m Automated archival of 1 sections to User talk:AbsolutDan/Archive009 |
No edit summary |
||
Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
|} |
|} |
||
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist|''Signpost'' spamlist]]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. [[User:Ralbot|Ralbot]] 04:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
<small>You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Tools/Spamlist|''Signpost'' spamlist]]. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. [[User:Ralbot|Ralbot]] 04:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
== NoobJ == |
|||
This user [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NoobJ] blanked your warnings to 24.118.235.138 and vandalized Gem Lake, Minnesota. I reverted both. [[User:Edward321|Edward321]] 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:29, 7 February 2007
Welcome to the Talk page for user AbsolutDan |
|
![]() Archives |
---|
ILCP
Dear Dan:
I believe you deleted a stub article I am trying to create on the International League of Conservation Photographers. When a colleague went to find it today to expand on it, she couldn't find it. I had placed a {holdon} tag on it and provided an explanation.
Would you kindly restore it? The ILCP is not spam or self-promotion, it was named one of the top 10 innovations in photography in 2006 by American Photo. see http://www.popphoto.com/inamericanphotomagazine/3524/2006-innovators-conservationism.html
Thanks
Cristina Mittermeier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cgmittermeier (talk • contribs) 01:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Dan:
I believe you deleted a stub article I am trying to create on the International League of Conservation Photographers. When a colleague went to find it today to expand on it, she couldn't find it. I had placed a {holdon} tag on it and provided an explanation.
Would you kindly restore it? The ILCP is not spam or self-promotion, it was named one of the top 10 innovations in photography in 2006 by American Photo. see http://www.popphoto.com/inamericanphotomagazine/3524/2006-innovators-conservationism.html
Thanks
Cristina Mittermeier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cgmittermeier (talk • contribs) 01:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Also, please un-redirect to Conservation International. This is a separate organization (run by my husband) and your edits will get me in legal trouble
Thanks
Cristina —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cgmittermeier (talk • contribs) 01:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
DEAR DAN:
YOU MIGHT HAVE GUESSED I AM NEW HERE. I TRULY APPRECIATE THE GUIDANCE AND PROMISE I AM TRYING TO LEARN AS FAST I CAN. I WELCOME YOUR SUGGESTIONS AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ON OTHER ARTICLES.
MANY THANKS
CRISTINA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cgmittermeier (talk • contribs) 16:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your advise Dan. I will try to get people who are not affiliated with this organization to expand on the article.
Cristina —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{2}}}|{{{2}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{2}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{2}}}|contribs]]) 20:10, 24 January 2007 Cgmittermeier (UTC)
Removal of signature
Hello there. Not that I am particularly bothered, but I was wondering why you removed my signature from the prod template of Ken Standfield? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Leadership Development Wiki
Hi Dan,
The link to the Leadership DEvelopment Wiki is not sales of any kind. Simply information for someone interested in the topic. Thanks for your consideration...wiki.centerforleaderdevelopment.com/mediawiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
Sincerely, Scott —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.170.199.24 (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Party article - rainbow parties
Dear AbsolutDan, Why did you choose to revert the addition of the mention of rainbow parties in the Party article? Is there some sort of hidden moral agenda that Wikipedia forces upon its audience? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.185.215.144 (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
Howdy
Long time no see! glad to see that you are still alive! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 20:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (I noticed on an AFD).
References
Nice talking to you on Talk:Leakage. Since that article, and many others alike, lack references, I'd like to ask if it is legitimate to use dictionaries, university reference books or secondary school textbooks as references? Moreover, can we cite other published (internet or written) work of ourselves as references, if any? Please reply to my talk page. Thanks. --Deryck C. 14:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply. I hope we can work together finding references for the article ^^ --Deryck C. 07:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a number of website and book references onto the article. Have a look and edit if you find necessary. BTW, you said that not all contents of textbooks are factual. I agree with the statement because the vast majority of books contains personal opinions; however the factual part of those books should serve good reference. --Deryck C. 06:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for your appreciation! In fact the Leakage article is quite an easy job for reference finding because there are so many definitions online. For the sorcerer lab reference, I think it's good enough a reference already since it is at any rate published material and therefore is not original research. --Deryck C. 16:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've added a number of website and book references onto the article. Have a look and edit if you find necessary. BTW, you said that not all contents of textbooks are factual. I agree with the statement because the vast majority of books contains personal opinions; however the factual part of those books should serve good reference. --Deryck C. 06:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Mobile local search article
Hi AbsolutDan,
I added some links to this article as references - references are clearly needed - then realized after reading the guidelines that they are all commercial sites that fit the definition of spam in the sense that they sell their reports.
I am not associated with any of them, and have no interest in promoting them, but they really are the most credible sources of research and opinion. A casual reader would not consider paying the (often outrageous) prices they ask for their reports, but an industry professional would most likely already subscribe to them and see them as adding credibility to the article.
Should I cut out this section? Just remove the links?
My problem is that I do not know of any public-domain references on this subject that would be considered authoritative. There are some free online magazines, not cited, that often run articles on the subject, but they are advertiser-funded and usually extremely biased - they publish what they are paid to publish. Academia has yet to take notice of MoLo, which is sordidly commercial. The companies like Kelsey, Pierz and Whitaker, which run the big trade shows, are the clearing houses for industry information.
Help!
Aymatth2 01:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
OR policy etc. again
It appears to me that we are not referring to two different definitions of "original research"; we're just focusing on the two different aspects of the definition: you stress "reputable source"; I stress "unpublished". --Deryck C. 11:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
A potential blocking issue
As you may remember, there was a recent blocking incident with Qatar. This was related to the country's ISP sharing a similar IP address.
Well something similar occurs within the NHS Wide Area Network: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N3_%28NHS%29
It uses a pool of addresses as an internet gateway (194.176.105.0 - 194.176.105.255). These addresses mask internet browsing for over 1.1 Million potential staff (I think the number using desktops is probably half that).
Any blocking on IP address could cause problems..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.176.105.35 (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
huh?
What are you going on about?
(194.176.105.35 13:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC))
choosing external links
Why are some external links allowed and not removed while others are removed?
On the employee surveys page, all of those links are to companies that can help a wikipedia reader with his or her surveys. All are links to promote websites.
Why do you keep removing the link I've added to the exact same type of company? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Covelli7 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC).
Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
![]() |
---|
| ||
Volume 3, Issue 6 | 5 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
| |
Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 04:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
NoobJ
This user [1] blanked your warnings to 24.118.235.138 and vandalized Gem Lake, Minnesota. I reverted both. Edward321 00:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)