{{helpme}}
Hello, Demerphq. As a prominent contributor to World War II, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:World War II, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Krellis 01:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Demerphq! Thanks for the question. I would start by writing a proposal on talk:Regular expression which states the problem and some proposed solutions. Title the section something like Proposal to divide article. There is a tag to place on the article to attract attention too. (I found a link to it on WP:TM as Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Merging_and_splitting.) I expect you intend something like {{split|Regular expression (computer science)|Regular expression (mathematical)}} (Feel free to fix the article names—I was merely stabbing in the dark, based on what you wrote.) If you don't have a complete solution, it's not a problem: someone will chime in judging by the activity on that page. Regards, —EncMstr 02:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my fault. You see, the majority of literature I read is about WWII, and the author will generally use 1st person plural to refer to us. My apologies old chap. --LtWinters 14:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been much discussion and acrimonious debates on the combatants list in the infobox over recent months. Various proposal have been made and rejected and accepted to varying degrees, these votes have been marred by confusion and methodology issues so arguably have not necessarily been fair or representative. I therefore propose that we do a new vote with clear rules and proposals and with more than sufficient time for interested parties to both propose candidates and to have a chance to cast a vote. Demerphq 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Before I describe how this vote is to be achieved I think its worth explaining the issues that I believe confront us with resolving this matter:
Therefore I propose that we allow for plenty of time for both proposing and voting, and that we use Definite Majority Choice as our voting methodology. This method has the advantage that it satisfies many of the mathematical properties of fair voting (its impossible to satisfy them all at once unfortunately), most importantly it is monotonic and does not violate Local Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives. This leads me to propose the following rules for the vote.
Please
Allies:
Axis:
Please add a new candidate here preserving this text for other contributors.
Candidate registration has not ended and voting has not occured
The file File:Two Blue Acaras.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
{{proposed deletion/dated files}}
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
