![]() | 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. |
![]() | Your Wikification Newsletter – Volume II, Issue I, November 2012 Hello, wikifiers! The November 2012 issue of the project newsletter is out, and the December Wikification Drive starts in a couple of days. We'll be trying to reduce the backlog and we need your help! Hard-working participants in the drive will receive awards for their contributions. If you have a spare moment, please join and wikify an article or tell your friends. Thanks! Note: The drive starts 00:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC), and you can
sign up anytime! |
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Penis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 23:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Tom, I'm slightly exceeding our remit here, but would welcome your comments anyway.
This fantastic BBC News piece alleges that the author is "an expert witness for defence lawyers in court cases", which is certainly an area on which you could opine.
The article then goes on to say that "This often sees me forensically trawling through a defendant's hard disk or mobile phone in some corner of a police station". Now, while I am not a lawyer (defence or otherwise), nor have ever been inside a police station... I do tentatively believe that expert witnesses for the defence in "hacking cases" don't carry out their examinations of "hard disk or mobile phone" in corners of police stations.
What say you? -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 03:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I'm hoping to avoid a case. I'd rather work things out with Future Perfect at Sunrise personally, but his response so far isn't promising. I'm not sure how much your concerns overlap with mine. At this point, I'm more concerned with FPS's actions at AE than anything. We need more admins at AE but not ones that jump the gun. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 00:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom ( talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot ( talk) 13:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Hasteur ( talk) 18:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi ErrantX
I note the starry state of Dudley Clarke and your continuing glittering additions to the article, very nice.
One very minor thing - "==1942: El Alamein==
Main article: First Battle of El Alamein"
- now, DC's first involvement was indeed at the so-called "first battle of" (dreadful and frankly wrong name, but there it is), but Bertram, Cascade etc were "second battle of". The trouble is, the "1942: El Alamein" is a main section heading, so the "Main article:" link looks as if it applies to all the subsections, which it don't and ain't. Could have an extra subsection heading just above that link for "first battle of"? And there might need to be another "Main article" link for "second battle of" a bit further down. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 09:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cydia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 00:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I am new to Wikipedia. Do you have any advice for me about what I can do here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildwackerjacker ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I should let you know you're being discussed here, in case you want to offer a statement. - SightWatcher ( talk) 04:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello again, ErrantX --- your addition to Maskelyne is valid but it makes a bit of a muddle of that paragraph - what are we trying to say? The key message about JM is surely that he's 95% joker and 5% anything else. It's plainly true that Clarke recruited and encouraged him, but that really needs saying in a brief section of its own, taking care, worse luck, to put it in the context of his general unreliability. The whole article needs fleshing out --- it was a piece of enthusiastic fanmail (lapping up his fictional autobiog), now it's a bit bare and staccato but at least truthful. Maybe you'd fancy tidying it up a bit? --- all the best Chiswick Chap ( talk) 11:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, if you add semi-protection to the TFA, please don't remove full move protection - it's there for a reason, as the history of James Tod shows. Thanks, Bencherlite Talk 16:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Hurricane Sandy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 01:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your review of Clevedon Pier which has definitely helped to improve the article.— Rod talk 12:20, 22 December 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
Nick-D (
talk)
09:23, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an eye on things at James Tod during its recent big day. I am finally getting back up to speed and have left some notes here. Your thoughts would be appreciated. - Sitush ( talk) 18:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Finite-difference time-domain method. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot ( talk) 02:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Craddock1. Please chill out and take a step back for a moment. I have considered blocking you for a bit to stop the disruption you are causing, but I feel a final plea is a better bet for now. On Wikipedia we have an important guideline of "Comment on the content, not the editor". Your very first contribution to that AFD is to attack the nominator, and it has gone downhill from there. All you are really doing is undermining the AFD in a way which will not benefit you. Take a moment to step back, consider how you could marshal an argument to explain how the article meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and continue with a reasoned explanation in the deletion discussion. Continuing with your current behaviour will end up with you being blocked. --Errant (chat!) 11:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi Errant,
Thanks for your message and sorry if I seemed a bit frustrated,
It seems as if the nominator has tried to sabotage many articles on wikipedia talking to other admins and editors. The whole point is that the ADF should not even be there and yet it remains because the nominator has a 'higher standard within wikipedia' than me - which I find unfair.
If you read the comments in the AFD you will see they are mainly to keep or strong keep the article.
Nevertheless the nominator has tried to make things difficult by issuing a sockpuppet investigation despite me admitting my fault and promising not to do it again.
I hope you can close the AFD so we can move on.
Once again since i'm new to Wikipedia I hope you will not block me but please also see things from my point of view
Best,
Philip, London, UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craddock1 ( talk • contribs) 11:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Did you receive my email a few days ago? Cla68 ( talk) 13:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)