the consensus was against. Please stop this. Also, don't change British English to U.S. English unless there's good reason. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 20:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Your grammar rocks, I just want to say. =) When I joined Wiki a few months ago I didn't expect to have to correct edits more than I do add new information. What's worse is people adding in new info that I agree with, but they leave out a comma or mispunctuate! So their good deed just kind of.. got tarnished. ..Anyway, I'm saying this here as a random compliment for your edits to the Toph article. I tweaked a minor thing or two, but I didn't want to make the impression that what you had done was wrong and unappreciated. -- Crisu 01:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I'll gladly help clean up the Avatar page. I have all the episodes downloaded, so I have the references. The only thing I need to do is get up to speed on wiki use. H2P 00:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to delete this message after you read it. I wanted to draw your attention to the talk page of the series main page. I'm discussing adding character pictures to the page and I want to get a green light from you and Redsparta. H2P 05:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You sure enjoy that AWB don't you. H2P 01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh, no problem. How many times you think we're going to change those links? This feels like at least the second and third. H2P 01:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I was gonna ask you about changing the creatures page, but it looks like you already renamed it. H2P 01:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
HA HA, whoops. Can't belive I just now saw that. I used that guys signature to figure out the coding for mine and like an idiot didn't change the names. Wow I'm dumb.
H2P (
Yell at me for
what I've done) 05:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
We're changing the names again?
I saw that the major characters page changed its name again or there was some sort of redirect or something. H2P ( Yell at me for what I've done) 01:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem; working on this sort of stuff is an enjoyable break from my other WikiProject work ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:KingBumi.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't do this. The GFDL requires that all edits be attributed to an editor. If you cut and paste to move an article, the editing history is not preserved. Please request that an administrator preform the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves to rename the article Uncle Iroh, esspecially if a consensus already exists to move the article. Kevin_b_er 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem at all, the RfC approach would be the best way to handle this. Good thought.-- Fyre2387 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I have commented on the sock puppet case about this. Are there any other IP addresses or accounts left over? Please comment on the case. Thanks, Iola k ana| T 13:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've looked into the Father's Wish sockpuppet case and I don't believe that we're looking at the same user. I have posted my reasons on the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Father's Wish page. Neil916 00:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Category:Alumni of the University of Central Florida Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 17. I have proposed a new name for this category. -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 06:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The article Clinical psychology has just been listed for peer review. You are invited to lend your editing eyes to see if it needs any modifications, great or small, before it is submitted to the Featured Article review. Then head on over to the peer review page and add your comments, if you are so inspired. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The following is the script for Shadow the Hedgehog (taken from GameFaqs.com):
Doom is only concerned with explaining why he needed all 7 Emeralds - to amplify Chaos Control to full power. Using his explaination to say Chaos Emeralds are not needed is original research. Also there is a large amount of evidence saying specifically that a Chaos Emerald is used to induce Chaos Control (including the official Japanese site Sonic Channel, look at the paragraph in the Chaos Control article for more).
As for Shadow's use of Chaos Control in Last Way, Black Doom merely floated away with Shadow hot on his tail (saying that anything happened during Last Way to change that is equally as speculative as saying nothing changed it, if not more speculative), and it has been shown on several occassions that the power of the Chaos Emeralds can be tapped into without being in direct physical contact with them (Black Doom never touched the Emeralds to do a fully powered Chaos Control to warp down the Black Comet, Perfect Chaos had the Emeralds floating around its head as it finished draining their power, Shadow didn't use Chaos Control on Prison Island in SA2 to save Rouge until he finally got into the room where she and the Emeralds were trapped in, but still didn't touch them when he did, so if he didn't need an Emerald since the beginning why would Sonic Team continue to say he does in more recent bios and cutscenes?) Cigraphix ( talk) 19:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
List of Avatar:The Last Airbender major secondary characters, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
List of Avatar:The Last Airbender major secondary characters is a redirect to a non-existent page (
CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
List of Avatar:The Last Airbender major secondary characters, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk) 16:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you consider adding any input to our proposal regarding the DSM-IV. Input is being collected on our talk page. Thanks! Mindsite ( talk) 22:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated List of creatures of Avatar: The Last Airbender ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 ( talk) 20:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Central Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Central Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thank you and Go Knights! |
-- Scpmarlins ( talk) 18:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts to revert vandalism. However, please refrain from insulting the vandals, as this will only fuel the negative attention that they desire. Thank you. A8 UDI 22:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
-- Kumioko ( talk) 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There's only one reason why I keep editing the Sonic Hero's page....that is because what I'm saying is true. It has all the information in the Sonic Wiki and in the Sonic Hero's instruction booklet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.135.147 ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 February 2011
Hello:
Thank you for the question. It appears you have a misunderstanding about what is meant by the citation requirement for reliable sourcing. The issue is not whether the case law you point to is reliable or not-- but whether the citation directly discusses the subject of the article. In the article The Star Chamber the section contains an interpretation of the film's depiction of events, and then cites court cases to support the claims-- but has no actual source for the interpretation. That is why it's Original Research -- it's presenting a novel interpretation.
Remember, the mantra for Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth," as noted at Verifiability:
What the section is doing, would be construed as a " Synthesis" -- creating an argument that, "The movie says X about the law, but these court cases say Y, and thus the movie is Z."
So stated at Reliable sources and original research:
Hope that clarifies why the section you added was Original Research. If you can find a published article which directly discusses The Star Chamber and the legal issues that the section raises, those would be appropriate to cite. -- HidariMigi ( talk) 08:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Moved article discussion and replied at Talk:The Star Chamber#RE:_Legal_accuracy -- HidariMigi ( talk) 09:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Why did you recently send me a message about some kind of warning?, recently I haven't edited anything except for some extra information on a Ratchet and Clank character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.135.147 ( talk) 18:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey - U.S. News changed its ranking format in the 2012 edition of Best Law Schools. It gives a numerical value to the first 150 or so schools and considers everything else 2nd Tier. The 3rd and 4th Tiers have been banished. 98.235.125.61 ( talk) 01:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Any objection to changing it back? I don't want to piss anybody off! Thanks!!! 98.235.125.61 ( talk) 21:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll get you an article...it shook up a lot of law school blogs this summer. 98.235.125.61 ( talk) 14:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Article re: U.S. News and World Report Law School Rankings: http://www.constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=216:us-news-hello-unemployment-goodbye-ttt&catid=42:news&Itemid=71
and
http://abovethelaw.com/2011/03/the-u-s-news-law-school-rankings-are-out/
Thanks! 98.235.125.61 ( talk) 01:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with your last edit to Sonic 06's legacy section. Looks like we can compromise on how it is now then. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited George Lakoff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Press ( 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) 12:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I just went through the talk:democracy archive and found that almost every one of my edits has a precedent in the form of someone saying it should be done, but isn't bold enough to do it. The merge, for example, was proposed 3 years ago. Just wanted to air that somewhere. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 09:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you seriously proposing that constitutional monarchies - countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg - are not democracies? If so, I suggest you edit the article to reflect that properly. I suspect, however, that it would be taken down in 15 minutes and ridiculed. You are confusing the idea of "rule" - that is, the exercise of power - with sovereignty - that is, the highest form of authority and the ultimate right to make law. Indeed, if you wish to hold to that, please point to me of a country which is a democracy. The United States certainly isn't on that definition. And even if you meant practical exercise of power, the idea of "rule by the people" as taken in any literal form is nonsensical. Almost all democracies are representative democracies where 'the people' (whoever they are) do not make everyday decisions of government. Indeed, their representatives may pass laws that a majority of 'the people' disapprove of - that doesn't mean to say the country ceases to be a democracy. Gonefishing ( talk) 16:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
You should probably rewrite the lead of the article, which states "Bureaucracy is defined as a form of government". Frietjes ( talk) 16:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I waiting for you respond on Template_talk:Forms_of_government#Bureaucracy. Thanks.-- Burham ( talk) 17:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
More explanations on Template_talk:Forms_of_government#Bureaucracy. Regards. -- Burham ( talk) 03:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear Prototime, Since I did not received you answer up to now for my arguments I feel free to introduce Bureaucracy as form of Oligarchy.-- Burham ( talk) 20:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Show me rather that the consensus had been made on the base of Wikipedia rules and PARTICULARY what in this consensus is so logical that should sustain. Do not accuse me for obstinacy at illogical point of view. We will disagree with a point I will enter my arguments, you will enter yours. The reader will judge which the valid one is. WHY deprive reader valuable resources of information? Hmm... It is not ethical to kill FREEDOM of INFORMATION. Look somewhat like Communist censorship! I do not have license for only true, as well as you do not. Also, if majority has one opinion does not it mean it does not mean it is the CORRECT one. Only by freedom of speech the true goes up for the benefit of all.-- Burham ( talk) 03:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC) PS. You and other editors can believe on all kind of thinks, believe is not a fact, is not reality, and most important is not scientific. Wikipedia is not collection of believes. Is it?-- Burham ( talk) 03:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
And now what wrong with class Cliques. Technocracy, Meritocracy, and Bureaucracy if not OLIGACHY should be somewhere. They are defined as GOVERNMENT, at least there http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bureaucracy. I definitely can find more. If your purpose is only DO NOT MENTION 'bureaucracy' for some reason. Personal one? -- Burham ( talk) 22:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. Other proposal. (Hopping that you accept facts from sources 'bureaucracy' is form of Government. I think you did. Did not you? Looking on article 'Government' there is subsection 'Pejorative attributes' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government#Pejorative_attributes it seems to me that 'technocracy' and 'meritocracy' can be the theoretical Aristarchic (for me will not work in practice) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goverment#Aristarchic_attributes, but the 'bureaucracy' fits like a glove to the 'Pejorative'. If not let me know why? PS. I am not boring I attempt to build consensus with you on the base of readable sources. Or you feel different? -- Burham ( talk) 00:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. I see you are not so active. I understand you can be busy with more important think, but the work around 'Bureaucracy' must progress. I will make changes, possibly at the template you are more sensitive and fast. Please do not react just by reverting. I have right to expect reasons – You know I am not vandal. I doing my search, and we all ought to show subjectivity against our wishes.-- Burham ( talk) 02:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)-- Burham ( talk) 02:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you! | |
---|---|
Hi Prototime! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot ( talk) 14:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC) |
I've added the rollbacker and reviewer rights to your account, as you look to be qualified to use both. INeverCry 02:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion relating to the above topic at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Phase_2. Please take part in that.
Note that I feel there is a substantial difference in describing groups "at the grassroots level" as "grassroots groups", as there are questions of astroturfing. This issue is also being discussed. If you didn't mean to make any changes to substance, perhaps you could take a look at the related discussions and decide whether rephrasing your edit to reflect the tension regarding the grassroots-astroturfing controversy would be desirable. Other than that, I thought that your edit improved the text.
In case you are not aware, there is a suspended Arbcom case related to the editing of the TPm article, and the moderated discussion has been brought about as part of that process. Please comment there. The article is under discretionary sanctions.
I'd advise looking at this previous version of the page [1] that had a subsection on the Constitution in the Agenda section for material and sources that will be addressed in the ensuing discussion.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is a new section with a working draft proposal, any input would be welcome, we are in need of NPOV editors on that page Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Working_draft_of_Agenda_section_.28partial.29_with_section_on_the_Constitution.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I just notice that you have a doctorate in jurisprudence, sorry about the "modicum" comment, I had thought I saw a userbox on your userpage stating that you were attending law school. Maybe I confused you with another editor with that box on their page. Anyway, I've redacted that comment.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for the revert on Sonic Colors. It was an accident - I must have hit rollback on my phone yesterday and not even noticed, because I don't remember doing it. (Which is why there was no edit summary.) So yeah, I dont oppose your edit. Sorry about that. Sergecross73 msg me 10:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi There! I do a lot of articles using the Template:Infobox U.S. legislation. I noticed you made some updates to it. Maybe I was using the template wrong in the past, but most (if not all, I haven't looked at 100% of them) of the articles where I used this template now have broken title sections. i.e. the title does not appear at all. See Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower Facilitation Act for an example where the title and short title no longer appear in the infobox. How do I fix this? Do I need to manually go to all of my articles (many found here: List of bills in the 113th United States Congress) and then do... what? I noticed that you changed the documentation section of the template, but did not add new fields to the printout below the chart. I pretty new to Wikipedia and templates... what's going on? Thanks. HistoricMN44 ( talk) 20:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.
Here are some tips to help you get started:
Good luck!
Meelar (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I see that you've been inserting in various articles the terminology for wehich you've argued and which the consensus was against. Please stop this. Also, don't change British English to U.S. English unless there's good reason. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 20:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Your grammar rocks, I just want to say. =) When I joined Wiki a few months ago I didn't expect to have to correct edits more than I do add new information. What's worse is people adding in new info that I agree with, but they leave out a comma or mispunctuate! So their good deed just kind of.. got tarnished. ..Anyway, I'm saying this here as a random compliment for your edits to the Toph article. I tweaked a minor thing or two, but I didn't want to make the impression that what you had done was wrong and unappreciated. -- Crisu 01:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I'll gladly help clean up the Avatar page. I have all the episodes downloaded, so I have the references. The only thing I need to do is get up to speed on wiki use. H2P 00:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Feel free to delete this message after you read it. I wanted to draw your attention to the talk page of the series main page. I'm discussing adding character pictures to the page and I want to get a green light from you and Redsparta. H2P 05:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
You sure enjoy that AWB don't you. H2P 01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh, no problem. How many times you think we're going to change those links? This feels like at least the second and third. H2P 01:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I was gonna ask you about changing the creatures page, but it looks like you already renamed it. H2P 01:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
HA HA, whoops. Can't belive I just now saw that. I used that guys signature to figure out the coding for mine and like an idiot didn't change the names. Wow I'm dumb.
H2P (
Yell at me for
what I've done) 05:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
We're changing the names again?
I saw that the major characters page changed its name again or there was some sort of redirect or something. H2P ( Yell at me for what I've done) 01:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
No problem; working on this sort of stuff is an enjoyable break from my other WikiProject work ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:KingBumi.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Please don't do this. The GFDL requires that all edits be attributed to an editor. If you cut and paste to move an article, the editing history is not preserved. Please request that an administrator preform the move at Wikipedia:Requested moves to rename the article Uncle Iroh, esspecially if a consensus already exists to move the article. Kevin_b_er 03:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem at all, the RfC approach would be the best way to handle this. Good thought.-- Fyre2387 03:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I have commented on the sock puppet case about this. Are there any other IP addresses or accounts left over? Please comment on the case. Thanks, Iola k ana| T 13:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I've looked into the Father's Wish sockpuppet case and I don't believe that we're looking at the same user. I have posted my reasons on the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Father's Wish page. Neil916 00:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC) Category:Alumni of the University of Central Florida Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 17. I have proposed a new name for this category. -- TruthbringerToronto ( Talk | contribs) 06:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
The article Clinical psychology has just been listed for peer review. You are invited to lend your editing eyes to see if it needs any modifications, great or small, before it is submitted to the Featured Article review. Then head on over to the peer review page and add your comments, if you are so inspired. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
The following is the script for Shadow the Hedgehog (taken from GameFaqs.com):
Doom is only concerned with explaining why he needed all 7 Emeralds - to amplify Chaos Control to full power. Using his explaination to say Chaos Emeralds are not needed is original research. Also there is a large amount of evidence saying specifically that a Chaos Emerald is used to induce Chaos Control (including the official Japanese site Sonic Channel, look at the paragraph in the Chaos Control article for more).
As for Shadow's use of Chaos Control in Last Way, Black Doom merely floated away with Shadow hot on his tail (saying that anything happened during Last Way to change that is equally as speculative as saying nothing changed it, if not more speculative), and it has been shown on several occassions that the power of the Chaos Emeralds can be tapped into without being in direct physical contact with them (Black Doom never touched the Emeralds to do a fully powered Chaos Control to warp down the Black Comet, Perfect Chaos had the Emeralds floating around its head as it finished draining their power, Shadow didn't use Chaos Control on Prison Island in SA2 to save Rouge until he finally got into the room where she and the Emeralds were trapped in, but still didn't touch them when he did, so if he didn't need an Emerald since the beginning why would Sonic Team continue to say he does in more recent bios and cutscenes?) Cigraphix ( talk) 19:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
List of Avatar:The Last Airbender major secondary characters, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
List of Avatar:The Last Airbender major secondary characters is a redirect to a non-existent page (
CSD R1).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
List of Avatar:The Last Airbender major secondary characters, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk) 16:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Would you consider adding any input to our proposal regarding the DSM-IV. Input is being collected on our talk page. Thanks! Mindsite ( talk) 22:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated List of creatures of Avatar: The Last Airbender ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 ( talk) 20:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Central Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Central Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thank you and Go Knights! |
-- Scpmarlins ( talk) 18:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts to revert vandalism. However, please refrain from insulting the vandals, as this will only fuel the negative attention that they desire. Thank you. A8 UDI 22:00, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
-- Kumioko ( talk) 20:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
There's only one reason why I keep editing the Sonic Hero's page....that is because what I'm saying is true. It has all the information in the Sonic Wiki and in the Sonic Hero's instruction booklet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.135.147 ( talk • contribs) 13:57, 17 February 2011
Hello:
Thank you for the question. It appears you have a misunderstanding about what is meant by the citation requirement for reliable sourcing. The issue is not whether the case law you point to is reliable or not-- but whether the citation directly discusses the subject of the article. In the article The Star Chamber the section contains an interpretation of the film's depiction of events, and then cites court cases to support the claims-- but has no actual source for the interpretation. That is why it's Original Research -- it's presenting a novel interpretation.
Remember, the mantra for Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth," as noted at Verifiability:
What the section is doing, would be construed as a " Synthesis" -- creating an argument that, "The movie says X about the law, but these court cases say Y, and thus the movie is Z."
So stated at Reliable sources and original research:
Hope that clarifies why the section you added was Original Research. If you can find a published article which directly discusses The Star Chamber and the legal issues that the section raises, those would be appropriate to cite. -- HidariMigi ( talk) 08:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Moved article discussion and replied at Talk:The Star Chamber#RE:_Legal_accuracy -- HidariMigi ( talk) 09:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Why did you recently send me a message about some kind of warning?, recently I haven't edited anything except for some extra information on a Ratchet and Clank character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.135.147 ( talk) 18:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Hey - U.S. News changed its ranking format in the 2012 edition of Best Law Schools. It gives a numerical value to the first 150 or so schools and considers everything else 2nd Tier. The 3rd and 4th Tiers have been banished. 98.235.125.61 ( talk) 01:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Any objection to changing it back? I don't want to piss anybody off! Thanks!!! 98.235.125.61 ( talk) 21:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I'll get you an article...it shook up a lot of law school blogs this summer. 98.235.125.61 ( talk) 14:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Article re: U.S. News and World Report Law School Rankings: http://www.constitutionaldaily.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=216:us-news-hello-unemployment-goodbye-ttt&catid=42:news&Itemid=71
and
http://abovethelaw.com/2011/03/the-u-s-news-law-school-rankings-are-out/
Thanks! 98.235.125.61 ( talk) 01:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine with your last edit to Sonic 06's legacy section. Looks like we can compromise on how it is now then. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited George Lakoff, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Press ( 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) 12:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I just went through the talk:democracy archive and found that almost every one of my edits has a precedent in the form of someone saying it should be done, but isn't bold enough to do it. The merge, for example, was proposed 3 years ago. Just wanted to air that somewhere. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 09:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you seriously proposing that constitutional monarchies - countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg - are not democracies? If so, I suggest you edit the article to reflect that properly. I suspect, however, that it would be taken down in 15 minutes and ridiculed. You are confusing the idea of "rule" - that is, the exercise of power - with sovereignty - that is, the highest form of authority and the ultimate right to make law. Indeed, if you wish to hold to that, please point to me of a country which is a democracy. The United States certainly isn't on that definition. And even if you meant practical exercise of power, the idea of "rule by the people" as taken in any literal form is nonsensical. Almost all democracies are representative democracies where 'the people' (whoever they are) do not make everyday decisions of government. Indeed, their representatives may pass laws that a majority of 'the people' disapprove of - that doesn't mean to say the country ceases to be a democracy. Gonefishing ( talk) 16:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
You should probably rewrite the lead of the article, which states "Bureaucracy is defined as a form of government". Frietjes ( talk) 16:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
I waiting for you respond on Template_talk:Forms_of_government#Bureaucracy. Thanks.-- Burham ( talk) 17:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
More explanations on Template_talk:Forms_of_government#Bureaucracy. Regards. -- Burham ( talk) 03:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Dear Prototime, Since I did not received you answer up to now for my arguments I feel free to introduce Bureaucracy as form of Oligarchy.-- Burham ( talk) 20:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Show me rather that the consensus had been made on the base of Wikipedia rules and PARTICULARY what in this consensus is so logical that should sustain. Do not accuse me for obstinacy at illogical point of view. We will disagree with a point I will enter my arguments, you will enter yours. The reader will judge which the valid one is. WHY deprive reader valuable resources of information? Hmm... It is not ethical to kill FREEDOM of INFORMATION. Look somewhat like Communist censorship! I do not have license for only true, as well as you do not. Also, if majority has one opinion does not it mean it does not mean it is the CORRECT one. Only by freedom of speech the true goes up for the benefit of all.-- Burham ( talk) 03:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC) PS. You and other editors can believe on all kind of thinks, believe is not a fact, is not reality, and most important is not scientific. Wikipedia is not collection of believes. Is it?-- Burham ( talk) 03:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
And now what wrong with class Cliques. Technocracy, Meritocracy, and Bureaucracy if not OLIGACHY should be somewhere. They are defined as GOVERNMENT, at least there http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bureaucracy. I definitely can find more. If your purpose is only DO NOT MENTION 'bureaucracy' for some reason. Personal one? -- Burham ( talk) 22:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. Other proposal. (Hopping that you accept facts from sources 'bureaucracy' is form of Government. I think you did. Did not you? Looking on article 'Government' there is subsection 'Pejorative attributes' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government#Pejorative_attributes it seems to me that 'technocracy' and 'meritocracy' can be the theoretical Aristarchic (for me will not work in practice) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goverment#Aristarchic_attributes, but the 'bureaucracy' fits like a glove to the 'Pejorative'. If not let me know why? PS. I am not boring I attempt to build consensus with you on the base of readable sources. Or you feel different? -- Burham ( talk) 00:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
OK. I see you are not so active. I understand you can be busy with more important think, but the work around 'Bureaucracy' must progress. I will make changes, possibly at the template you are more sensitive and fast. Please do not react just by reverting. I have right to expect reasons – You know I am not vandal. I doing my search, and we all ought to show subjectivity against our wishes.-- Burham ( talk) 02:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)-- Burham ( talk) 02:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you! | |
---|---|
Hi Prototime! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot ( talk) 14:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC) |
I've added the rollbacker and reviewer rights to your account, as you look to be qualified to use both. INeverCry 02:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion relating to the above topic at Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Phase_2. Please take part in that.
Note that I feel there is a substantial difference in describing groups "at the grassroots level" as "grassroots groups", as there are questions of astroturfing. This issue is also being discussed. If you didn't mean to make any changes to substance, perhaps you could take a look at the related discussions and decide whether rephrasing your edit to reflect the tension regarding the grassroots-astroturfing controversy would be desirable. Other than that, I thought that your edit improved the text.
In case you are not aware, there is a suspended Arbcom case related to the editing of the TPm article, and the moderated discussion has been brought about as part of that process. Please comment there. The article is under discretionary sanctions.
I'd advise looking at this previous version of the page [1] that had a subsection on the Constitution in the Agenda section for material and sources that will be addressed in the ensuing discussion.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Here is a new section with a working draft proposal, any input would be welcome, we are in need of NPOV editors on that page Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion#Working_draft_of_Agenda_section_.28partial.29_with_section_on_the_Constitution.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I just notice that you have a doctorate in jurisprudence, sorry about the "modicum" comment, I had thought I saw a userbox on your userpage stating that you were attending law school. Maybe I confused you with another editor with that box on their page. Anyway, I've redacted that comment.-- Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I apologize for the revert on Sonic Colors. It was an accident - I must have hit rollback on my phone yesterday and not even noticed, because I don't remember doing it. (Which is why there was no edit summary.) So yeah, I dont oppose your edit. Sorry about that. Sergecross73 msg me 10:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi There! I do a lot of articles using the Template:Infobox U.S. legislation. I noticed you made some updates to it. Maybe I was using the template wrong in the past, but most (if not all, I haven't looked at 100% of them) of the articles where I used this template now have broken title sections. i.e. the title does not appear at all. See Bonneville Unit Clean Hydropower Facilitation Act for an example where the title and short title no longer appear in the infobox. How do I fix this? Do I need to manually go to all of my articles (many found here: List of bills in the 113th United States Congress) and then do... what? I noticed that you changed the documentation section of the template, but did not add new fields to the printout below the chart. I pretty new to Wikipedia and templates... what's going on? Thanks. HistoricMN44 ( talk) 20:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)