Hi there! Please add new sections to the bottom. Thanks.
Hey, I just wanted to clarify my statement about having a web link for a reference. It's not needed as you can see here. It's considered a convenience but not a requirement. Otherwise, Wikipedia would essentially be actively condemning all libraries. Just a heads up. OlYeller Talktome 12:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- True, I forgot that offline sources counted as citations, but seeing as though said source is available on the internet at ERO website I thought it was better if someone could dig it up. I'll link this to the page now. Techhead7890 ( talk) 02:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a major discussion going on at the Talk:Aircraft carrier page about the article and its organization. It would be helpful if you would stop making major changes to the article, and instead make proposals to the talk page to solicit greater input. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 06:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Look, it's easier to discuss a stable article than one in [which] major undiscussed changes are being made. While we haven't discussed specifics regarding structure, that is the next phase in discussion. I thought it would be easier for you to suggest changes ,and get input on it, rather than to make your changes now, and then have them completely reworked just a few days later, and you might feel like your work was for nothing. As it is, I do disagree with you structural changes, and I would like you to discuss them first, per
WP:BRD. -
BilCat (
talk) 07:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Alright - as I've noted, I am not planning to work further on the article, so you may continue your discussion as planned without interference. I however don't see the formal planning or schedule of such work, or even a notice that it is undergoing revision on the talk due to its disorganised nature - at the very least, a heading notice would be nice. As I just stated, I do not plan to further work on the article and I do not care much if they are reverted or reworked during your revisal.
- Seeing as though you are interested in discussion, to get some closure on this, if you could please explain more specifically which of these edits (and which of these are "structural changes") are most controversial: the edits I made to the article were over a variety of sections and areas. ::Finally, as per the second message, I trust that the article in its intermediary form is not drastically changing to your restructuring - could you confirm this for me? Thanks, Techhead7890 ( talk) 07:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think the current form is fine for now, but I'll look at it again in the morning. I would like you to participate in the discussion, if you would, especially as you haven't been involved to this point, and so might bring a fresh perspective. In addition, you've obviously given som thought to improve the article, and giving your ideas there might help to keep the discussion moving forward. However, the discussions have been quite long and contentious to this point, so I understand if you'd rather not get involved! Thanks. -
BilCat (
talk) 07:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- As interesting as the subject is, there are a number of other pages that I am interested in; and to be honest my diplomacy, debate and rhetoric is not what I'm interested in practising on Wikipedia! As for the discussion itself - although I have made edits, as I've stated these are generalised edits and not reflective of any plan or indeed, tailored vision of the page. I also find it relatively hard to find exactly what is the topic-at-debate or what exactly is contentious, and so find it hard to comment further. That all being said I do wish you the best luck in attempting to establish a forward consensus, I know Wikipedia isn't always the nicest of debategrounds out there! Techhead7890 ( talk) 08:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think the current form is fine for now, but I'll look at it again in the morning. I would like you to participate in the discussion, if you would, especially as you haven't been involved to this point, and so might bring a fresh perspective. In addition, you've obviously given som thought to improve the article, and giving your ideas there might help to keep the discussion moving forward. However, the discussions have been quite long and contentious to this point, so I understand if you'd rather not get involved! Thanks. -
BilCat (
talk) 07:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss this edit.
This is not because I'm raising any behavioural issue. It's that I think one of us has it innocently wrong, and I'm seeking to come to a consensus.
I'm not infallible. A Pope is only infallible if he speaks ex cathedra. And I never speak ex cathedra. - John XXIII
Hoping to hear from you. Andrewa ( talk) 16:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi there, I've responded at the talk:Alishan (disambiguation) page (specifically at the Discussion section) already and sent a reply ping there, but as I understand it you track conversations at the pages you post them on. I agree with your points as a general whole, and as such I retract my opposal (as edited there).
- As an aside that is not-wholly encylopaedically relevant, I am personally uncertain if there's actually primary topic. But given as though it's an article about a foreign location that I'm not familiar with, I suppose that without the sources to say as much, that is irrelevant; and I accept that proceedings can't (or even that it would be best to not to) take a random personal opinion into consideration. And as an editing user I certainly can't in good conscience raise an objection on the basis that "it doesn't feel right for no solid unsourced reason," for sure! I suppose I will have to improve my research skills. :)
- Regardless of that, I did get the DAb policy wrong from ignorance, and for that I do apologise. In closing, thank you for not presuming malice on my part, even though it did stem from my ignorance; I do appreciate it. And PS, I like the basis behind the personal creed you linked. — Techhead7890 ( talk) 02:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Techhead7890. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot ( talk) 17:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Test nosig Techhead7890 ( talk) 01:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Hi there! Please add new sections to the bottom. Thanks.
Hey, I just wanted to clarify my statement about having a web link for a reference. It's not needed as you can see here. It's considered a convenience but not a requirement. Otherwise, Wikipedia would essentially be actively condemning all libraries. Just a heads up. OlYeller Talktome 12:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
- True, I forgot that offline sources counted as citations, but seeing as though said source is available on the internet at ERO website I thought it was better if someone could dig it up. I'll link this to the page now. Techhead7890 ( talk) 02:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a major discussion going on at the Talk:Aircraft carrier page about the article and its organization. It would be helpful if you would stop making major changes to the article, and instead make proposals to the talk page to solicit greater input. Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 06:52, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Look, it's easier to discuss a stable article than one in [which] major undiscussed changes are being made. While we haven't discussed specifics regarding structure, that is the next phase in discussion. I thought it would be easier for you to suggest changes ,and get input on it, rather than to make your changes now, and then have them completely reworked just a few days later, and you might feel like your work was for nothing. As it is, I do disagree with you structural changes, and I would like you to discuss them first, per
WP:BRD. -
BilCat (
talk) 07:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Alright - as I've noted, I am not planning to work further on the article, so you may continue your discussion as planned without interference. I however don't see the formal planning or schedule of such work, or even a notice that it is undergoing revision on the talk due to its disorganised nature - at the very least, a heading notice would be nice. As I just stated, I do not plan to further work on the article and I do not care much if they are reverted or reworked during your revisal.
- Seeing as though you are interested in discussion, to get some closure on this, if you could please explain more specifically which of these edits (and which of these are "structural changes") are most controversial: the edits I made to the article were over a variety of sections and areas. ::Finally, as per the second message, I trust that the article in its intermediary form is not drastically changing to your restructuring - could you confirm this for me? Thanks, Techhead7890 ( talk) 07:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think the current form is fine for now, but I'll look at it again in the morning. I would like you to participate in the discussion, if you would, especially as you haven't been involved to this point, and so might bring a fresh perspective. In addition, you've obviously given som thought to improve the article, and giving your ideas there might help to keep the discussion moving forward. However, the discussions have been quite long and contentious to this point, so I understand if you'd rather not get involved! Thanks. -
BilCat (
talk) 07:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- As interesting as the subject is, there are a number of other pages that I am interested in; and to be honest my diplomacy, debate and rhetoric is not what I'm interested in practising on Wikipedia! As for the discussion itself - although I have made edits, as I've stated these are generalised edits and not reflective of any plan or indeed, tailored vision of the page. I also find it relatively hard to find exactly what is the topic-at-debate or what exactly is contentious, and so find it hard to comment further. That all being said I do wish you the best luck in attempting to establish a forward consensus, I know Wikipedia isn't always the nicest of debategrounds out there! Techhead7890 ( talk) 08:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- I think the current form is fine for now, but I'll look at it again in the morning. I would like you to participate in the discussion, if you would, especially as you haven't been involved to this point, and so might bring a fresh perspective. In addition, you've obviously given som thought to improve the article, and giving your ideas there might help to keep the discussion moving forward. However, the discussions have been quite long and contentious to this point, so I understand if you'd rather not get involved! Thanks. -
BilCat (
talk) 07:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to discuss this edit.
This is not because I'm raising any behavioural issue. It's that I think one of us has it innocently wrong, and I'm seeking to come to a consensus.
I'm not infallible. A Pope is only infallible if he speaks ex cathedra. And I never speak ex cathedra. - John XXIII
Hoping to hear from you. Andrewa ( talk) 16:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
- Hi there, I've responded at the talk:Alishan (disambiguation) page (specifically at the Discussion section) already and sent a reply ping there, but as I understand it you track conversations at the pages you post them on. I agree with your points as a general whole, and as such I retract my opposal (as edited there).
- As an aside that is not-wholly encylopaedically relevant, I am personally uncertain if there's actually primary topic. But given as though it's an article about a foreign location that I'm not familiar with, I suppose that without the sources to say as much, that is irrelevant; and I accept that proceedings can't (or even that it would be best to not to) take a random personal opinion into consideration. And as an editing user I certainly can't in good conscience raise an objection on the basis that "it doesn't feel right for no solid unsourced reason," for sure! I suppose I will have to improve my research skills. :)
- Regardless of that, I did get the DAb policy wrong from ignorance, and for that I do apologise. In closing, thank you for not presuming malice on my part, even though it did stem from my ignorance; I do appreciate it. And PS, I like the basis behind the personal creed you linked. — Techhead7890 ( talk) 02:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Techhead7890. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot ( talk) 17:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Test nosig Techhead7890 ( talk) 01:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
|
| Hello! Voting in the
2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All
eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |