![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Here's a proposed change to the Majd article I want to make sure is OK with recent editors (follows BLP and all) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Inthis edit you hid relevant information about Denver's elevation. Please stop edit warring over this—the city is not exactly one mile high if there are federal geography databases saying it is two feet lower than one mile. If you continue edit warring you can be blocked. Binksternet (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Binksternet,
I don't know if you remember me, we talked a long time ago about the different pages related to the atomic bombings. I was just taking a look at the mess over on this page. It looks like a lot was going on for a long time and it's been relatively quiet for the last month. Given tomorrow is the anniversary I'm sure there will be plenty of edits. As I think I told you, I don't edit very much anymore though I still sometimes use Wikipedia to look up stuff. Just wanted to thank you for all your hard work on those pages. 203.100.165.184 (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Greetings I have some DYK nominations which are eating dust and was wondering if you can bring light to them:
I thank you for your help. Khyati Gupta (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Binksternet. Sorry, but I just collapsed the comment you made at the Beatles mediation. It's nothing personal - it's just that we don't want the participants to reply to each other's posts just yet. We're trying to keep the discussion quite structured at the moment, so I hope you can forgive me for the inconvenience. And feel free to email me or message me on my talk page at any time if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Please "Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles" do not delete my comments again. It's not very nice at all.--andreasegde (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I regret to say that I disagree with your decision to remove the parasitical component section from the article on resistor. I have started a discussion on the matter in the talk page if you wish to continue there. 173.52.114.254 (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
As one of the few other people interested in maintaining NPOV at that article, do you think there's some step we should take to try to reduce disruption there? Most recent edits there have been disruptive or at best unconstructive, but the problem isn't so frequent that I think an RFP would succeed (the way I just got Kathleen Sebelius semiprotected for a few months). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Makoto Ogawa (pilot) at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You are among the top contributors to this Featured Article. Work has begun on changing the citation format and referencing conventions in use on the article. There is a discussion underway at the talk page for the article. Feel free to participate. Kablammo (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Re your comments on the Duns Scotus article not being a 'vital' article. I did explain this. Scotus is a giant of the Western intellectual tradition. He is one of the three most important medieval philosophers (together with Aquinas and Ockham). So, whether or not he is on the Wikipedia list of vital articles, isn't an article about him relevant to the competition? I did try and enter Scotus on the level 3 list but someone removed him, as there 'can only be 1,000 articles'. Right, but I see Bing Crosby and Elvis Presley are on that list. Is Wikipedia saying that Bing Crosby is more important than Duns Scotus? Quisquiliae (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Appreciated :) I want to get it to GA soon, and I have a bunch of other Poland-themed articles I want to improve this year. Will have to check if any other fall under core... Copernicus probably would. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
<sigh> An oldtimer like you is supposed to know what belongs to disambig pages. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
On12 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bukochosho, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that fighter pilot Yoshio Yoshida shot down six confirmed Boeing B-29 Superfortresses over Japan but was awarded the high military honor of Bukosho for an earlier "probable" in Manchuria? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
On12 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Yoshio Yoshida (pilot), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that fighter pilot Yoshio Yoshida shot down six confirmed Boeing B-29 Superfortresses over Japan but was awarded the high military honor of Bukosho for an earlier "probable" in Manchuria? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Binksternet, just a heads up that you were reported at WP:3RRN for edit-warring on Cold fusion. It was a meritless, malformed report, and I closed it as no violation, but I thought you might want to know.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
On14 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Makoto Ogawa (pilot), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that among pilots of his air group, Japanese ace Makoto Ogawa downed the highest number of Boeing B-29 Superfortresses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Makoto Ogawa (pilot). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks for your message. Calling someone an "illiterate thug" and expressing hatred and verbal abuse goes against Wikipedia's policy. The Talk Page should NOT be used to express PERSONAL beliefs and should not be reduced to name calling. If you read the comment of that person, titled "incomplete statements", you'll see that he is using the Talk Page to express his personal views and therefore should be removed, if you agree! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.99.157.161 (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the new IP. I saw that you have requested checkuser. There have been previous SPI reports (you can find them in the SPI archives for Dualus) where checkuser has been declined because there is a policy against using checkuser information to connect an account to an IP. There's only one active or recently active account in the SPI report (User:Npmay). Are you requesting checkuser specifically to look for other active accounts we may have missed? --Amble (talk) 19:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to read this note. I ask that you reconsider your reversions of the removals I made. Without those removals, only the Cato Institute gets the dubious honor of having citations that focus on only some of its funding sources. In contrast, other entities mentioned in the article do not get such treatment. This clearly works against the article's neutrality.
Your suggestion that "Bias for other groups can be added" in your edit summary is as confirming as it is dismissive: It acknowledges the faults of the article and at the same time suggests an approach of adding additional citations. I agree fully with that approach, however until it is pushed to completion it is a neutrality problem.
Therefore I recommend that we remove the material and acknowledge on the article's talk page that there is a problem and there is a solution but it needs complete implementation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.73.50 (talk • contribs)
Hi, Binksternet.
I admit that at times I have been uncivil (WP:CIV) in my comments within the Maafa 21 talk page, particularly in a few of my responses to Roscelese. I want you to know that I have attempted to address this personal shortcoming at Roscelese's talk page.
God bless!
-- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what went wrong today, but when I tried to add my one little comment to the Christianity and Homosexuality talk page, the entire page wound up blank! I couldn't get it restored. Not sure how you did it. I appreciate you getting my comment back in, but it really is in the wrong place (which is what happened when I first inserted it). It was supposed to go at the end of the Catholic Church section. At this point, after having so much trouble with it today, I am afraid to edit it again. But if you feel brave, could you move it to the end of Catholic Church? Many thanks! BroWCarey (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Did you intend to revert the wording at Neanderthal? We seem to have consensus on the Talk page for making the language more tentative. But your revert has restored a version that is more definitive, and also uses the problematic word "recent" (given that in time in will no longer be recent). TimidGuy (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Hilliard (artist) 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/John Hilliard (artist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on 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 template from the top of the article. Jsharpminor (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
On22 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iran Constituent Assembly, 1949, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Shah of Iran used public sympathy resulting from a failed assassination attempt to call for a Constituent Assembly in 1949 to increase his royal power? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Iran Constituent Assembly, 1949. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Hi Binkstern,
Thank you for your note regarding my conrtibution regarding Carlos Gardel. In regards to the citations I must say that for the most part the documentation needed was already present in the original article, were needed I added, or thought I did, new materials. Perhaps, the information regarding Gardel's controversy was taken to be onesided, where in reality that's furthest from the truth.
My changes only provide additional information regarding one of the theories of Gardel's birthplace, and because there are many I've taken the liberty of removing any assertation of one over the other.
My changes are: a) Inclusion of Gardel's brithmother and father, with archival photographs of them and of Gardel and his family; b) mention of his birthyear as regards this theory to be 1875, this is documented by a 1885 census of Burdeaux (linked document) where it shows a Charles Gardes to have been born in 1875 in South America (this proof was already present in the bio); c) mentiones that the Toulousse theory gives his YOB as 1890 but there are archival documentation of him attending first year in Buenos Aires in 1887, documentation was already present in original bio; d) mentioned that during his lifetime it was common knowledge that Gardel was born in Uruguay, for this the original bio had captions from reporters of the time as well as Gardel's own claims.
I could also mention that all official documents in existence shows his place of birth to be Tacuarembo and not Toulouse. These include passports, national id's and all the documentation regarding Gardel's argentine nationalization.
There is very little documentation regarding Carlos Gardel and all of if indicates his POB to be in Uruguay. In all honesty, the Toulousse theory is based solely on a handwritten note allegedly written by him and a handfull of heresay.
If your position is to be a mediator in these regards I would request that you allow inclusion of these documents into his bio.
Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorzaluruguay (talk • contribs) 21:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Binkstern,
I've just included a few documents that back Gardel's Uruguay theory. One is the charred remains of his passport, for which I only included the piece that shows his POB, a second is a copy of Gardel's argentine ID card that shows his POB to be in Uruguay, and the third is a copy of the 1886 census of the Bordeux region that shows a Charles Gardes (name given to Gardel by french theorists) to have been born in South America. These items have all been obtained from public archives.
My intent is to shed light, with documentation, to the theory that Gardel was in fact born in Uruguay. I hope that these documents are sufficient and meet wikipedia's documentation requirements. I may also include additional documentation as they become available. Also, please note that the referencs in the original article are referenced by private blogs, which as you noted do not constitute citations, hence I ask that you remove them from the article and ask the original writer to provide documentation to their work.
Please advise before re-editing this work.
kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorzaluruguay (talk • contribs) 00:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Binkstern,
What you are accusing me of doing (relying on unsubstantiated sources, pushing my own ideas, and lacking of original research) is grossly misplaced and is exactly what proponents of the second theory are doing. I have never, nor do I ever wish to, curtail the ideas and positions of others, specially if they are well documented. To accuse me of bending the evidence to obtain a goal is a sad statement to be made by someone representing such an organization. The documents showned by me are not new at all, they have been in existence for almost a century, some since the late 19th century, and is in the public domain in the US, Argentina, Colombia, France and Uruguay. I have not, and is not my intention to, remove the work proposed by others.
The documentation uploaded last night by me is not contested by any scholar. It is the documentation used by Argentine scholars to show that he was Argentine. The idea that Mr. Gardel was born in Uruguay is not mine by any means. This documentation complies with wikipedias strickt copyright requirements. There are some peoples that posit this documentation has obtained fraudulently by Mr. Gardel, but the proof of this has yet to bee seen.
I do applaud your zeal in assuring the best quality of work is published by this organization, and ask only that the same zeal be applied to the second theory. The main source of the second theory, Bocaz's piece publish by UNESCO press, does not comply with wikipedia's own source guidelines. This work lacks all all foundations to be considered scholarly, or even a first draft research paper, and that is because it's intention was never such (it merely posits its point ipso facto with-out referncing), it was merely an intertainment peace, as its author is know to be.
kind regards --Zorzaluruguay (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe your work to be biased and proceeded to ask for conflict resolution.--Zorzaluruguay (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
According to my watchlist and the page history, you made a comment at Talk:Reagan but strangely it does not seem to appear, when I view the page. Bug, or am I losing it? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
I am done with my stage one expansion. For more, I'll have to actually get a book or two :) I've nominated the article at WP:GA. Any comments would be appreciated (as would a proofreading by a native English editor :). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Pretty sure you didn't mean to do this, so I reverted it. Favonian (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Carlos Gardel". Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 14:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The final is upon us! We are down to our final 8. A massive 573 was our lowest qualifying score; this is higher than the 150 points needed last year and the 430 needed in 2010. Even in 2009, when points were acquired for mainspace edit count in addition to audited content, 417 points secured a place. That leaves this year's WikiCup, by one measure at least, our most competitive ever. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:
However, we must also say goodbye to the eight who did not make the final, having fallen at the last hurdle: GreatOrangePumpkin (submissions), Ealdgyth (submissions), Calvin999 (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Toa Nidhiki05 (submissions), 12george1 (submissions), The Bushranger (submissions) and 1111tomica (submissions). We hope to see you all next year.
On the subject of next year, a discussion has been opened here. Come and have your say about the competition, and how you'd like it to run in the future. This brainstorming will go on for some time before more focused discussions/polls are opened. As ever, 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) 00:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
(see the thread at User talk:Binksternet/Archive20#General Motors streetcar conspiracy)
Again, you are latching on to the who is saying what aspect rather than what is being said aspect. Bias is still bias even if the majority is in favor of it. You haven't convinced me that it is neutral, and I am sure I could contrive some example where only the nouns are switched around and you would agree there is bias. Additionally, you seem to think that I am with Cato and that automatically dismisses my points.
Having said that, I am no longer contesting this with you: You may leave the article as biased. What I will contest are any further allegations or insinuations that I am being paid by anyone to manipulate articles. If you wish to pursue that allegation, then we can proceed to arbitration. Otherwise, you can drop it altogether and I will wish you well in future endeavors. 71.174.73.50 (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I was using the usually-reliable website here. If you scroll way, way down. Clearly I was wrong. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't you think a half-page copyvio template is a little overblown for a half-sentence quotation? Quote marks would suffice, or a minor rewrite, whichever you prefer. hgilbert (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
--The Olive Branch 18:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi! As part of Wiki Loves Monuments, we're organizing two photo events in the San Francisco Bay Area and one in Yosemite National Park. We hope you can come out and participate! Feel free to contact User:Almonroth with questions or concerns.
There are three events planned:
We look forward to seeing you there!
You are receiving this message because you signed up on the SF Bay Area event listing, or have attended an event in the Bay Area. To remove yourself, please go here. EdwardsBot (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Please don't do this if you are not on the Arbitration Committee. NW (Talk) 13:54, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I added a few songs of 1963 as a familiar year for me. I'll post links from wikipedia as reference for later edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.56.94 (talk) 04:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
What if many unreliable sources say the same thing? Would it become common knowledge and could we cite many different sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.32.56.94 (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I've made a suggestion at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#libertarian_perspectives_on_abortion - given that we've got an experienced editor under the accusation it would be great to a) sensible opinion from other experienced editors and b) let this be a shining example of consensus-building on the COI board (we've had a good run recently...) Fayedizard (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
On10 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Hilliard (artist), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that John Hilliard'sCause of Death (1974) suggested four different interpretations of one photographic negative? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/John Hilliard (artist). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 08:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Message added 04:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
On13 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Portola Road Race, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that two men and a dog died during the 1909 Portola Road RaceinOakland, California? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Portola Road Race. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 08:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Your edit of how JFK picked LBJ for VP was fascinating. Thanks for adding it. --Javaweb (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)Javaweb
Hello. I'm sure that you realized that my intention wasn't malicious. I've actually been editing since mid-2008, had an account before, but no longer use it due to semi-retirement. My goal was to edit based on my experience with many ufologists, who will take language such as pseudoscience as evidence against anyone questioning their claims. The goal of my edit was to make the article conform better to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and to word it to where we can communicate that we are not refuting their claims entirely, but simply stating that there is not (yet) enough evidence to draw these conclusions. I consider myself an open-minded skeptic when it comes to ufology, and, the ultimate goal of people in my position is to only refute when we have evidence against its validity, but to ensure that our position will be reversed in the event that evidence changes.
I did request as kindly as possible that my edit be improved, as I was aware that it was not worded the best way in the world, but I hoped to at least start by communicating my point. (IP address changed since edit) 70.248.180.39 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC), last modified 20:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
On18 September 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jazzschool, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that poet Ishmael Reed learned to play jazz piano at the Jazzschool beginning when he was 60? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jazzschool. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
You warned another editor about the article probation so I see no reason to give you to formally inform you. You are currently engaged in an edit war on this article. Bold insertion by Hcobb, revert 1 by Belchfire, restore 1 by Stillstanding, revert 2 by Belchfire, restore 2 by Hcobb, revert 3 by Wasted Time R, and then you've restored the material. I really don't think you need me to dig into policy here, just be careful in the future. I'd hate to have to topic ban or block anyone and I'd like to see everyone discussing before reverting.--v/r - TP 01:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Message added 09:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
Your comments, and my answers: "I know that you have been invited to refrain from responding to GabeMc but you have ignored the invitation." A: I was 'ordered' not to react to his posts (except for the mediation/poll page), which I did, but if you want diffs, you will see that he has ignored that ruling on other pages. It has been difficult for me to constantly refer to "a certain editor". He has had no qualms about referring to me as as "Andy". One rule for one, one rule for the other.
"I think of you as a loose cannon rather than a wild horse, if you'll forgive the mixed metaphor." A: Read your comment below, and mine.
"I think your contributions on Wikipedia are fantastic except for the unbelievably poor choice of warring over lower versus upper case "the"." A: If I am called a 'fantastic' contributor, I don't see that my reasoning could be seen as being "unbelievably poor" when it comes to a question of grammar. Does that mean I'm a great driver, but I need a car? :)
"I respect the larger contributions [thanks] but not the battleground attitude you have assumed over this petty issue." A: Read "a certain editor's" attacks/comments. He has been bullying people in a mad fashion, but he cries "Wolf!" at every opportunity. His attacks are outrageous.
"If it's okay with you I will refer to you by your username instead of "Andreasedge" that you wrote above." A: "Andreasedge"?? It has always been "okay with" me to be called Andreasegde. I have NEVER used any other name. I have never thought of calling you "Binky".--andreasegde (talk) 20:14, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello, you are receiving this message because you are currently a participant of WikiProject Good articles. Since the creation of the WikiProject, over 200 user's have joined to help review good article nominations and contribute to other sections of the WikiProject. Over the years, several of these users have stopped reviewing articles and/or have become inactive with the project but are still listed as participates. In order to improve communications with other participants and get newsletters sent out faster (newsletters will begin to be sent out monthly starting in October) all participants that are no longer active with the WikiProject will be removed from the participants list.
If you are still interested in being a participant for this WikiProject, please sign your user name here and please help review some articles so we can reduce the size of the backlog. If you are no longer interested, you do not need to sign your name anywhere and your name will be removed from the participants list after the deadline. Remember that even if you are not interested at this time, you can always re-add your name to the list whenever you want. The deadline to sign your name on the page above will be November 1, 2012. Thank-you. 13:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for having to send out a second message but a user has brought to my attention that a point mentioned in the first message should be clarified. If user's don't sign on this page, they will be moved to an "Inactive Participants" list rather then be being removed from the entire WikiProject. Sorry for any confusion.--Dom497 (talk)15:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
[cricobr] Hi,
On 09/07/2012, and apparently on the basis of a 1 day old discussion on Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Wikimapia (now at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_11#Wikimapia), you removed all the Wikimapia links from the article Circus (building). A lot of work went into locating the linked places. I do not believe you have a case for the complete elimination of this information. A more Wikipedian action would have been to convert the links to coord template links. Furthermore, strangely, you didn't even attempt to discuss your rather radical proposed action on the article's Talk page.
During the days after you eliminated the hard-earned coordinate information embodied in the Wikimapia links the discussion was extensively extended through the participation of some 10 registered users. The conclusion of the section's starter, User:Sfan00 IMG, very close to the end of the current state of the discussion was:
I [cricobr] am the user who, over a long period of time, expanded and hopefully improved the information in the article Circus (building). The additional information included some 50 Wikimapia links to the various circuses and other locations. I used these links instead of the coord template because they take the reader instantly to the relevant coordinates on the satellite image, at an appropriate scale. If I were to used the coord template, and still wished that the reader would see the image I intended them to see, I would have to follow everyone of these links with an explanatory parenthesis of the form:
The most important information obtained through the Wikimapia links is not the Places or other information you may find superimposed on Wikimapia's satellite image display, but rather the location of an area on the surface of the globe, as referenced by its Lat/Long coordinates and display scale, which is embodied in the link code. If there are Wikimapia Places with names and information at the location, each reader will be free to judge the validity of that information for themselves. That information is not what I am pointing at. The purpose of the Wikimapia links is to take the reader rapidly to a very specific area on the surface of the globe. So long as the satellite image display remains available on Wikimapia the links will always do what I intend them to do, regardless of whatever else Wikimapia users may do at that location.
I intend to undo your action before new edits accumulating on top of your edit make reversion excessively complicated. The coordinate information cannot be lost. As a last resort it must be preserved by being converted to coord templates. However, I believe that would seriously degrade the readers experience in comparison to using the Wikipedia links.
Cricobr (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that you've been reverting recent edits which removed the {{Spanish colonial campaigns}} template from some articles (e.g., [1], [2]). I also noticed that some of the articles where you have reinserted the template are not listed therein. The template doesn't seem to have any documentation giving guidance regarding its usage but, without looking closely at this, my guess is that it is intended to be inserted in articles describing campaigns in which Spain sought to establish colonies. The two articles I've exampled would not meet that criterion. I suggest that you take a second look at this. Cheers, Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:03, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
You sent me a message saying that i was suspected of sockpuppetry and referenced one 'HarveyCarter'. I'm not sure if i'm accused of being his sock puppet or using him as one but i can assure you that these allegations are false.
However, i am wondering what actions of mine and/or his have lead you to this conclusion. I have read the linked evidence report, yet nothing in said report references me in any way. In fact, the page hasn't been updated in over a month. I'm not 100% sure of the rules on the subject but if it's allowed could you please enlighten me?
Thank you 94.193.234.10 (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand your revert of my edit of 26 Sept 2012 of "Battle of Balikpapan (1942)" nor your vandalism flag. Source was provided both for the edit and to clarify the conjecture of greater success pending solution of Mark 15 torpedo problem, an issue that you inserted into the article at some time during the last year. Do you have some particular editorial bias against calling the Battle of Balikpapan a "success" for the United States Navy? Mike Diehl (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I see you seem to be the gatekeeper for the VOA page, so I'll appeal to you. The VOA article is so outdated it's pathetic. I've worked there for almost 30 years and I've seen a lot of history. I'd love to correct & add to the page myself, but I'm just an eyewitness & Wiki's rules would exclude my first-hand testimony (without published sources). (By the way, most of the article's reference links lead to the same generic "today's news" page.) Got any advice, suggestions? I hate to see so much outdated, missing, and just plain wrong information on the page that represents half my life.
BP McLeod — Preceding unsigned comment added by BPMcLeod (talk • contribs) 00:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
We're over half way through the final, and so it is less than a month until we know for certain our 2012 WikiCup champion. Grapple X (submissions) currently leads, followed by Sasata (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). However, we have no one resembling a breakaway leader, and so the competition is a long way from over. Next month's newsletter will feature a list of our winners (who are not necessarily only the finalists) and keep your eyes open for an article on the WikiCup in a future edition of The Signpost. The leaders are already on a par with last year's winners, but a long way from the huge scores seen in 2010. That said, a repeat of the competition from 2010 seems unlikely.
It is good to see that three-quarters of our finalists have already scored bonus points this round. This shows that, contrary to criticism that the WikiCup has received in the past, the competition does not merely incentivise the writing of trivial articles; instead, our top competitors are still spending their time contributing to high-importance articles, and bringing them to a high standard. This does a great service to the encyclopedia and its readers. Thank you, and good work!
The planning for next year's WikiCup is ongoing. Some straw polls have been opened concerning the scoring, and you can now sign up for next year's competition. As ever, 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) 19:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
The WikiProject Good articles Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 05:30, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but actually, Maus was archivedbyGrahamColm as it only got one "support". CüRlyTüRkeyTalkContribs 21:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Free the whales ? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:26, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. Please see WP:INFOBOXFLAG and Infobox Weapon documentation before re-adding further flags to Infobox Weapon. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 11:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Binksternet,
I'll agree that from what I can gather Chris White has some pretty crazy beliefs. He may be doing it for the wrong reasons, but his methods of debunking Ancient Aliens appear sound to me. I strongly recommend for you to watch the documentary (even just the first section) before discrediting his movie based only on his other beliefs. In reviews of the movie, several people do note that he does bring in some of his crazy ideas near the end, and that is unfortunate. Nonetheless, I found it to be pretty damning of ancient aliens. Not only that but the movie does a really good job of explaining how many of these ancient structures were likely to be made. It is interesting even if you don't watch ancient aliens (which I don't). My only purpose is adding this link is to inform people who are trying to look into whether ancient aliens is total BS (it seems obvious to me, but not to a lot of people). Even the Skeptic Society has reviewed the movie and I can't imagine they often support Chris White. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathanwands (talk • contribs) 00:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Is the Skeptic Society not a reliable source? If not, what criteria does it not meet? Also, there is no actual claim being made by the statement I wrote. It merely says that a documentary was made which "attempts" to debunk the show. I don't think anyone can dispute that. I'm obviously new to the process so fill me in here.... Nathanwands (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations! — Cirt (talk) 18:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
The Writer's Barnstar | |
Great job getting the article We Can Do It!toFeatured Article quality status, excellent work! The Wikipedia community values your contributions to this project. — Cirt (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC) |
Four Award | ||
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on We Can Do It!. LittleMountain5 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC) |
Great work! LittleMountain5 22:18, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I noticed you reverted my edit of the skyline photo. Your reason is the following: "Lake photo has more atmosphere"
I'm not sure I understand the relevance of atmosphere to an image that represents an economic juggernaut of 400,000 people. But I will not assume that my choice of images is better than yours. We both have our perspectives and ultimately a community should decide what image represents a city the size of Oakland.
What do you say we put this issue to a vote and let the Wikipedia community in the Bay Area decide which image should represent the City of Oakland.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks!
BDS2006 (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Wonderful. I added an "Oakland Skyline Image - Vote" section to the talk page of the Oakland, CA article. If you have other methods for gathering the opinions of the Wikipedia community, I'm open to ideas!
Regards,
October 16 - Ada Lovelace Day Celebration - You are invited! | |
---|---|
Come celebrate Ada Lovelace Day at the Wikimedia Foundation offices in San Francisco on October 16! This event, hosted by the Ada Initiative, the Mozilla Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation. It'll be a meet up style event, though you are welcome to bring a laptop and edit about women in STEM if you wish. Come mix, mingle and celebrate the legacy of the world's first computer programmer.
The event is October 16, 5:00 pm - 8:00 pm, everyone is welcome!
You must RSVP here - see you there! |
My changes were reverted by you in 11 minutes while I was still typing on the talk page. You have already reverted twice. Kindly refrain from doing so the thrid time without sufficient discussion on the talk page. I am sure you are aware of WP:3RR. I have no personal interest in "attacking" Coppola who happens to be one of my favourite directors. I came across this piece of information while reading the article Contact (film) and I think it is important that such a controversy is mentioned, as is the case in almost all other biography articles. I agree with you on the "emphasis", which I interpret as the length of the section. I have temporarily copied the text from the said Contact article. Please feel free to cut it to size as appropriate for the current article. Please note that on reading carefully you will find that the text itself is NPOV. The "attack" is actually the words of Carl Sagan's widow and his atternoy, quoting and citing reliable sources. Please discuss any further disagreements on the talk page where I have explained why I feel it is important to mention this. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I watchlisted any of the Latino music articles that have not been protected yet and were edited by the IP block hopper. You probably should do the same, and any editing by the blockhopper means another RPP.--1966batfan (talk) 00:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
PLease refrain from invoking "vandalism", per WP:NPA.--Galassi (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
Congrats on the FA, Mr. Bink! Hope you and Mrs. Bink are wonderful. Matthew (WMF) 20:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
"I support Tvoz's right to speak her mind to reporters without any repercussions here". What repercussions? So you support her right to make sexist comments that disparage 90% of Wikipedia editors and perhaps even Wikipedia itself but you do not support my right to refute them? Why? Anyway, Coren agrees, and that's more than enough for me. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:57, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Alright, that seems reasonably true overall. You're right, I can certainly handle Burlinson myself, and I wasn't looking for your protection from him, I was merely seeking a response to clarify if that's the kind of behaviour you were advising me to avoid. I do respect your chivalry greatly, and anyone who knows me in RL would concur. Maybe that's why I find this so frustrating, because in RL, I am a champion of women's rights, so to be accused of "an overabundance of testosterone" is insulting to me. If you are saying that men can abuse and wikihound other men but not women, then you are no longer about equality, its now more about protecting a gender you seem to deem in need of protection, a position some woman I know would find offensive.
IME, Tvoz is as hostile and aggresive as any male I have ever encountered here on Wikipedia or anywhere online, no question. I've been online for 25+ years. She also has a bit of a history with anti-male comments. Though, I had no idea until quite recently that she was female based on her interactions with me. As far as my own "aggression in interactions", I'll be working on that for sure, as one person making one step-toward improving this situation. I will say, at the risk of sounding like I'm making excuses, that my Wikipedia aggression was very much a learned behaviour, and that few if any could survive more than a few months editing Beatles related articles without learning to be somewhat forceful. That's not an excuse, but all the more reason for those of us who act aggresively to improve our behaviours ASAP. I see it all the time. New editors who start off quite nice and polite who quickly begin resorting to insults, snarky comments and one-up-personship.
Anyway, I'm babbling I know. I offer my sincere thanks for your efforts to dialogue this with me. Cheers! Also, if you think I pushed too hard at the mediation, well, you don't really know how hard I was pushed by them to have even taken that ridiculous dispute as far as I did. As it is, dozens of editors will not need to waste their precious time with this issue thanks to my efforts. So long-term, I am certain that my edits at the mediation will be a net positive, even if it takes a few months for that to become apparent. Also, no offense intended, but I brought up The Chicago Manual of Style long before you joined the mediation, just sayin'. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Adherents.com only lists the top 22 largest religions. Do u know a source listing the top 70 religions? Alternatively a source listing religions with 20,000 to 300,000 followers?
I know from your work on Whitehead & Coanda that you have an interest in flaky aviation claims...I'm hacking the above article about, but have a problem. Wnek's claims are based on oral hand-downs, but somebody has claimed to have found records. However, he has not allowed any examination of these. So far, so good. However, if I say thse claims are unsubstantiated, I'm making a statement that needs citation. Help!TheLongTone (talk) 10:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:UniversalAudio-Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Can you check this user for me? I noticed something about a banned editor, and this seems to be the same edit. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Could use some eyes on Australian Christian Lobby, where, like with the article on the American Third Position Party, schills have been trying to portray the movement as they describe themselves. The movement is an over-the-top extreme-right "Christian" organization that is rabidly anti-gay to the point where even other conservative Christian groups in Australia have distanced themselves from it. Would appreciate it if you could add it to your watchlist. Thanks! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
On25 October 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Truman Committee, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that war profiteering by U.S. military contractors in Iraq brought calls for a new form of the investigative Truman Committee which operated in World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Truman Committee. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
In regard to List of nude photo scandals, can you please explain why you said that LegrisKe created the page in violation of their ban or block? It looks like the page was created in 2011 and LegrisKe wasn't blocked until 2012. If there is more to the story that I'm not getting, please let me know. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
You have been awarded the seldom coveted Thumbs Up Award
for your recent post at Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center. I dissected the posting that you were responding to phrase by phrase, wrote impassioned responses to all of the component parts and then decided that you had said enough, that to get into an argument with the other editor would just reenforce that attitudes that he seems to hold. Thanks for doing it right. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kurdo777 (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey-- I added this to ANI.
I wasn't involved in the earlier discussions on this subject, but it is "common knowledge" that the government was democratically elected-- a reliable source off the top of my head would be the US President Obama who explicitly said "democratically-elected" in his speech.
I understand it is a very contentious subject, but to continue editing here, you should confine your dispute to a single page, and only if you can generate consensus should you edit in a controversial way.
Good luck to you. --HectorMoffet (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Well, I was hoping for dialogue, not discussion. I want to try to "understand" you, not try to argue with you. --HectorMoffet (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Could you slow down on the removal of the "democratically elected" phrase? I know I suggested it as a compromise, but it was just that, a suggestion. Please don't be part of an edit war, especially citing the RfC closure. As you probably know, the closure of any RfC is really an unneeded formality because the next day the consensus can change. Any way, I'm not sure of the best way forward from here. I know I suggested mediation on my talk page. Would you be willing to try that? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 21:28, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi Bink, I just want to say I'm sorry if I came off as "harsh". I try very hard to Asssume Good Faith, and my confidence in your good faith is reassured, seeing on talk that you've stepped back from those 40-some articles. :)
I'm not going to get involved in the BIO dispute, but I just want to point out that democratically elected officials are often elected indirectly (As in the US Electoral College or the British Parliament). While constitutional monarchs do a ceremonial "appointment" ceremony, it's not as if Queen Elizabeth gets to pick who will become PM of the UK.
Pls take your time when editing (preview perhaps) as blanking is not good!!Moxy (talk) 23:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure you didn't intend to do this, but I just wanted let you know so that you can do what you really intended. :). Cresix (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Amp71. I noticed that you recently removed some content from The Beatles without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Not sure if it was intentional or not, but looks like a big chunk of stuff deleted from there. Amp71 (talk) 23:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Started that article tonight :) SarahStierch (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Who died and made you the decider of what is important enough to NOT censor? It's a part of her history. I don't see how just because it's not part of daily life conversations forbids us to mention it on her page. I find this ridiculous that you have to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.149.48.228 (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |