JakeInJoisey (usurped) (talk | contribs) →Joseph Farah: +notification |
No edit summary |
||
Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
Thanks for your consideration. [[User:JakeInJoisey|JakeInJoisey]] ([[User talk:JakeInJoisey|talk]]) 15:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC) |
Thanks for your consideration. [[User:JakeInJoisey|JakeInJoisey]] ([[User talk:JakeInJoisey|talk]]) 15:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Dankie == |
|||
'''(Afrikaans)''' Baie dankie vir die hartlike verwelkoming! Ek hoop om meermale hier te kom inloer. Met vriendelike groete. <br/> |
|||
{{en}} Thank you very much for the warm welcome! I hope to drop by more often. Greetings. [[User:Suidpunt|Suidpunt]] ([[User talk:Suidpunt|talk]]) 19:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:11, 26 May 2011
User:VanTucky/Navbar Template:Archive box collapsible Please add new messages at the bottom.
Explanation
The reason there wasn't an IP in the last several days was because the article only came off of semi-protection less than 24 hours before I made the request - IPs *could not* have edited. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 20:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
- Which is a good reason to let it stay off semi-protection for a little while. Unless there have been lots of problematic edits while it was unprotected, there is no reason to apply it again (at least according to the policy). Steven Walling 21:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Pink Taco
Pink Taco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
IP in same range block as previous has reverted your reverting of the previous one. Gerardw (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Dealt with. Gerardw (talk) 03:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you
Thank you, very much, for your comments regarding the quality improvements I have made to the article Santorum (sexual neologism). Much appreciated. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 05:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
- You're most welcome. If the question is whether or not we should have a comprehensive Wikipedia article, I think the answer is pretty much obvious. Steven Walling 06:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
May 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Cenote. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Only the first sentence is referenced (actually I added it myself). Everything else in this section is still not referenced. So why did you remove the template without giving an explanation in the edit line? Alfie↑↓© 08:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Message added 11:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Confusing
Confusing, here, this almost seems to be an argument for less sources and lower quality of articles and depth of referencing in articles on controversial topics? -- Cirt (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
"Notability" tag placed on Figaro Systems
I am not sure whether you placed the tag. (Sorry if I have the wrong person!) This article has been tagged as lacking notability. The tag asks for good refs. The refs (more than 20) include articles about the company and its technology from the New Mexico Business Weekly; the Albuquerque Journal; Auditoria; the United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Full-Text and Image Database; Los Alamos Laboratory; Daily News Bulletin; New York Magazine; Public Radio News and Information in Houston, Texas, KUHF 88.7 FM Houston Public Radio; Entertainment Engineering; Rocky Mountain News (Denver, Colorado); the Santa Fe Opera, Santa Fe, NM; Appliance Magazine; Los Alamos National Laboratory News, Los Alamos National Security, LLC, US Department of Energy's NNSA -- and more. I think that's a reasonable number of good references and more than adequate evidence for notability. Leoniana (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Domestic Pig
I moved the Food Section to the See Also section because so little is said in the Food section it hardly needs a separate section. Ditto for the Truffles Section. Neither really need a pokey little separate section if there exists a main article. See also is sufficient. Please don't blindly revert the entire article. Banners ask us to fix the thing, and that's want I'm trying to do. NYFernValley (talk) 06:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
From PaperClip777
Hi Steven, thank you very much for your message regarding helpful pages, and for letting me know that I should be signing my edits. I'm still finding my way around Wikipedia so it's great to now have a direct contact with a very experienced Wikipedia. Thanks again. PS: I hope I'm sending this message in the correct way (on your User Talk page?) Paperclip777 (talk) 03:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
iPad 2 AfD
I respect your right to vote as you please, but I'd like to point out that the very policy you cited, WP:GNG, does not work the way you think it does. Specifically, the final bullet point states that "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." In other words, while failing GNG is a valid reason to delete an article, meeting it is not a valid reason to keep an article (it if the presumption is challenged, which it is). With this in mind, would you care to have another look? HereToHelp (talk to me) 03:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I'm not debating that it's notable. But if you read the policy carefully, snowball notable does not automatically transfer to snowball keep. HereToHelp (talk to me) 04:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks from PaperClip777
Hi Steven, thanks for your latest message --- I'm glad you received my message just fine. I am going to be editing an article I created on Librestream so that it meets Wikipedia's notability requirement : as of yesterday, there is a message at the top of the article requesting this. After I edit the article, could you please review it for me if you have time? If it's helpful to you, I can send you another message when I complete this edit which will likely be later today, Monday, May 23, 2011. I would really appreciate your advice. Thank you very much for considering this! Paperclip777 (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Further note from PaperClip777
Hi again Steven, just a brief note to let you know that I have edited the article on Librestream to try to improve its notability and tone, and I documented these changes on the discussion page. If you have time, could you please review these for me and let me know if I'm on the right track? Also, thank you for adding two categories to the article on Mobile collaboration. I added two more as well, and added four categories to the article on Librestream. Question: I noticed that the External links section in the article on Mobile collaboration was removed. Should I remove the External links section from the article on Librestream as well? Thanks very much in advance for your advice.Paperclip777 (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Joseph Farah
I would appreciate administrative oversight as to the WP:BLP propriety of this edit recently added to the Joseph Farah article. This appears to be a re-introduction of inappropriate and potentially libelous content which you had previously addressed in late 2008. I have notified the contributing editor of this request.
Thanks for your consideration. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Dankie
(Afrikaans) Baie dankie vir die hartlike verwelkoming! Ek hoop om meermale hier te kom inloer. Met vriendelike groete.
Transclusion error: {{En}} is only for use in File namespace. Use {{lang-en}} or {{in lang|en}} instead. Thank you very much for the warm welcome! I hope to drop by more often. Greetings. Suidpunt (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)