{{helpme}}
Hello Sambc, I'm a relative newcomer (editing for 6 months) here myself but I'm getting the hang of it and would be happy to adopt you if you like. Have a look at my User and talk pages if you want to find out what I've been up to and what my interests are. I've had a quick look at your contributions and I must say it looks like you're getting the hang of this very quickly, and may not need much adopting!! Best wishes - Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 14:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I've made some changes and hope that they are useful to you. The book by Thomas Kennedy, to which I refer, is in Friends House Library and I intend to return it soon. Best === Vernon White (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello, can I ask why you, out of all pages, have deemed Maidens railway station to be non-notable? It is part of an ongoing Wikiproject regarding Scottish transport, past and present. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport in Scotland. There are articles like this for all over the UK (and the world), why have you singled this one out? --Dreamer84 21:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I see that the tag you placed on Prescott Baronets has been removed. There has been a debate on whether every Baronet is notable but I don't think the concept on having an article on every baronetcy has ever been questioned. Please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Baronetcies to find out more. I see that you have been adding deletion tags to several articles on different subjects and also that you are a newcomer to Wikipedia. I would advise you to have a look around to see if there are articles on similar topics before adding a deletion tag to an article. Regards, Tryde 07:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Comment moved to appropriate article talk page and replied to. SamBC 13:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Please read the external link about Mohammed Chafik. He is a scholar with a great reputation and the author of many articles and books.S711 09:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.S711 18:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I've got some experience with this sort of thing too, but if you will take a look at the deletion log you will see that sorting out the relevant types of deletions is the problem, not doing the sampling. I have some experience doing log analysis, once some computer type has prepared the extract. If you know how to do that we could work out some criteria. DGG (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
And see [1] DGG (talk) 06:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed you removed my vote on the change of upload features. You say the Village pump is not a place for votes, where then? Wasn't there an active vote on change of the talk page name? I need consensus from people to get this live. I tried the Village pump, I tried MediaWiki talk:Common.js and I tried the Village pump again. Everywhere I get sent somewhere els. Everyone seems to like the idea, but I can't get it trough. No one want's to make the change. Can't we just have a vote on the Village pump? --Steinninn 03:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I made a post to Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I just made a minor edit to your monobook.js page, to add nowiki and /nowiki tags to two comments so that your page wouldn't be listed in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. The problem was with the Easy DB script in particular. As other users are usually restricted from editing one's monobook.js page (admins aren't), I'm making sure you know exactly what I did - please contact me if there are any related problems whatsoever. Thanks, Nihiltres(t.l) 13:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Please check the suggested wording in the talk page. Jclerman 04:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate it is hard to judge what will be contentious and what will not be contentious, but when it comes to policy pages it is generally best to discuss and build a consensus on the talk page before making changes. Not only that, but if the changes are reverted, then it becomes clearer that the changes are disputed and that a consensus will need to be demonstrated and that an agreement will be needed before amending the policy. Please don't edit war on our policy pages. Our policy pages really shouldn't be protected, especially not for long periods of time, it can prove disruptive to the project and that's not good. Yes, it can be annoying that the policy doesn't read to your satisfaction at a particular instance, but your actions will last longer and be less disruptive if you discuss and build a consensus, or come to some sort of an agreement first. Given the recent history of Wikipedia:Verifiability I am of the opinion that rather than protecting the page it is now time to consider issuing blocks to prevent our policy pages being disrupted in this manner. If established users cannot get their heads together and settle disagreements amicably on these cornerstones of the project, what example does that set the rest of our users. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and if that means a page exists in the wrong version for an hour or a day, so be it. Where this impacts upon the wider encyclopedia, for example where someone amends policy forcibly to prove points in an ongoing debate, then the appropriate action is to raise the matter at the admin's noticeboard to seek a neutral consensus on the issue. Please consider this a friendly pointer; we're all working towards the same goal. Happy editing and good luck with the discussion. Steve block Talk 15:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
SamBC, your revert with the edit summary "A bit of vague agreement in talk over a few hours does not equal consensus" was uncalled for. The edit does have consensus so far as I know. The "vague agreement in talk" that you refer to is not the days long discussion that established cocsensus over the substance of my edit. And we don't typixally discuss ahead of time every slight rewording that preserves substance. Please stay out of editing a page if you can't keep up with the contents of its talk page. WAS 4.250 16:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you think of what or two easily implementable obviously desirable reforms to start out with? DGG (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I edited a page Matador_(toy), a user named user:Jimfbleak deleted it. You notified me. I put a hangon on that page, but the same user deleted the same page again only two days later. Thats not like Wikipedia ought to work. FranzN 14:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I've just posted a recommendation that addresses the issue of encouraging proper sourcing which sidesteps (for now) the matter of pushing for deletion. Based on your earlier comments, I'd appreciate your thoughts on my proposal. Thanks, Askari Mark (Talk) 18:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello! I saw that you were looking for adoption, and I have decided to offer my services to you. If you do not want me to adopt you, please notify me on my talk page and I will think nothing of it. If you would like to consider my offer, then I'd like you to look over my program at User:HAL2008/Adopt, and decide whether it looks like the right kind of program for you. I see that you've already got a few edits under your belt, and that's great, as such, I would like you to specify things that you would like to go over on the list of steps in the program. Feel free to get back to me whenever, I'm only a click away. --HAL2008talk 01:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your comment on the Kunt and the Gang (band) deletion article. I am happy to add the things you suggested but please can you advise the best way/how to do this properly? I checked out another band I like on here Thunderstone (band) and they don't seem to have any proof they have released albums, been on tours and had reviews in various press. They also don't seem to have a deletion article about them. I know Kunt and the Gang are a bit more risque but surely that doesn't change anything? does it?
If you could point me to the relevant help files it would be great. Thanks a lot --Catten666 17:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Ta very much, think it's OK now.--Catten666 18:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to thank the person or persons who helped clean up this article. Since the author is new to Wikipedia, it is very difficult for new and inexperienced authors to include all of the editing and formatting used on Wikipedia. Thank you.--JSHibbard 18:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
TAG
This article or section contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. Please help improve this article by removing or rewriting the how-to content, which may qualify for a move to Wikibooks.
I do not understand why you keep insisting the hand hygiene article is teaching. It is debunking myths and misinformation and presenting the facts "truths" about hand hygiene.
The hand washing article teaches the following:
Personal hand washing To maintain good hygiene, hands should always be washed after using the toilet, changing a diaper, tending to someone who is sick, or handling raw meat, fish, or poultry. Hands should also be washed before eating, handling or cooking food. Conventionally, the use of soap and warm running water and the washing of all surfaces thoroughly, including under fingernails is seen as necessary. One should rub wet, soapy hands together outside the stream of running water for at least 20 seconds, before rinsing thoroughly and then drying with a clean or disposable towel.[1] After drying, a dry paper towel should be used to turn off the water (and open the exit door if one is in a restroom or other separate room). Moisturizing lotion is often recommended to keep the hands from drying out, should one's hands require washing more than a few times per day. [2]
Why was the hand washing article accepted by Wikipedia? There is some inconsistency here. Please explain!--67.65.59.153 15:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming that you're actually JSHibbard, just from context... but if not, it doesn't matter. To answer your question, it's a matter of encyclopedic tone; that is to say, whether it is written in a way one would expect content to be written in an encyclopedia. It's hard to pin down, but the wikipedia Manual of Style tries to give a good guide. I think the problem with Hand hygiene is that it reads like an information leaflet. Personally, though, I think the content is very much salvageable. SamBC 17:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You might like to look at this given further expalnation of references. Tallum 02:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. The name is, in my opinion, wholly unacceptable under the wiki policy currently in force, and, with respect, I do not see a need to reverse my block. You will notice that he is only softblocked, and is perfectly free to edit under another username. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 20:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I switched to neutral pending improvements. I'll look in tomorrow, but then I'm offline until Sunday night, but I don't think it will close until after that. But even if it does, my neutral won't count either way. If he's not an academic, try to fit it into WP:BIO . There are a couple of links to some good news and periodical searches on my user page. - Crockspot 03:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Sam, per WP:TALK, please move your talk page comments to the end of my remarks, instead of breaking them up so that they are harder for other people to read. It's unclear which comments are mine and which are yours the way you did it. Thank you very much. THF 22:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No. 5, "This reasoning should be as complete as you can manage." contradicts the general WP consensus that it is better to state talk-page reasoning in a short and concise manner. Experienced editors will know to disregard this recommendation in the right circumstances, but I worry about the newbies, many of whom need no encouragement to be unnecessarily verbose. Just a suggestion, not enough to make me oppose it. THF
Hi. I see that you've requested adoption, and I'd like to offer to adopt you. If you wish to accept, please leave a message on my talk page. --Sopoforic 01:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
This does not really misrepresent Wikipedia policy, because the page it links to (WP:EFD) has a humour tag on top of it. If you want to make it more obvious that the template is humorous, please propose it on the talk page. If you want to delete it, nominate it for MFD. Thanks! Melsaran 20:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I don't believe that it matches the criteria you suggested as there is a clear claim of notability that the individual is the former CEO of a notable company, which has an article on Wikipedia, and has been subject to a high profile case, covered extensively by the media. This must surely count at least as a claim to notability. AugustSauce 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This is in regard to the Jim Warren (Artist) article that was deleted.
I'm not sure what is required to "assert notability". I can provide some links which I believe satisfy the notability requirement, but I'm not really sure how to incorporate them into the article.
Some Amazon.com links:
Internet Speculative Fiction Database bibliography.
Warren's painting for the cover of the Bob Seger album Against the Wind won the 1981 Grammy Award for Best Album Package.
I don't think assertion of notability should be a criterion for speedy deletion. Deletion, perhaps, but lack of assertion is not lack of notability. I don't get to WP every day; if there had been more time, at the very least I could have added this information to the External Links section, if nothing else.
Balls4balls is blatant because it describes...well, a man's testicles. Cheers, JetLover (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you look into why wiktionary user Connel MacKenzie blocked my wiktionary account "Hollow are the Ori"? Can someone be blocked from Wiktionary for removing the unref tag? I thought you were ok with its removal after I changed "often" to "sometimes"?
Note: I was banned from Wikipedia (not wiktionary) for 1 year but have served more than my time and I do not think it right that my Wikipedia history somehow gets me arbitrarily blocked from wiktionary. zen master T 20:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
re your most recent comment - since it follows mine, some may thin you are addressing me. Well, okay, if you think it is necessary - but you should be clear. It is ambiguous. i request that you name whomever you are addressin the comment to. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've reindented it, and the context makes it pretty clear. I didn't actually notice your comment when I made mine, but I'll edit to clarify who's being addressed, as you raised the concern. SamBC(talk) 00:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
How is my behavior here on Wikipedia different than on wiktionary? Just because my conspiracy theory/title neutrality proposal is unpopular doesn't mean it is wrong. No one has yet come up with an argument that successfully champions the usage of "conspiracy theory" in the title of an article in an allegedly neutral encyclopedia. zen master T 01:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello Sam, I noticed that you added yourself to the list of potential parties in the White people mediation case. I presume that this means you'll be willing to mediate with me? Thanks, Neranei (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Up yours! --Kevin Murray 13:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Hello there. Yes, I'm the Marnanel you think I am. How's life these days? Marnanel 23:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
FYI - Richfife 01:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't create temp pages in the article space. You can either create them in the Talk mainspace or your userspace. For now I have moved the article to User:Sambc/White people/Compromise version. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 23:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't mean to be obnoxious but i just want to see this debate resolved so people can move on, and not have the talk page turn into thirty different threads again. I know you were making a reasonable point, I just think we really need focus on resolving specific conflicts now. Any talk should be supporting one resolution or another ...Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I certainly don't mind you or anyone proposing alternative solutions to the conflict - I just think they should be presented as alternative solutions to the conflict i.e. concrete proposals or arguments for or against concrete proposals rather than abstract discussion. There has been a month of abstract discussion. It is time to start resolving disputes, even if only (as indeed is the nature of Wikipedia) provisionally. My hope is it will be easier to do it if we focus on just one or two disputes at a time, that's all. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I admire your patience, tenacity, and reasonableness. Nevertheless, your recent edits on the talk page, noble in intent and sound though they may be, amount to feeding a troll. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I will try to do the same, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I just added something to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not.
Does that serve to do what you just suggested, at least in part? --Minasbeede 10:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Your choice of words makes me wonder if you've read Fowler's "Modern English Usage"
(copied from a newsgroup where I quoted it long ago):
Fowler, "A Dictionary of Modern English Usage," 4th printing (1950):
"prig is a word of variable and indefinite meaning .... A p. cracks nuts with a steamhammer: that is, calls in the first principles of morality to decide whether he may, or must, do something of as little importance as drinking a glass of beer. ... On the whole, one may, perhaps, say that all his different characteristics come from the combination, in varying proportions, of three things -- the desire to do his duty, the belief that he knows better than other people, & the blindness to the difference in value between different things."
Hello,
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Sam—I've compromised in two places, because I'm keen to achieve consensus. [2] Tony 02:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Missed seeing your invitation to collaborate that you made on the talk page for WP:NOT until just now.
I think the talk discussion for WP:NOR is going well: it should work out well to a good consensus resolution. I've made suggested contributions at NOR and at NOT: any of that found useful can be grabbed, altered, and put in a policy.
I see you believe in jury nullification. Some time ago I added the last reference (Moglen) to the John Peter Zenger page. While that's directly not about jury nullification it is about one of the milestone cases for jury nullification and in any case it's interesting to read. The deviousness of the government is shockingly apparent and it's fascinating even to me (An American) to see a lawyer's summation refer to Star Chamber decisions. Of course at the time of the Zenger trial that was a British court: the US was still far in the future. --Minasbeede 14:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Sam. Thanks for the info. (I'm rapidly losing my French and really shouldn't comment on it in detail.) I should have written "gallic phrasing" rather than borrowing. I don't believe the word itself was imported (indeed, un and one are no doubt cognates from Indo-European) but I believe English speakers took to using it in speech in imitation of the French in the ME period. However, the usage has never fully settled into the language and five hundred years on people are still not comfortable with it. Ditto the of genitive: 'Oxford University' is "real" English, while 'University of Oxford' is gallic phrasing. In this case, it has entered ordinary speech.
So I've heard anyhow :). Marskell 13:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:No original research, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation.
So you can place CSD11 tags on Userpages, when it applies? I'm a bit vague on that area (I thought you prodded instead)? -WarthogDemon 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I am developing a new essay at Wikipedia:The rules are principles. Your input and advice would be quite welcomed. Cheers! Vassyana 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about that! Didn't mean to remove those names too. -Yancyfry 02:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Since Jinxmchue refused the mediation request, I would like a vote on your thoughts on whether or not I should file an arbitration case here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me)(public computer) 16:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw that you added a disputed section tag to NOR again. In the past, other editors have used disputed tags essentially as trolling devices, fighting over whether or not a disputed tag should appear even though it was clear that there was consensus for the guideline or policy. So you should be aware that editors like myself have come to view the placement of a dispute tag, with great skepticism, as the equivalent of yelling "wolf!". When you continue to reinsert the dispute tag, you run the risk of identifying yourself with former editors who have abused it by continuing to add it when there was no real dispute, just as the boy who cried wolf wasn't believed when the wolf came to eat him. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
No, you're not too critical at all. I am a neophyte, and am trying to learn my way around UAA. Thank you so much for your concern and help! I really appreciate the feedback. Don't hesitate to tell me if I screw up. Thanks again! Love, Neranei (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Sambc! How are you? I think you should look at my argument on AfD for List of nontheists. Thank you. RS1900 05:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You've got some! Ryan Postlethwaite 12:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough - was in a bit of a hurry. Apologies. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 21:53, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Was that template message meant for someone else? Looks like all the names I reported were blocked. Blueboy96 12:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
hi, thank you for your insight. I'd rather have one conversation than two so what would be the most sensible step to take to get the template back on the article page? I've heard mention that the project and the tag should be separate and iI kind of thought they were as the template was free for anyone to use on any article but if some step should be taken to solidify that then maybe that should be entertained. Any thoughts or energy for helping start this effort? Benjiboi 08:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Template:Rescue 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. — Benjiboi 21:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
RubyTuesday425 (talk · contribs) closely resembles the Ruby Tuesday chain of restaurants in the United States. STORMTRACKER 94 00:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that phrase (about real names that seem inappropriate) is necessary because real names are never actually inappropriate. Yes, theoretically, someone could actually be named something offensive, or they could have the same name as a company, but this doesn't actually happen (and even if it did, would such a person want to use their real name online?). The "real names" section doesn't say anything because it's not needed. Frankly, the only purpose I can see in that phrase is to give trolls a chance to try to cause more trouble by wikilawyering. If you disagree let's have a discussion on WT:U but I'm hoping you'll understand my point and self-revert. Mangojuicetalk 19:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I was trying to leave a {{shortcut}} template, like the one at WP:ANI and so forth. However, the div style I used probably displays differently based on browser; I'll look around and see if there's anything that works uniformly. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I made a mistake in my research. Not a big fan, and i thought that was her name. Oops, :)Tiptoety talk 00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I need to brush up on what's acceptable and what isn't. Sorry about the error. :P -WarthogDemon 21:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your post to my page. Where should I file my complaint? Administrator noticeboard? Thanks, Renee (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
See Teabagging. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
rescue template - reasons for deletions not compatible with rescue I'm willing to learn more about the governing policy. But I don't think the intent of WP deletion policy would want a link to a deletion discussion removed while it was ongoing. So that is why I have undone your change. If you can site policy (including links whenever possible) that might help me understand where you are coming from. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Is a sockpuppet (see User:Runtshit) with over 350+ incarnations thus far. I realize I should have been more descriptive, but Bite me Rance (which is a barb against RolandR (talk · contribs), a respected contributor here) seems pretty straightforwardly offensive to me. Regards, Tiamuttalk 11:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sambc, I recently commented on Talk:MOSNUM that I rather appreciate what you said with your point #2. Unless it was a Trojan horse—and I have no reason to suspect you intended it as such—it reveals to me that you see very limited utility for the IEC units of measure because they have been so poorly adopted in the real world. So what exactly is it about the current proposal that is a deal breaker for you? Is it over its hard-line remedy for deprecating existing articles? Greg L (my talk) 01:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Sambc, can you provide me with an example article which exemplifies “articles where the primary cited source uses the IEC 60027-2 prefixes”? Greg L (my talk) 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
The new caveat is essentially a somewhat more specific application of “use the units employed in current scientific articles on that subject”. With the caveat, if a dominant or influential player in the Linux world adopts the IEC prefixes, then—without going through a new holy war on revising the policy—it would already be giving its blessing for Wikipedia articles to begin using the IEC prefixes. Wikipedia would be using the methods of communicating and disambiguating used for that audience. I note that “German 217…(whatever)” pointed out an Apple-written paper that used the IEC prefix. Of course, that paper was written by a programer for programers. The newly added caveat would pre-address situations like this: if a particular readership like professional Apple programmers are routinely using the terms because Apple does or visa versa (and I don’t yet know if that is truly the case), then a Wiki article directed to that readership may (and certainly should) also do so.
Now my question becomes this: is doing so going to change your vote? Continuing as we are will just result in this horse crap coming up again and again. Further, I don’t see an alternative, “split the baby down the middle” proposal as being any more successful than current policy at resolving future conflict. The “Oppose” crowd is quite intransigent on their views; they want their IEC prefixes and think they should be used for any readership because it’s good for them once they learn them here. That is so not the way encyclopedias work. I think it’s time to put the current policy out of its misery and adopt one that essentially gives more specificity to the broad principal of “use the terminology, units of measure, and methods of disambiguation typically employed for the intended audience; that is, use the communication techniques currently used in the primary literature in that industry for a particular readership.” Hey, I kinda like that wording; the whole damn proposal could be replaced with that once sentence and could be added to #Which system to use. But that’s for later; the “Oppose” crowd won’t allow it because of its implications—at least not until after this is passed. Are you on board? Greg L (my talk) 15:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
My perspective:
A long time ago, in a land far away, User:Thax started a vote about use of binary prefixes in Wikipedia, since the traditional usage violates SI, and we've generally solved unit disputes by recommending SI in most contexts. There was no real consensus. 20 people thought we should use IEC prefixes for binary quantities everywhere, while 6 thought we should never use them anywhere. So we made the guideline say "IEC prefixes are recommended, but are not required". (And I don't know what the hell you're claiming I "rammed" into something else.)
As more people became aware of the guideline, consensus changed, discussion polarized, people became enraged, engaged in sweeping edit wars (for which some were banned and others were not), wasted days of their lives discussing the same points over and over, etc. Last time I looked, it said something more along the lines of "There is no consensus on which style to use, so discuss on an article basis and decide which style is more appropriate based on the article's context". This is similar to our policy on variants of English, which does not just jump into saying "defer to the first contributor", but says "if the article's about something American, use American English. If it's about something Canadian, use Canadian English".
I think this is acceptable, but people obviously still aren't happy with it, and it's not as clear-cut as deciding whether Tolkien is a more American or more British subject. In Commodore 64 articles, the traditional prefixes are more appropriate. In articles about bandwidth, the standard prefixes are more appropriate. But what about everything else? For many topics, there's no clear standard or common usage to follow. — Omegatron 05:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Bodhisattvaspath • Talk • Contribs 17:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC): Could you please be more specific? Thank you. :)
Sorry, I had no idea how that the rollback that I did happen. I know I was looking at the diff you had made, and scrolled back to click at the top like I normally would to return to my watchlist, but I had to turn away for a bit; next thing I'm seeing that I rollbacked something and your completely appropriate re-revert of that mistake. I in no way meant to even mark that as anything, much less vandalism, so I fully apologize for the accidental removal. --MASEM 19:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you would refrain from flaming at WT:FICT in discussions with me about the notability of fictional toipcs. Everybody is entitled to an opinion (even me), so sweeping generalisations like "Gavin, remember that we're supposed to do whatever makes the encyclopaedia better" is patronising. If you have a disagreement with something I have written, say you have a disagreement rather than being uncivil. --Gavin Collins (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, SamBC, thank you for your persistence and your civility in discussions with Gavin collins. (The above is not a flame in my eyes, but a reminder which all of us need to be bonked with from time to time.) Let me buy you a beer if we ever meet. I don't normally drink, but it's the principle of the thing. Unfortunately I cannot elaborate further why, as judging from our previous interactions Collins would likely take it as a covert attack on his credibility, and I don't want to do that. --Kizor 11:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sam—I'm stuck as to how to reproduce the three monthly updates in the WP Signpost Featured Content Dispatch for 21 April. Can you advise?
[3] TONY (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Mea helpa. TONY (talk) 13:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
And here's a test of April for my sake as well:
Titles. Clarification that common nouns denoting deities or religious figures are not capitalized.
Acronyms and abbreviations. The terms "abbreviation", "acronym" and "initialism" were clarified.
Quotation marks. Clarification that (block-quoted) multiparagraph quotations "must be precise and exactly as in the source. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." Instead of HTML tags, {{quotation}} or {{quote}} can be used to render block quotes.
SI symbols and unit abbreviations. This was added:
Disputes over people's proper names. The previous statement:
was replaced with:
Alignment of images. The last four words were added to the statement:
An exception was added:
This was added:
Pronunciation. The last three words were added:
This sentence was added:
Decade abbreviations. Two-digit abbreviations for decades may have a preceding apostrophe only in reference to a social era or cultural phenomenon as a stock phrase that roughly corresponds to or defines a decade (the Roaring '20s, the Gay '90s), or where there is a notable connection between the period and the immediate topic (a sense of social justice informed by '60s counterculture, but grew up in 1960s Boston, moving to Dallas in 1971). [This is now inconsistent with the main page of the MoS.]
Units of measurement. A new section was inserted:
This was marked with a dispute tag and has been the subject of an edit war and page protection.
Units of measurement. The recommendation to use "sq" and "cu" with US-unit abbreviations was removed; now superscript exponents may be used in that system.
The piping of disambiguation pages. Clarification: piping may be used to add italics to the part of an article name inside parenthetical clarifiers (for instance [[Neo (The Matrix)|Neo (''The Matrix'')]]); until now the guideline only allowed italics and quotation marks for the part outside the parentheses.
The third bullet was added to the instructions (underlined here):
The following sentence was added to the Featured portal criteria:
The phrase that was removed from Non-free content Criterion 8 last month (underlined here) was reinstated and is currently under discussion:
Hello - you participated in Gavin.collins' Request for Comment, so I am alerting you that we are preparing a Request for Mediation regarding him. BOZ (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Please cease and desist from removing the Synthesis cleanup template from the article Kender, an article which uses fictional sources that when put together serve to advance the position that "Kender are a fictional race unique to the Dragonlance world". There is no reasonable justification for removing the cleanup template as the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, and this position is original research. There is no reasonable justification for removing the cleanup template which was put there to address this problem, as you do appear to have neither added any reliable secondary sources to support the position, nor to have removed any of the synthesised content. The reason why I ask you to do this in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be asserting that the article provides precise analysis of this position without providing a reliable source in relation to the topic, as your explanation for removing the template ('"already been challenged to point out the synthesis, and have instead pointed out poor sourcing" [4]). This explaination is not supported by the guidelines WP:SYNTH and WP:RS which apply to this topic. Unless you adding citationsfrom reliable secondary sources or removing synthesis from the article, I would be grateful if you would restore the template and refrain from removing it until such time as cleanup is effected. The template was placed there to alert other editors who may be able to cleanup the article, and so its removal is actually self-defeating. I would suggest in future that you respect my viewpoint, such that if you disagree with it, you seek a Third Opinion, rather than simply reverting my edits without making any improvements.--Gavin Collins (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea if a bot will tell you, so I might as well post here. :) Just remember that you must sign the request within 7 days or the case will be rejected. You may add any additional content-related issues that you also feel need mediation in the following section: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender#Additional issues to be mediated. BOZ (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
{{unblock-ip|1=194.80.32.9|2=[[meta:No open proxies]]|3=DerHexer}}
It should also be noted that this is a web cache for Lancaster University, one of several used in load-balancing fashion. As such, my ability to edit is currently random, as not all such caches (seemingly only this one) are blocked. I have emailed DerHexer, but this block is very disruptive to my ability to edit. The caches are not, afaik, open. Certainly if I forget to change my settings back after using the VPN from home, the cache is unreachable. SamBC(talk) 10:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It does indeed look like its out of date especially with the new policy update.
Staffwaterboy Talk♂ 15:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I think your response to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Plot summaries is very heavy handed and can be described at best as a borderline personal attack, and is not within the spirit if not the rules WP:CIVIL. For instance, singling out my comments for a section call Gavin's POV is not pleasant and rather disfuctional. How is anyone supposed to respond and feel comfortable under section heading? I think you will agree that it was not put there to welcome me :p Could I propose that this section is removed, or at least reedited. I know that a lot of people disagree with my views, but if you disagree, say so and say why. Once it becomes clear that this is the tone of the discussions is normal, I don't see how you are going to get any other contributers to come forward with views that differ from your own. Please consider removing this whole section. --Gavin Collins (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
With regard to the discussion you have been participating in at AFI 100 as an example, I would be grateful if you would make your views known regarding the inclusion of awards in Elements of fiction.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Rather than going in circles, you can contact Vassyana for advice. :) BOZ (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Dang it, Kevin beat me (by 20 minutes!). I was going to say something like "for being by far the most productive, constructive, and probably other -ctives (e.g. proactive) participant in the RfC at WT:N." Thanks! (Sorry for the misplaced comment, I can't figure out how to get it below the barnstar box instead of inside it.) Aylad ['ɑɪlæd] 16:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the issue... and thanks :) SamBC(talk) 19:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I have posted some thoughts on how specifically to handle the Life Cycle section.[5] Opinions are welcome. :) BOZ (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey there. :) I have posted some thoughts on kender Handling. See here. BOZ (talk) 16:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
You have been recently active on the WP:V talk page. Please visit this discussion on WP:VPP and contribute comments if you want to. Thank you. 208.43.120.114 (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.
We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.
You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.
We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!
Addbot (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Since you have been actively involved in past discussions regarding PSTS, please review, contribute, or comment on this proposed PSTS Policy & Guidelines.--SaraNoon (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender is being closed as partially resolved/stale. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim moved to Talk:Kender/Draft for use outside of mediation. If further assistance is needed on the Kender article or the broader topic area, I remain available on a case-by-case basis to help out on an informal basis. If some outside assistance could be used to resolve a dispute in the topic area, please let me know and I will do my best to help out. Be well! Vassyana (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you were involved in the Request for Mediation, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You haven't edited the article in question, but since you are or have been actively involved in the IEC prefix discussion (sorry to remind you of it if you, like me, got tired of the uncivil discussion and wanted to have nothing to do with the issue anymore), I invite you to consider the nomination for deletion of the article JEDEC memory standards, which I believe can fairly be said to have been created only as a hammer for the discussion.
I beg you to try to keep your sentiments about the actual IEC prefix on Wikipedia question out of the deletion discussion and consider the merits of the deletion proposal, namely, notability in the Wikipedia sense (WP:N), regardless of which units you believe Wikipedia should use.
The deletion discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JEDEC memory standards. --SLi (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Back in 21 March 2008, as memorialized here on WT:MOS Archive 97, you, Srleffler, and Tony had differing opinions on the best looking format for scientific notation. Some thought no spaces on each side of the times (×) symbol worked and/or looked best (see examples, below), and others thought a space worked and/or looked best. At that time, I suggested a compromise using thinspaces and all agreed that was a workable solution.
The template that eventually came out of all that originally used thinspaces but was later tweaked to use non-printing, non-selectable, Cascading Style Sheet-based visual gaps (using <span>‑based gaps. It appeared to me that the CSS gaps were exceedingly close to the full-width regular space and this might displease those who prefer no spaces at all. So I want to run the proposed tweak by you and see if you are at peace with what I think best achieves the spirit of that compromise.
Here is the proposal (bottom) with comparative examples:
If you are satisfied with the appearance of the proposed tweak, please advise here on WT:MOSNUM.
Greg L (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
A while back ago, you were involved in a discussion about how to refer to the United States Geographical locations on wikipedia. A similar discussion is taking place here. Any comments on this topic would be helpful.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I just wanted to offer you my personal thanks for supporting the title change over on Sega Genesis and Mega Drive. I understand that you fought long and hard for your position - and for what it's worth, I'd have supported Mega Drive if it stood a chance of overturning the present title. It takes guts and a desire to make this a better encyclopedia to do what you did. Thanks. SteveBaker (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
As a participant at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4 and subsequent XfDs, would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4: Moving forward? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding this edit [6] I didn't reply there because the bot removes reports after a user is blocked. They created an article about a band of the same name. That's pretty much why admins handle these reports, we can see the user's deleted contributions as well, although there was also a note on their talk page about the deleted article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
You might be interested in this thread given your past activity in the subject area. BOZ (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
