→Comment on User talk:Kmweber: new section |
→NOR Request for arbitration: new section |
||
Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
Hello, CBM! I responded to your post on [[User_talk:12_Noon#Comment_on_User_talk:Kmweber|my talk page]]. Regards.--'''[[User:12 Noon|12 N<font color="a9a9a9">oo</font>n]]''' 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
Hello, CBM! I responded to your post on [[User_talk:12_Noon#Comment_on_User_talk:Kmweber|my talk page]]. Regards.--'''[[User:12 Noon|12 N<font color="a9a9a9">oo</font>n]]''' 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
== NOR Request for arbitration == |
|||
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the [[WP:NOR|No original research]] article, I am notifying you that a [[WP:RFA|request for arbitration]] has been opened [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#No_Original_Research here]. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. [[User:COGDEN|''CO<small>GDEN</small>'']] 23:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:50, 12 December 2007
Peer Review automation
Hi Carl: I've made the proposal at WT:PR#Automation of this page now. Thanks for all your support! Geometry guy 21:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Inappropriate
This was so far beyond inappropriate that I don't know where to begin. Cheers, WilyD 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- Given your prompt response, I now know where to begin - please more or less disregard the above. Sorry, eh? WilyD 22:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
maths rating template
I'm confused about a comment you left on my user talk page. You said: Also, please fill in the class, field, and priority parameters when you place the template. There is no benefit to the template except to convey rating information, which is why it's called maths rating.
I thought that placing the template was the only way to include articles in WikiProject Mathematics, which does more than just rate articles. I sometimes left the parameters empty because I didn't know what to put. In such cases I thought it was better to place the template anyway just to include the article in the project. That way others in the math community would have a better chance of seeing it and potentially add the missing information. Timhoooey (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Re: Math template
All right, thanks for telling me. Every time one creates a new article, does someone have to manually add it to the list? Temperaltalk and matrix? 23:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
My talk page
Multi-front discussions are counter-productive. Do you want to take this back to the RFC? --TheOtherBob 20:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is going to become its own meta-discussion, but I find them productive only when the parties have some sort of interest that they can't express fully in public...like the union that can't be seen to acknowledge that any part of management's offer is reasonable, but also needs to do so privately in order to reach agreement. Here...I don't know that I have anything to offer that isn't being discussed more generally. (And I think the questions you ask on my talk page are, if anything, useful for moving the discussion ahead there - so if we think that discussion can move towards progress, I don't want someone to have to monitor all of our pages to find the progress.) We can discuss on here - I'm not saying no, if it's something you'd find valuable - but I think a discussion like this is better on the RFC. --TheOtherBob 20:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Comment on User talk:Kmweber
Hello, CBM! I responded to your post on my talk page. Regards.--12 Noon 20:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
NOR Request for arbitration
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)