User talk:Spidern
They have now completely vanalised the pageBreuerman (talk) 15:45, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Italic text==Abraham Pinter== Breuerman (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC) You are doing a great job in cleaning up this article. It is a pity that there is a user who is repetedly trying to vandalise this page. Breuerman (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh hai you
[edit]I wasnt trying to vandalize the article. I added lulz. They are 2 diffirent things. Lrn2 common sence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corruptie-van-lulz (talk • contribs) 14:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous
[edit]Hey there. To be honest, I haven't checked on the article since I created it, but I am quite pleased that it endures. If you feel that your proposed edits are appropriate for the article, I won't oppose. I just got the ball rolling, so to say. — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 05:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Welcome
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, Spidern, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Cirt (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, info present in the article body can be repeated in the lead, per WP:LEAD: The lead serves both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. Cirt (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Bobby Z (monster truck driver)
[edit]I added a reference from an English newspaper to Bobby Z (monster truck driver). You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bobby Z (monster truck driver). -- Eastmain (talk) 01:29, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Nice work
[edit]Nice work on stuff on the main Scientology article. Good job cleaning it up and removing the material sourced only to dubious primary sources, as opposed to WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Cirt. It's been a fun project to work on thus far, and I think that good progress is being made. Aside from lack of reliable sources, another of my primary concerns is removing jargon, loaded language, and weasel words, leaving the reader with plain English. If use of a jargon term is required as per WP:N, it is sometimes good to add quotation marks to clarify to the reader that the word is not necessarily what they think it is (Hubbard liked to use that trick--see "ethics1".). This is a problem on other Scientology-related pages as well, but this is as good a starting point as any. On another note, it feels good that we've been able to work the page size down by 10kb since I first started editing the page. ←Spidern→ 06:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Good points. You can learn more about "Loaded language" at some of the eight criteria concepts discussed in Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism, which outlines disturbing methodology which is eerily similar. Cirt (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I echo that; the Scientology article has been full of primary-source stuff for ages. However, I'd suggest that we should use this as an opportunity to reflect the wider academic literature on Scientology, starting with University Press publications: [1]. There is a wealth of material out there, which we should picture accurately, presenting views in proportion to their prominence etc. Cheers, Jayen466 21:01, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi. If the two articles I nominated for deletion survive AFD, I hope that I can count on your (and Cirt's) assistance in purging them of similarly-sourced material, i.e. primary-sourced material, and holding them to a similar standard of reliable "WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources." . --Justallofthem (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Ping
[edit]Care to "Enable e-mail from other users" in Special:Preferences? Cirt (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Talk:Scientology
[edit]Hello,
I wanted to give you a heads-up, as you were asking for a consensus discussion on the article talk page. You may not get very many responses right now, as I have essentially recused myself from the article until such as time as the incident report I filed at WP:AN/I is resolved. Obviously, as the person who filed the report, I feel there is strong evidence that at least one of the accounts involved in the edit war has a significant conflict-of-interest. Until I know for sure that I am wrong -- or that I am right -- it isn't proper for me to be involved in that discussion, as the incident report will undoubtedly color my interactions with the user in question. And it's quite possible that user and others will shortly be banned from Scientology-related articles, or even banned from Wikipedia as WP:ROLE accounts, so they may not respond very much, either. --GoodDamon 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
talkback
[edit]| Hello, Spidern. You have new messages at roux's talk page. |
| You can remove this notice at any time by removing this template. |
CESNUR query
[edit]not much really, because it seems like a huge quagmire to me. Basically, a significant portion of the citations used on the Osho page were at one point derived from a single 54 page CENSUR publication written by an academic who appears to have close ties with the movement dating back to the early 1980's. This was the source Jayen used for much of the article. I wouldn't call it a particularly scholarly work, there are some obvious biases and the tone is for the most part sympathetic and reverent but she does in fairness raise some of the more problematic questions: but in a manner that would leave an uneducated reader thinking Osho was a good guy, despite his failings, which is a thesis I am not inclined to accept; based on the existence of substantial evidence to the contrary.Semitransgenic (talk) 14:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- also, just an aside, because I have just gotten distracted by that CESNUR critical site, apparently Melton wrote a book for J. Z. Knight about the Ramtha movement, I really don't know what to say about that...maybe I'm just too cynical for my own good but I find it odd that a serious scholar would lend any credence to the matter.Not sure where you sit on the skeptic index but as far as I'm concerned this Ramtha thing is BS, I mean you would think a being from another dimension would be able to find a descent plastic surgeon. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Scientology...that one is a bottomless pit, that's why I've stayed well clear of trying to deal with the BS across the many Scientology related pages, it would be a full-time job dealing with it, and you can bet they have a team of people just waiting to counter every alteration. In terms of quantum mechanics you should check out what Sokal has to say about the misuse of terminology by new agers Semitransgenic (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- BTW have you read this note also that the movie was directed by three students of Ramtha's School of Enlightenment. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
RFC
[edit]I have no idea if RFCs can be added to noticeboards. I would say probably not, because the point of an RFC is to draw more eyeballs, and admin noticeboards have lots of eyeballs on them as-is. // roux editor review 10:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Care to disambiguate what you mean by that in your vote on Vassyana's candidacy? Thanks, Pcap ping 23:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Based on your user page, I think you mean new religious movement. Thanks, Pcap ping 23:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment
[edit]Hi, please see this. I had not noticed that the page had just been archived. --Justallofthem (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
121st Pennsylvania Infantry
[edit]I declined the speedy copyvio tag you added to 121st Pennsylvania Infantry because the other web site was not the original source of the text. Rather, the text was taken from a book published in 1908 on which the copyright has expired, so that the text is in the public domain and can be added to Wikipedia without any restrictions. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your ArbCom Vote
[edit]Thanks for your interest in this year's ArbCom elections. Unfortunately, we were required to set a criteria for voters, and that was decided to be the following:
- Voters must have a registered account that was created on or before November 1, 2008.
- Voters must have made 150 edits to articles on that account on or before November 1, 2008.
According to an automatic check, which I confirmed by looking at your contribution history, you have not met the requirements. Either you have not made 150 edits to articles (these edits must be in the main namespace) or you did not make them before the deadline of 23:59:59 November 1, 2008 (UTC). I've indented your votes. If you believe I sent this message in error, and that you do meet the requirements, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, ST47 (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Other usernames to include
[edit]Hey, while you're at it with your timeline, you may want to include User:Terryeo and User:JustaHulk as well. Terryeo was part of one of the earlier arbitration cases. ←Spidern→ 21:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
CSI WP:RFAR/Scientology
[edit]Hi, I am going to collect evidence for the Scientology RFAR as an independent third party. I want to point out that I am not the wiki-police nor do I have any kind of official role.
On your statement you said you'll "openly admit that Scientology may have originally drawn me to Wikipedia as a motivation to edit". Care to elaborate on that?
You mention a dispute on Wikinews. While that has no official bearing on wikipedia, I'd like to hear more about that. It seems the blocks were temporary or at least are no longer in effect.
Bravehartbear suggests "Scientology slanted editors came out because drastic changes were done" in the Scientology article by you. How would you like to respond to that? Do you think you should be added as an involved party?
To what extent are you involved with the Scientology dispute? Have you made any significant contribution to Scientology related topics?
-- Cat chi? 17:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hello, White Cat. I will gladly answer all of your questions, but am not sure of the best place to respond. Seeing as you are an independent investigator here, would you mind if I respond directly on your own user talk? ←Spidern→ 11:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you've done a great job on your "CSI" subpage, until you made each of the commentaries collapsible. In my opinion, doing so made the entire thing less readable, and a bit tedious to click "show" on every single section. ←Spidern→ 21:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- That does bother me too but the threads are getting too long. -- Cat chi? 22:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Citing different pages of a book using same ref
[edit]You might want to see my suggestion I've just added to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Citing different pages of a book using same ref. I think it is an effective method of accomplishing this, though I know not everyone has been happy with the result. - Jmabel | Talk 20:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I have to talk to you about Primary Sources and Self published sources. It seems to me that you have these concepts confuse. I just want to talk to you because you did a great amount of deletions in the Scientology page claiming Primary Sources but these were not Primary Sources these were actually Self published sources. Self published that talk about themselves are ok in WP as long as it meets the following criteria.
Using self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
- the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;
- it is not unduly self-serving;
- it does not involve claims about third parties;
- it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
- there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;
- the article is not based primarily on such sources;
- the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source.
So self-published about Scientology believes and practices are ok because they are talking about them selves. Now a secondary source is the ideal but in the absence of a secondary source a self published source about them self is ok.
I also want to let you know that I'm calling you out in the arbitration because of these deletions and I intent restore the information that you mistakenly removed claiming that it was a primary source when it wasn't. Bravehartbear (talk) 17:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Bravehartbear, thanks for the courtesy message about the fact that you're criticizing my actions on the Arbitration page, but I'm quite aware of it already. I believe that my actions are in fact justified, and that no defense is necessary on the ArbCom page. This quote on primary sources is particularly relevant; according to the University of Maryland:
| “ | Primary sources are original materials. They are from the time period involved and have not been filtered through interpretation or evaluation. Primary sources are original materials on which other research is based. They are usually the first formal appearance of results in physical, print or electronic format. They present original thinking, report a discovery, or share new information. | ” |
- Wikipedia is about presenting educated secondary sources as a means of better understanding a topic. In every case that a primary source is used, interpretation is left to the person reading the content, and the person is not always knowledgeable in the subject being considered. Therefore, it is preferable to present content which is verifiable, and has been objectively critiqued by secondary sources (including both academic and independent news media).
- Furthermore, being a primary source and a self-published source are not mutually exclusive--to state otherwise would be absurd. Such an argument implies that by mere virtue of the fact that material is published by yourself, all lines of involvement (and potential conflict of interest) are severed (quite the contrary). And points number 2 and 5, which you quote above, are precisely what I am claiming the removed sources qualify as. That is, the opinions offered by official Church of Scientology publications are not on par with peer-reviewed academic materials and independent news media, and like any other organization it will inevitably have the potential to present itself in a better light than third parties will. ←Spidern→ 18:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- That would have been fine if you would have stated so when you did the deletion but you didn't mention any conflict with any secondary source, all you did was: primary source-POV-delete. For example in the ARC and KRC triangle section that you deleted, you were even told in the talk page that the info was relevant and that there were secondary sources if you wanted to find them but you deleted the section anyway. Why? Did you even try to find secondary source? And what makes such an expert in Scientology that gives you the authority to make such decisions?
- You have the burden of proof to prove that there is a conflict with a secondary source before deleting. But it doesn't matter I have found plenty of secondary sources that are at par with the Scientology teachings, so cheers, see you at the talk page. Bravehartbear (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- The "burden" to provide proper sourcing falls on the person placing the content on the page in the first place. When secondary sources were provided, anyone could add it back. I was not obligated to put them back in any capacity. My edit summaries were sufficient, in that they indicated that the sources being removed were in fact primary and better ones were needed.
- Being a person who has personal experience with such things, I would have expected that you'd be a perfect candidate to re-add the section back to the page with proper sourcing once it became available, but surprisingly you expected others to do so for you. That's just not how it works.
- Contrary to what may appear to be hostility on my part, once secondary sourcing is provided I am much obliged to keep content on the page. That's why I restored this secondary source that was lost in the midst of the edit warring. ←Spidern→ 23:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Manmohan Singh
[edit]Spidern, please have another look at Osho movement and its talk page. We cannot say that the Indian prime minister "reveres" Osho; that sounds like he is a disciple and is a BLP problem. Jayen466 21:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- I was simply interpreting the source, which originally used the word "admire". Since one definition of reverence carries the meaning of "showing respect or veneration", I did not anticipate that its usage would be a problem. However, since another definition of the word construes religious preference, I can see how it may be a source of confusion. I have changed the word usage to "admire", to directly match the source. ←Spidern→ 21:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Sathya Sai Baba
[edit]Kindly see:
"10.20.30 Tanya Datta How many years have you been chasing Sai Baba then?
10.20.34 Basava Premenand I have been investigating him since nineteen sixty-eight. . . .
10.39.02Tanya Datta The people at the top are aware of the rumours as they’ve been around for at least thirty years.
10.06.36
Tanya Datta
For years he’s been surrounded by scandal"
Also parts of the documentary where the murders, and homosexual abuse have been addressed can be seen here: http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=EwOecpMkHH0
White adept (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. I'll work on fixing it. :)
White adept (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I am busy providing citations on the talk page for Sathya Sai Baba
[edit]Please do not delete statements with request for citation unless you have checked the talk page. I cannot edit the article myself directly because the arbcom thinks that I have a conflict of interest. Btw, some citation requests make me tired, like "An official four-volume biography, was written by devotee Prof. Narayana Kasturi under the guidance of the godman.[citation needed]" because they are for me akin to a citation request for "Paris is a city in France[citation needed]"Andries (talk) 07:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- If it has a person's name in it (particularly a living person), a date, or another number which is not considered common knowledge, it requires a citation. And I am not removing passages with request for citation merely because they lack citation; the passages which I removed suffered from undue weight, which requires them to be reformulated if they are to be used. ←Spidern→ 16:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
- I have given quite a lot of citations on the talk page. Please do something with them i.e. incorporate in the article. Requesting citations is easy. I may stop providing citations if nobody uses them. Andries (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
RE: UserCompare tool
[edit]Hello. The tool isn't mine, actually. It belongs to Betacommand. If you'd like access to it, I'd suggest emailing him as he's currently banned from en.wikipedia so probably isn't monitoring his talk page. He can give you access to the tool. Otherwise, you're welcome to email me with a list of users to run and I could email you back with the links. Hope this helps. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Help on Sathya Sai Baba
[edit]Hey, could u help with vandalism here? Unsourced and made-up stuff are being added to the page - they dont even bother to give references. They blank material and they even add ridiculous claims that the consular warning was removed in 2007 - while it is still seen on the latest consular sheet. Kindly See:[2] White adept (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
[edit]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. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]
|
The Minor Barnstar | |
| You did an insane marathon on that CCHR article, you deserve a barnstar! I you also made my sentence on CCHR and the 9/11 attacks more percise, I was meaning to fix it but my time was distributed to other things.--Zaharous (talk) 19:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC) |
thanks, and likewise
[edit]Oh yeah, but unfortunately I can't take credit for that level of bizarre imagination, because they were generated by a computer, somehow. The final box says something about random generated user boxes. Some clever person with time to burn built a thing that would generate grammatically correct, nonsense boxes. What you saw are just such. Now I congratulate you for such a clear statement about the meaning, use, and importance of language; what you say is very true, and very important today, I think. On an another note, do you wish to peer review this article, which I have worked on previously, and have been wanting to move through the wikipedia peer review process and only thought of just then? Also, I think it should say "a population" rather than "an population" in your statement, above on your user page. --Asdfg12345 17:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out the typo. I've never peer-reviewed an article before, but I'll consider it. ←Spidern→ 17:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Note to self: Random userbox generator. ←Spidern→ 18:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Scientology
[edit]Spidern, could I ask you to comment on this post? We need to either defend our existing consensus re primary sources in the Scientology article, or re-think our approach. Not an easy decision, well worth pondering. I personally don't want to go back to the old status, with umpteen kilobytes of primary sources from either side. I think the decision to go for reputable news and scholarly sources was the best thing that happened to the Scientology article in a long time. Jayen466 19:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Happy99
[edit]Looks like it's going to be a snowball keep. I'll see what I can dig up in newspaper archives over the next week too. I'm probably going to be coming to you for some advise on an old Steinway that's been in the family for years, but nobody has any musical ability - and we don't know what to do with it. Anyway, I appreciate you asking me to look at the AfD, and I did post to it (keep obviously). Look forward to working with you ;) — Ched (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Moving pages
[edit]Hi, I saw that you moved the article Code of Silence (film) to its current name. When you move pages please be sure to also fix all redirects by clicking on the "what links here" in the toolbox on the left side of the page and fixing all occurrences to the new name. Make sure to also rename the article in the headings of non-free images (such as File:Code of silence.jpg) to the proper page or a bot may mistakenly delete the image since it does not have the exact wording. I just wanted to let you know for any future page moves. If you have any questions let me know. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Interesting? or Strange?
[edit]I came across this page and I am *honored* to be added to the list (regardless of whether I qualify under "inspiring" or "strange" ;-) Thank you! – 74 17:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Scientology arbitration
[edit]Per the request of arbitrator Roger Davies (talk), this notice is to inform you of the current arbitration case concerning Scientology, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology. You are receiving this notification because you were one of the users listed in the new evidence presented by Jayen466.
For Roger Davies and the Arbitration Committee
Daniel (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello! An editor (not me) has nominated the article on Anne-Claire Montessori School, to which you have contributed, for deletion. If you disagree, please feel free to state your view on the Article for deletion discussion page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_27#Anne-Claire_Montessori_School. TerriersFan (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Harpreetrehal item at WP:COIN
[edit]Hello Spidern. This user has not edited since 26 March, so we don't know if he has registered the complaints. If you think some of the journal articles are not appropriate you could propose them for deletion. Unless you want other editors to take some action, we will probably mark this item as resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Sathya Sai Baba article
[edit]Hi Spidern. By the way, all the improvement efforts you did to the article has been reverted by White_Adept again. He has added the same contents back to the article. Radiantenergy (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Happy99
[edit]
|
On April 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Happy99, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Shubinator (talk) 22:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Now you could add this to your userpage: - with the option of starting a subpage at User:Spidern/DYK for the DYK hooks that appeared at T:DYK. Cirt (talk) 04:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
This user has written or expanded 1 articles featured in the Did You Know section on the Main Page.
DYK for Bernice Cronkhite
[edit]|
|
On April 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Bernice Cronkhite, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: Something strange is still afoot
[edit]Re your message: It's a caching thing. The reverting of the vandalized templates is taking some time to clear up. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Oligotrophic
[edit]Thanks for contacting me. I actually fixed all of the occurrences for you, but if you plan to do it again in the future, you can either do it manually, ask a bot to complete the fixes for you, or if you have access to AWB, you can do it from there (that's what I did to fix the ~70 occurrences). With AWB it only took me about 10 minutes to fix the links, but does require you to still check each link on the page (although it is a lot easier than doing it manually). If you don't already, I'd recommend getting AWB as it is helpful for a variety of tasks. Let me know if you have further questions or need clarification. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Verda Welcome
[edit]
Hello! Your submission of Verda Welcome at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jamie☆S93 19:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Verda Welcome
[edit]|
|
On April 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Verda Welcome, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Gatoclass (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Marguerite Rawalt
[edit]|
|
On April 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Marguerite Rawalt, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Dravecky (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Feature request for catmembers tool
[edit]Hi Spidern, I have replied to your feature request for my catmembers tool at my talk page. Regards, Byrial (talk) 00:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
FAC comments for Millennium '73
[edit]Thanks for commenting at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium '73/archive2. I did some copy-editing in order to address your comments at the FAC - perhaps you could strikeout the points that I addressed? Thanks for your time, Cirt (talk) 09:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- At a quick glance, it looks like my points were addressed. I'll be gone for most of the day though, so I'll have to strike them out when I get back. In the meantime, it would help if you could mark the addressed points as "
Done" in an level-3 indent. ←Spidern→ 15:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Dorothy Cullman
[edit]|
|
On April 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dorothy Cullman, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Royalbroil 15:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Cote d'Or
[edit]Thank you for the assistance on the Cote d'Or dispute. I guess it could be marked as 'resolved' now.
- Minvogt (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Media coverage
[edit]You may be surprised to learn that you've made the news: [3]. I am just going through all the media reports ... JN466 09:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. ←Spidern→ 15:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Deadpeoplelinks
[edit]
Template:Deadpeoplelinks has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Simple Bob (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Motion to reopen ArbCom case "Mattisse"
[edit]ArbCom courtesy notice: You have received this notice because you particpated in some way on the Mattisse case or the associated clarification discussion.
A motion has recently been proposed to reopen the ArbCom case concerning Mattisse. ArbCom is inviting editor comment on this proposed motion.
For the Arbitration Committee, Manning (talk) 03:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Series of tubes
[edit]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Series of tubes. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Series of tubes (3rd nomination). 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.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Discussion of Template:Trsec
[edit]Template:Trsec is being discussed at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. You are invited to comment. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 23:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
A discussion has begun about whether the article 2PR FM, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2PR FM until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. AussieLegend (talk) 03:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Template:Elink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Mhiji 00:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI) Journal listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI) Journal. Since you had some involvement with the Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI) Journal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:35, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
"ExtremeFFS" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ExtremeFFS. Since you had some involvement with the ExtremeFFS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Tea2min (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)