![]() | This 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. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | → | Archive 30 |
re: transwiki templates at scientific community metaphor, actor_model_and_process_calculi and maybe others.
I think if those articles don't have enough neutrality and already-extant reliable sourcing for wikipedia, then they shouldn't be on wikibooks either. arxiv.org might be a better venue for writings of that type, and is far better when new research is involved. Maybe someone could suggest it to Dr Hewitt. 75.62.4.229 08:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Regarding this, is there any particular reason you didn't tell me about the ANI thread? This seems to be a test case for establishing principles, which I accept, but it's bizarre to be taken to ArbCom without some contact about the second ANI thread first. Was it simply an oversight? Respectfully, chaser - t 13:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I found your name on the Wikipedia List of Admins page. I need some assistance in resolving what I believe is harassment over at the MyMobility article. I created the article this afternoon, and in the same minute it was marked for speedy deletion by user User:Fredrick day. I added the {{hangon}} tag and explained on the talk page of that article that I was in the process of writing the article still, and I would therefore prove its notoriety. The speedy deletion tag was replaced with {{prod}} and I was told that I had five days to make "bring it up to scratch." This I accepted and proceeded to add some content. Still not done with the article, I decided I would come back to it later. The same user removed content from the article because in his words it did not prove notoriety of the subject. I added the content back, and it was removed again. I really need some help in dealing with this situation. I believe this user:
What can I do about the situation? Your help would be deeply appreciated! -- GrahamDo ( talk) 19:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
the article on natural law ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#_note-0)referenes a footnote (1) to a partial citation: "Natural Law," International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences." Would you happen to know the information necessary for the full citation? I would really appreciate it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.15.128 ( talk) 00:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I'm going to correct that page. Please, do not revert my edition before you've considered my explanation on Talk:Ore condition :-) !-- JoergenB ( talk) 19:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.
You've called me a "dog" among other things. Would you please refactor those remarks. Thank you. - Jehochman Talk 09:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see this WP:AE discussion regarding an ArbCom in which you sat on the committee: WP:AE#Darwinek and breach of standard civility parole. Please be reassured that I will answer and all questions, to clarify the question brought up of my character in the matter, something which I insist on in coming to proper closure of the matter. Charles 08:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Charles. I hope you had a good Christmas and wish you all the best for the coming year. I noticed that you had Agnes Mure Mackenzie on one of your to-do lists. I've started a little article on her and will do something on her novels and historical works, but I'm not sure I can say anything about her Episcopalian significance. If there's anything you can add, please do leap right in! Very best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Another editor has added the "{{ prod}}" template to the article Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{ prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot ( talk) 02:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 02:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Charles. Good to see you back, and Happy New Year. Carcharoth ( talk) 16:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah I see you have returned. Happy editing!! ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 13:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi I posted the suggestion that we should have a London Wikipedia meetup next week here. Would be cool if we could get some people together. I was thinking either a social meet or maybe a collaboration meetup where we bring a selected London article up to GA or even FA status. Poeloq ( talk) 00:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated "Dual Entente" ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated "Dubrow's Cafeteria" ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Floaterfluss (talk) (contribs) 04:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I guess they are the same - there are probably still a few like that on the list. Adam Bishop ( talk) 02:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, this is a message from
an automated bot. A tag has been placed on
Echo and The Bunnymen,, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be
speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because
Echo and The Bunnymen, is a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo (
CSD R3).
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting
Echo and The Bunnymen,, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at
WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the
bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click
here
CSDWarnBot (
talk)
21:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I have nominated Diocese of Foligno, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diocese of Foligno. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Niaz (Talk • Contribs) 13:30, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Please provide an explanation for your "keep" in this AfD -- AfD is a consensus, not a vote, so just saying "keep" with no reason why is invalid. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 14:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
I see they changed the categories then per my proposal. How are you anyway? I;ve commented at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diocese of Foligno. Waste of time isn't it when it is obvious it is encyclopedic material ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 20:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
If you got a moment could you think about rewriting and adding references to Philip II of Spain. I tagged it ages ago and still nobody has improved it. It is awful to read ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ Talk? 12:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me. -- WebHamster 13:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'm not even sure where I got that one from...if you see any mistakes you are free to remove them, of course. Adam Bishop ( talk) 11:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [2]. -- Maniwar ( talk) 23:59, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The penultimate paragraph starts (my emphasis):
In the context of the article, I think that might be intended to be either "In later usage" (ie in more modern usage) or "In the latter" (ie in the case of the partition function, mentioned at the end of the preceding paragraph).
This wording is unchanged from your first version of the page:
so I thought best to ask you direct - can you remember or work out what the intended wording is? Hv ( talk) 10:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Nicolas Psaume, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12544a.htm. As a copyright violation, Nicolas Psaume appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Nicolas Psaume has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Cagey Millipede ( talk) 20:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove
speedy deletion tags from pages that you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, then please place {{
hangon}} on the page (please do not remove any existing speedy deletion tag) and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you.
[3]
Cagey Millipede (
talk)
20:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Dear Charles Matthews, Thank you for your interest in Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy and Speech and Reality. I note that you added a link for Ferdinand Ebner, which is currently dead. Do you anticipate an article on Ebner or is there some other reason for adding the link? I note that there is an article at de.wikipedia.org that could be translated. Sincerely,-- User:HopsonRoad 23:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you have a history of working on the article Empire of Japan (foreign commerce and shipping). I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{ unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. Jeepday ( talk) 13:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I see you have a history of working on the article Empire of Japan (internal politics 1914-1944). I am looking at it from the project Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles where it is one of the longest {{ unreferenced}} tagged articles that does not meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability. It has been tagged and completely without references since June 2006. It would be extremely helpful if you had some references you could add to the article to help support its verifiability and notability. Thanks for any help you can give. Jeepday ( talk) 14:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There's some blatant vandalism going on. David r from meth productions ( talk) 02:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your question. Yes, this could be converted into a category but it's much easier to watch a list than a category, so if Popperian is worried about spam, over time he'll see more of it on a category page. Anyone can write a spam article then categorize it and it will quietly appear on a category page without appearing on any watchlists. As it stands, several people every so often go in and purge the list of of external links and red-links. Bogus entries on this list are also useful pointers to spam links and spam articles elsewhere on Wikipedia.
You can find a history of much of the disputes at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive357#Popperian (talk · contribs). You'll also want to check out 66.23.224.223 ( talk · contribs · count).
In response to Popperian's initial complaints, I spent many hours going over the list, entry by entry, checking items for notability. I posted an extensive discussion at Talk:List of network management systems. Although he was appreciative of my efforts, this work did not assuage Popperian's fundamental concerns. He seems to either misunderstand or disagree with our concept of notability and its use as a cut-off for articles and lists.
Sadly, the more Popperian pitches a fuss, the more of a virtual paper trail he creates around here for Google to spot.
--
A. B.
(talk)
14:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
My dear Chhrles, I thank you for reading my work, it is great to find that one has read thoroughly this article.The catholic subject is not so simple and the link you have created will be blank for ever, because the titular bishop or archbishop is a bishop, who is asigned to a fictional diocese. You cannot write anything for something that doesn't exist at all. The titular bishops of a titular diocese have absolutely nothing common and if there is any relation,it is occasional and not important. The titular bishop is serving in other dioceses as auxiliary bishop, assisting the bishop asigned to the diocese, if it is large or with high number of parishes,usually,or in the Roman Curia as head of a dicastery or as an apostolic nuncio in foreign country. Good day to you and thank you again. Drjmarkov ( talk) 13:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
What's the purpose of that list?? Just curious!! Thanks, -- Solumeiras ( talk) 11:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Ta, -- Solumeiras ( talk) 11:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Howjado means cattle in Slavic languages and same user, who created many sock accounts, bombed articles about several real Polish villages with this kind of vandalism. Dziecinów is a real village. - Darwinek ( talk) 12:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
My apologies. Not my intent to cause more problems for others, I've just been cleaning up the links throughout. Benkenobi18 ( talk) 11:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The Arbitration Committee finds that the blocks on User:MatthewHoffman were unjustified. It also states that Vanished user's adminship will be waived at this time. Vanished user may regain his sysop access by application to the Committee, upon demonstration of six months editing in compliance with communal norms and conduct standards. If regained, he will then be placed on parole with regard to both conduct and admin tool use for a further period of six months. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 13:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I added a proposed deletion template to the article Bad group, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. The concerns are mostly that the article is less than a dictionary definition after about four years. Feel free to remove the prod. If this article interests you, it could definitely use expansion (as you mentioned, connected group is undefined, and the article is unreferenced with no context). Certainly more should be said than an unreferenced partial definition, but my quick read through google's results showed it would be hard to do more than this. JackSchmidt ( talk) 00:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Charles, I am working my way around wikipedia and have been trying to learn appropriate skills. I changed the cites in your Valentin Asmus based on my reading of WP:CIT. Just this morning I came across Citation Templates and read "editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus." If I have overstepped, then please accept my apologies and correct or revert the article as you see fit. Regards, Kevin. -- Daddy.twins ( talk) 14:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thnaks for creating this article. I'd been meaning to do so for some time. StAnselm ( talk) 23:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
hi i created account visitor876 to let you guys know that threats of violence published on wikipedia review then they remove my comments on administrators noticeboard and block my account and i demanded to talk to arbitrator since wikipedia review say violent threats received by arbitrator but they did not let me talk to arbitrator they gave me link but protected my talk page how i supposed to contact arbitrator while blocked so i created new account why they hiding fact that wikipedian threatened wikipedia reviewer with violence it is just like wikipedia review say wikipedia holds its critics hostage you are arbitrator plaese back me up http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16053 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest934 ( talk • contribs) 20:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
talk to other arbitrators if you do not believe me wikipedia review say one of them received email threatening to chop off wikipedia reviewers fingers from anonymous wikipedian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest934 ( talk • contribs) 21:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry my english bad and no one here to help me now. Is this better. So you can confimer i am not trolling. Please let this matter be posted on administrators noticeboard so that world can know. Guest934 ( talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Why they not let me talk to you. Again they blocked my account and protected my talk page. Why can i not talk to arbitrators. More eyes better. World should know. Administrators noticeboard get many eyes. George herbert say armed blowfish does not want world to know but then they stop me from talking to George herbert so i cannot ask why if armed blowfish does not want world it know why is it on wikipedia review. Where is wikien mailing list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guest385 ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So everything under control. Thank for your time. Guest385 ( talk) 23:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Somey say I was actually a little surprised that she wanted me to post all this stuff, to be honest, not leastwise because this will all probably end up in the ED article too eventually. (Hard to say with them!) I think it was mostly a case of "we told you we'd do it if you didn't go away," and since the person (arguably) didn't go away, there was at least nothing to lose by trying it. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=16053&pid=81796&st=40&entry81796 Guest385 ( talk) 01:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought it was just somebody trying to account for a typo. George D. Watson (Dendodge). Talk Help 18:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Category:Yugoslav poets, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Daniel Case ( talk) 23:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Ralph of Longchamp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Almighty Clam 16:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Mr. Matthews I am fairly new around here and I'm not that familiar even with the basics, but I see your a lot more experienced than I am, so I trust you'll know better on this. Kind regards Vergency ( talk) 01:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Any chance you could venture outside of Europe and try to fill in some coverage in South American countries? List of the Roman Catholic dioceses of Brazil -plenty of red links to eat up. One obstacle might be available info ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 16:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to ask you, as an arbitrator, what to do about a situation that may involve misuse of power by an administrator. There is some urgency, since we are in the third day of a debate about a nomination for deletion of an article, and this administrator has, after making completely unfounded accusations of "bad faith", taken an extremely aggressive, partisan role in the debate, and announced that he was the administrator who had terminated a previous debate about deletion of the same article. The implication was that: his opinion is the deciding factor, and so if the nominator for deletion, who is myself, is at variance with it, he can expect to be overruled in the outcome.
It seems to me that such an overt declaration of non-neutrality, and attempt to influence the outcome by suggesting that his status of administrator gives him the last word should a priori be grounds for ruling him ineligible to act as administrator for this case.
Since he has also made several aggressive edits, deleting legitimate parts of contributions by other users, or subtly tagging them in derisive ways that are, presumably, available only to administrators, it is hard to see how the debate can continue and reach a conclusion in a reasonable neutral atmosphere. The curious thing is, all the other participants so far, whether they agreed or disagreed with each other, have been communicating with exemplary courtesy, and responding very appropriately to each other's remarks. (e.g., providing relevant evidence of assertions they make, etc.) The very first time in the debate that aggressive, or insulting language was introduced was when this administrator began to attack me, as nominator for deletion of what I considered to be a very innappropriate article, with a completely groundless accusation of "bad faith". He produced no actual evidence for this, (which is not surprising, since there was nothing that could remotely be characterized as "bad faith"), but continued to accuse, in his repeated contributions, in an extremely hostile tone, and to attack not only me but apparently all other users who were of the same opinion that the article needed to be deleted.
My concerns at this moment about what he may do next are two-fold:
1) I am worried that he may delete, in an irretrievable fashion, or alter, relevant parts of the exchange between us, in which he "drew the ace" of declaring himself to have been the administrator who previously had ended the previous debate for deletion of this article (which I knew nothing about, and had not been involved in). I told him that by doing this, and evidently intending his statement as an intimidation technique, since the implicit suggestion was that he could do the same this time, he had disqualified himself from acting as a neutral party with regard to this discussion, and he should declare himself no longer eligible to intervene or conclude the debate as an administrator. 2) I am worried that, in view of the very aggreessively one-sided position he has taken, that the entire debate will have been made into a sham, since it is a foregone conclusion that he alone will decide the outcome, regardless of what arguments may be presented in favour of deletion, or what the consensus appears to be.
Only two days remains for this debate, and, after what he has already said and done, I have no confidence whatsoever that this can lead to a balanced conclusion if he remains involved. In fact, I would not be surprised if he went even further in his partisan role, and just either declared the debate, prematurely, to be over, with him deciding the conclusion, or possible, waiting for the necessary five days to elapse, but with a foregone conclusion about the outcome, since he has made clear how he intends to decide it.
Since the article is on a scientific matter, in which several well qualified experts have registered an opinion - all in favor of deletion - while this administrator has, it seems, no pertinent expertise - and even declared himself hostile to the very idea of "expert" input, I see no way for this to conclude appropriately if he is permitted to continue participating, and ruling on the outcome.
I have kept a record of the last version of the exchanges, including his intimidating, hostile remarks, and in case my suspicion turns out to be correct, and some relevant part of the record is inapproprately deleted, will be happy to provide you with a copy, so you may see what has been stated.
In the meanwhile, if the record of this ongoing debate still remains intact, the article that is being considered for deletion is: "Myrzakulov Equations" and you can of course see it by connecting to the appropriate link. If this administrator has not as yet deleted the relevant parts, you may see for yourself what has been stated within the past few hours.
To me, as a recent user, if this is the nature of Wkipdia interactions, and the typical conduct of the admistrators, I will want nothing further to do with it in future. I am hoping that by appealing to you as an arbitrator, something might still be done to rescue the situation, which I frankly consider to be quite reprehensible.
I would greatly appreciate knowing what might be done in this situation. I have little past experience with Wikipedia, and find this episode very surprising, and disappointing. R_Physicist ( talk) 07:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I just thought you might be interested in knowing that Ralph Baines and Rudolphus Baynus, whose articles you initiated, are in fact one and the same person. I happened to notice this while writing an article in French on Ralph Baines as part of a quest to find out more about the professors at the Collège de France. Best regards, Mu ( talk) 15:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC) - P.S. I am more often to be found at my discussion page on WP:FR than on WP
Thank you very much for your support my article Myrzakulov equations. So I'm an author of the wiki article Myrzakulov equations. I'm is a former student of Myrzakulov. In Russian Wiki I had some problems from two russian users. After these two users tried delete my article during the previous first AfD discussion (see please Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations). Now at the second AfD discussion they with new names or their associates try to delete this article. In this second AfD case they comments and arguments absolutely same in contents and in the forms. So now I have same problems as in the previous case. In this difficult time for me I would like to ask you, dear Dr. Charles Matthews, help me to the end and to keep the article. Sorry for my poor english. Ngn 92.46.69.162 ( talk) 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 11:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Where are you going with this? Are you just requesting clarification regarding policy or are you requesting an undelete? Hyacinth ( talk) 23:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I believe that my deletion of Poem and song did not qualify under any of the current Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion except for "Patent nonsense". Now I interpret the efforts at that article as good faith, but at the time all I saw was that the article supposed rather than asserted information which amounted to a redirect page with a title that was highly unlikely to be searched for. Hyacinth ( talk) 00:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Do you want the article "Poem and song" undeleted? Hyacinth ( talk) 23:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
This look about right?: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_CD_Selection/additions_and_updates#Mathematics? We have picked clean versions of most of the better rated articles from 1.0 but then put in a bias toward more elementary topics and clearer articles? -- BozMo talk 14:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi; I see you voted to reject our case on the grounds of not enough effort at resolving the dispute. I urge you to look much more closely at the history and the attitude of some of those involved; we're never going to discuss it amongst ourselves and come to an agreement. Not this side of Heaven, anyway... I do honestly believe that this needs a "higher authority" to rule, not a group of arguing people (myself included!) to come to a consensus... we have such polarised views, you see. Look at some of the phrases I quoted, refusing to accept that there could be an argument on the other side, as an example. — TreasuryTag— t— c 17:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your comments Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion_4. I admit that I have a WP:COI. but a very limited one i.e. regarding linking to exbaba.com and defamatory statements reg. former followers and opponents. Nevertheless I want to insert one or two statements on Sathya Sai Baba (or propose it on the talk page) in which my COI plays a small role i.e. distinguishing between two groups of detractors of Sathya Sai Baba.
By phlegmatic opponents, siddhis are light-heartedly ridiculed as fraudulent trickery indulged to entice the gullible. [..] Other observers, like Brooke and those whose testimony he found to be evidence of siddhis to be corrobative of his own, confirm the authenticity of his own, confirm the empirical evidence of siddhis in a more intense way. Their scathing attacks are fiercely denunciatory. [..] The former group is convinced that there is deceit in the methods employed, [...]The latter group remains convinced of the malevolence of the power that is so harnessed and exploited.
— Bowen, David, The Sathya Sai Baba Community in Bradford: Its origins and development, religious beliefs and practices. Leeds: University Press, 1988. page 280
Andries ( talk) 22:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Robert Irwin, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{
db-author}}
to the top of
Robert Irwin.
Kleinzach (
talk)
14:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I've seen your important contributions for the article Hypergeometric series. I'm looking for the general algebraic structure for the exact trigonometric constants of the form: , when n is natural. Do you know of any such general algebraic (non-trigonometric) structure (if not for the cosine - then for the sine or the tangent or the cotangent)? Eliko ( talk) 08:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I can't understand the vague usage of "algebraic" here. As I say, if you take the duplication formula for cos, and use the value for , you can get a quadratic equation to solve for the case n = 3. And so on. That's an iterative process producing a solution in radicals each time. If you don't like that ... well, you have to explain the motivation for the question, really. Charles Matthews ( talk) 08:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC).
Jakob Tengström and Ericus Erici Sorolainen - I must be turning into you lol!! Are you interested in religious figures from countries other than france, italy and germany? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ $1,000,000? 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, i want to integrate the italian wikipedia article on tensor densities with a point of view more related to diffenrential geometry then it's now. I dont know any book that explain the topic the way u did in Tensor field, so i wondered if u can give me some references. Thank you in advance, and sorry for my bad english =) -- Sky87 ( talk) 14:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You seem to have the wrong email address at WP:ARBCOM, an error made when they switched to the new email template. I didn't want to change it myself, in case you have a new one. -- Golbez ( talk) 08:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Robb, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{
hangon}}
to the top of
the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on
the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.
Thisisborin9
talk/
contribs
05:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)