This user may have left Wikipedia. Tango has not edited Wikipedia since April 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
/Archive06, /Archive07a, /Archive07b, /Archive08, /Archive09, /Archive10 |
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I hope to hear from you soon.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 00:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind, but I've removed the blather you replied to (as well as your reply) from the .999.../Arguments page; there's no use whatsoever in attempting any form of dialog with Anthony R. Brown, judging from years of his history here and elsewhere. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 17:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for replying, and replying very clearly, to my question on the maths refdesk! (I'd do one of those fancy barnstars, but it's late on a Sunday evening and I don't want to get started with that...) -- jftsang 23:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
See here. Thanks Victuallers ( talk) 22:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Tom I have a meeting at the museum on Tuesday. Is it possible to say yea or nay on the microgrant? As you know the enthusiasm is still high. Roger Victuallers ( talk) 15:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I see you editted the microgrants page but missed this. Can we get a yea/nay on the Smart phone? Thanks Victuallers ( talk) 21:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I saw Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2010_July_14#Microsoft_Excel and was hoping that you could answer my question at Microsoft Excel 2007 linking automatic updating. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 23:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
this is regarding what you wrote about IPO's on the Reference Desk. Thanks for your input. I guess if I want to keep the company, I'd better not float any of it in an IPO. At the same time, I'd like to be debt-free, and am not quite ready for customers. So, given that I don't want to give up shares in the company, don't want debt, and am not ready for customers (and hence revenues) what can I do to raise money? I was thinking, I could sell an inordinately large percentage of the company, like 25%, for a very low amount, like $5000, which would only value the entire billion-dollar idea at $25,000. HOWEVER, I would include in the sale an option to purchase the shares back from you within 5 years for 10x the price ($50,000). Do you see how this would make it likely that you would agree, as you either have 25% of a company at a very low valuation, or, you have 10x return within a few years? Is there any chance I could do this? (if not with you, then someone :) -- 86.8.139.65 ( talk) 20:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, same guy here. I think you guys would be a lot more amenable to investing in me - like I mean a LOT more amenable - if I hadn't started by revealing my plan to spend investors' money on hookers and blow. Let's just leave it at that. -- 188.28.140.106 ( talk) 00:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tango, sorry to bother you, but I was wondering whether you have any further input in response to my question.
By now I'm convinced the problem is indeed convex, but I'm not sure how to model it. By setting z = 1/x, the objective would become a sum over z2 which can be modelled using a positive semidefinite matrix, but zx=1 can't be modelled by such a matrix, so we don't get a QCQP via this route. Can you offer me any insights? Or could I ask the question at the reference desk in a different form to solicit inputs from others? Thanks! Oliphaunt ( talk) 06:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm just letting you know that I removed this ref desk question that you had replied to, [1] in case you like to be notified in such cases. I explained the removal on the talk page. [2] Red Act ( talk) 11:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this: [3] Good for you for removing it. If anyone hassles you about it, I'll support you. I was astonished that so many were just blithely trying to answer something that looked like a very shady situation. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
What the hell is this? Take a look at the question, then look at your answer:
Your conduct on the reference desk is highly objectionable. The unilateral action you took to remove the medicine kit question with the numerous editors responses (read: Tango decides that the OP and all of the editors that responded are wrong, Tango is right and will remove all of it), coupled with unreferenced gibberish, as noted above, constitutes disruption. You have been warned, continued behavior of this sort will not be tolerated. Bred Ivy ( talk) 14:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Trotton with Chithurst, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hundred and River Rother ( 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) 11:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
For this really delightful welcome to a new user. Well done. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 21:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC) |
How did we both manage to edit an archive of the help desk unawares? [4] :P Reaper Eternal ( talk) 22:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Tango. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but I thought I should just drop a note here about you blanking my comment at the Humanities Reference desk. If it was inadvertent, no worries at all, as I've restored it. Just thought you might like to be made aware so you don't accidentally do it again. : )
Cheers! Evanh2008 ( talk) ( contribs) 23:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I propose a conversion of this Project into a task force. You may improve a consensus by clicking WT:WikiProject Stargate#Turning WikiProject Stargate into a task force? and discussing a proposal. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Hahah, how amusing that we had such similar responses. I almost went with president for all 3 but changed my mind at the last minute -- Jac16888 Talk 20:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
In this edit, the bot's archiving was somehow undone. Do you have any idea how that happened? (Some kind of edit conflict gone awry?) — Steve Summit ( talk) 11:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I placed my comment above yours [5] even though it was indented at the same level but came after yours. While you did nothing wrong, μηδείς continued their annoying habit of placing their comments randomly without regard to other comments so their reply to you was below one left by StuRat indented at the original thread. This meant I either had to do likewise or post above you. After reconsidering I decided to chose the later. (The third option of posting above both them and StuRat but below you thereby making it seem like perhaps was μηδείς was replying to me instead of you I considered unacceptable. And not because from history it's likely to lead to an edit war with μηδείς but simply because of the unnecessary confusion.) Nil Einne ( talk) 15:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The Real Life Barnstar | |
You know what it's for! Thanks for pointing out the issues with the 2013 Activity Plan. Richard Symonds (WMUK) ( talk) 16:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for the interesting discussion about 0.999.... I think I am with the surrealists on this one! Leutha ( talk) 11:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Other contributors of note include:
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E ( submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) J Milburn ( talk) 00:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I'm reaching out to you on behalf of the Funds Dissemination Committee to request your input on the four proposals that have been submitted to the FDC in this round. The FDC reviews these proposals on behalf of the Wikimedia movement, as it is movement money that they spend, and in order to review them effectively we need to understand your perspective on them, and to ensure that any questions you have about them have been appropriately answered. The proposals are linked to from meta:Grants:APG/Proposals/Community/Review#Proposals_for_review. Please provide your feedback through the talk pages for each proposal.
In particular, please take a close look at the Wikimedia Foundation's draft annual plan. As they have a projected budget of over $60 million (including the grants that they will provide to other movement entities), their plans need extra scrutiny by the community to make sure that they are spending the movement's money effectively.
We will also send you a message to ask you for your input in future rounds of the FDC. If you don't want to receive such messages, then please say so below.
Thanks! Mike Peel ( talk) 19:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have opened and developed a page on Clebsch-Gordan coefficient for SU(3). I'll be really glad if you take a look at the article and propose some improvements if necessary. Thank you. Arkadipta Sarkar ( talk) 15:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Arkadipta Sarkar
Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:
If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!
If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)
Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 21:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
.. and again today -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Star Trek planet classification 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/Star Trek planet classification until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN ( talk) 12:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The file File:Bad-printout-for-ref-desk.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused free use image with no clear use on the Wiki.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
fuzzy510 (
talk) 08:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
This user may have left Wikipedia. Tango has not edited Wikipedia since April 2013. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
/Archive06, /Archive07a, /Archive07b, /Archive08, /Archive09, /Archive10 |
Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.
If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!
You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).
I hope to hear from you soon.-- Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 00:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind, but I've removed the blather you replied to (as well as your reply) from the .999.../Arguments page; there's no use whatsoever in attempting any form of dialog with Anthony R. Brown, judging from years of his history here and elsewhere. -- jpgordon ::==( o ) 17:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for replying, and replying very clearly, to my question on the maths refdesk! (I'd do one of those fancy barnstars, but it's late on a Sunday evening and I don't want to get started with that...) -- jftsang 23:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
See here. Thanks Victuallers ( talk) 22:39, 8 February 2011 (UTC) Tom I have a meeting at the museum on Tuesday. Is it possible to say yea or nay on the microgrant? As you know the enthusiasm is still high. Roger Victuallers ( talk) 15:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I see you editted the microgrants page but missed this. Can we get a yea/nay on the Smart phone? Thanks Victuallers ( talk) 21:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I saw Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Computing/2010_July_14#Microsoft_Excel and was hoping that you could answer my question at Microsoft Excel 2007 linking automatic updating. Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 23:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
this is regarding what you wrote about IPO's on the Reference Desk. Thanks for your input. I guess if I want to keep the company, I'd better not float any of it in an IPO. At the same time, I'd like to be debt-free, and am not quite ready for customers. So, given that I don't want to give up shares in the company, don't want debt, and am not ready for customers (and hence revenues) what can I do to raise money? I was thinking, I could sell an inordinately large percentage of the company, like 25%, for a very low amount, like $5000, which would only value the entire billion-dollar idea at $25,000. HOWEVER, I would include in the sale an option to purchase the shares back from you within 5 years for 10x the price ($50,000). Do you see how this would make it likely that you would agree, as you either have 25% of a company at a very low valuation, or, you have 10x return within a few years? Is there any chance I could do this? (if not with you, then someone :) -- 86.8.139.65 ( talk) 20:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey, same guy here. I think you guys would be a lot more amenable to investing in me - like I mean a LOT more amenable - if I hadn't started by revealing my plan to spend investors' money on hookers and blow. Let's just leave it at that. -- 188.28.140.106 ( talk) 00:02, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Tango, sorry to bother you, but I was wondering whether you have any further input in response to my question.
By now I'm convinced the problem is indeed convex, but I'm not sure how to model it. By setting z = 1/x, the objective would become a sum over z2 which can be modelled using a positive semidefinite matrix, but zx=1 can't be modelled by such a matrix, so we don't get a QCQP via this route. Can you offer me any insights? Or could I ask the question at the reference desk in a different form to solicit inputs from others? Thanks! Oliphaunt ( talk) 06:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm just letting you know that I removed this ref desk question that you had replied to, [1] in case you like to be notified in such cases. I explained the removal on the talk page. [2] Red Act ( talk) 11:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this: [3] Good for you for removing it. If anyone hassles you about it, I'll support you. I was astonished that so many were just blithely trying to answer something that looked like a very shady situation. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
What the hell is this? Take a look at the question, then look at your answer:
Your conduct on the reference desk is highly objectionable. The unilateral action you took to remove the medicine kit question with the numerous editors responses (read: Tango decides that the OP and all of the editors that responded are wrong, Tango is right and will remove all of it), coupled with unreferenced gibberish, as noted above, constitutes disruption. You have been warned, continued behavior of this sort will not be tolerated. Bred Ivy ( talk) 14:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Trotton with Chithurst, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hundred and River Rother ( 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) 11:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
For this really delightful welcome to a new user. Well done. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation ( talk) 21:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC) |
How did we both manage to edit an archive of the help desk unawares? [4] :P Reaper Eternal ( talk) 22:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Tango. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not, but I thought I should just drop a note here about you blanking my comment at the Humanities Reference desk. If it was inadvertent, no worries at all, as I've restored it. Just thought you might like to be made aware so you don't accidentally do it again. : )
Cheers! Evanh2008 ( talk) ( contribs) 23:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I propose a conversion of this Project into a task force. You may improve a consensus by clicking WT:WikiProject Stargate#Turning WikiProject Stargate into a task force? and discussing a proposal. -- George Ho ( talk) 17:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Hahah, how amusing that we had such similar responses. I almost went with president for all 3 but changed my mind at the last minute -- Jac16888 Talk 20:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
In this edit, the bot's archiving was somehow undone. Do you have any idea how that happened? (Some kind of edit conflict gone awry?) — Steve Summit ( talk) 11:37, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I placed my comment above yours [5] even though it was indented at the same level but came after yours. While you did nothing wrong, μηδείς continued their annoying habit of placing their comments randomly without regard to other comments so their reply to you was below one left by StuRat indented at the original thread. This meant I either had to do likewise or post above you. After reconsidering I decided to chose the later. (The third option of posting above both them and StuRat but below you thereby making it seem like perhaps was μηδείς was replying to me instead of you I considered unacceptable. And not because from history it's likely to lead to an edit war with μηδείς but simply because of the unnecessary confusion.) Nil Einne ( talk) 15:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
The Real Life Barnstar | |
You know what it's for! Thanks for pointing out the issues with the 2013 Activity Plan. Richard Symonds (WMUK) ( talk) 16:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for the interesting discussion about 0.999.... I think I am with the surrealists on this one! Leutha ( talk) 11:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Round 1 is now over. The top 64 scorers have progressed to round 2, where they have been randomly split into eight pools of eight. At the end of April, the top two from each pool, as well as the 16 highest scorers from those remaining, will progress to round 3. Commiserations to those eliminated; if you're interested in still being involved in the WikiCup, able and willing reviewers will always be needed, and if you're interested in getting involved with other collaborative projects, take a look at the WikiWomen's Month discussed below.
Round 1 saw 21 competitors with over 100 points, which is fantastic; that suggests that this year's competition is going to be highly competative. Our lower scores indicate this, too: A score of 19 was required to reach round 2, which was significantly higher than the 11 points required in 2012 and 8 points required in 2011. The score needed to reach round 3 will be higher, and may depend on pool groupings. In 2011, 41 points secured a round 3 place, while in 2012, 65 was needed. Our top three scorers in round 1 were:
Other contributors of note include:
Featured topics have still played no part in this year's competition, but once again, a curious contribution has been offered by The C of E ( submissions): did you know that there is a Shit Brook in Shropshire? With April Fools' Day during the next round, there will probably be a good chance of more unusual articles...
March sees the WikiWomen's History Month, a series of collaborative efforts to aid the women's history WikiProject to coincide with Women's History Month and International Women's Day. A number of WikiCup participants have already started to take part. The project has a to-do list of articles needing work on the topic of women's history. Those interested in helping out with the project can find articles in need of attention there, or, alternatively, add articles to the list. Those interested in collaborating on articles on women's history are also welcome to use the WikiCup talk page to find others willing to lend a helping hand. Another collaboration currently running is an an effort from WikiCup participants to coordinate a number of Easter-themed did you know articles. Contributions are welcome!
A few final administrative issues. From now on, submission pages will need only a link to the article and a link to the nomination page, or, in the case of good article reviews, a link to the review only. See your submissions' page for details. This will hopefully make updating submission pages a little less tedious. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) J Milburn ( talk) 00:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello! I'm reaching out to you on behalf of the Funds Dissemination Committee to request your input on the four proposals that have been submitted to the FDC in this round. The FDC reviews these proposals on behalf of the Wikimedia movement, as it is movement money that they spend, and in order to review them effectively we need to understand your perspective on them, and to ensure that any questions you have about them have been appropriately answered. The proposals are linked to from meta:Grants:APG/Proposals/Community/Review#Proposals_for_review. Please provide your feedback through the talk pages for each proposal.
In particular, please take a close look at the Wikimedia Foundation's draft annual plan. As they have a projected budget of over $60 million (including the grants that they will provide to other movement entities), their plans need extra scrutiny by the community to make sure that they are spending the movement's money effectively.
We will also send you a message to ask you for your input in future rounds of the FDC. If you don't want to receive such messages, then please say so below.
Thanks! Mike Peel ( talk) 19:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have opened and developed a page on Clebsch-Gordan coefficient for SU(3). I'll be really glad if you take a look at the article and propose some improvements if necessary. Thank you. Arkadipta Sarkar ( talk) 15:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)Arkadipta Sarkar
Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:
If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!
If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)
Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 21:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
.. and again today -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Star Trek planet classification 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/Star Trek planet classification until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN ( talk) 12:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
The file File:Bad-printout-for-ref-desk.JPG has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused free use image with no clear use on the Wiki.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
fuzzy510 (
talk) 08:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)