Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the article's talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 14:56, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Hi Ian. Just wanted to know why you felt it necessary to delete authentic quotes from the article on The Design Revolution. Did you feel the quotes misrepresented the book? David Bergan 19:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Ian. So, what would be the point of removing it? If it's minor, who cares, no one will look for it. If it does have a noticable following, then people can search for it and read something factual and accurate... as opposed to nothing. David Bergan 19:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I can see your point about the quotes. I had written them because they were noteworthy enough to be in our Talk:Intelligent Design discussion and I wanted other users to be able to see that they were legitimate quotes without buying the book. It's hard to refer to a book in wikipedia discussions... because people want to source-check, yet they can't see the book as easily as they can click on a link. I'll leave it up to you, though. If you think it's worth it to have any of the quotes available, you can un-delete them.
By the way, what's got you interested in intelligent design? David Bergan 20:00, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
You supported my nomination of the Mark Felt article and I wonder if I could get your support on my latest FAC, Helen Gandy, who was Hoover's secretary for five decades. PedanticallySpeaking 21:01, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
You were kind enough to support my nomination of Mark Felt as a featured article and I wonder if you would look at my newest FAC, Tom Brinkman. The voting page is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tom Brinkman/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 15:05, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Why did your remove the factual dispute warning from the article. Did you read the article by A. Nagel on the external link? Andries 22:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
You supported my W. Mark Felt FAC nomination. I'm grateful and though it was successful. I've got another FAC now, the next congresswoman from Ohio, Jean Schmidt. The FAC page is here. I hope to get it featured by September 6, the day she will be sworn in. I'd appreciate your support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC) (P.S. If you are worried about the "fair use" of her picture, when she's sworn, we'll be able to replace it with a nice U.S. government public domain photo.)
It will be nice to know what has been reason for deleting my sentence about Valerian body ? Question is from Rjecina. Thanks for your answer but I think that it is not OK. Yes I will give you point about my english but I am interested to know when has Roman Empire ( de jure East or West Roman empire has never existed ) become Byzantine. Even modern historians ( which I have been reading ) are telling that only after 640 AD you can speak about Byzantine empire. Fact is that in year 628 AD part of Roman states are all Eastern provinces, Rome, Ravenna, Carthago and evacuation of Hispania has been only in time of emperor Heraclius 610-641 AD.
Hi Ian,
you were quite right in removing the silly 'binary theory' stuff from the precession article. I was about to do that myself. I was building up a history of discussion with Ungtss, to show as evidence of willingness to explain, should Ungtss attempt to file a Request For Arbitration, or something of that nature. i will keep watching the precession article, and I will revert any attempt to insert binary theory stuff again.
I rather overdid it: I have flooded the Talk:precession page with comments.
There is a reason for my carefullness. I am currently working hard to get solid newtonian physics incorporated in the coriolis effect article. Here is my version of the coriolis effect article, and I intend to revert to that version soon.
All the animations in the article have been manufactured by me. I would very much appreciate it if you will read it, and follow the logic through, even it if appears counterintuitive at first. My version of the coriolis effect article is based on the scientific articles that are listed in the references section of the article.
If you feel my version of the coriolis effect article presents the physics correctly, then I would really appreciate your help in defending it. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 13:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Before registering, I frequentely restored the "Binary Model etc." part on the article, and I also tried editing it several times in order to make it more NPOV and acceptable to you 2 (Cleon and you). Sadly, the article was removed, and any reference to it has been purged from the article. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Hollow Earth as well as other equally almost non-sense theories' articles are still there, I'm thinking contacting user Ungtss and other users who and ask for the main "Binary Model" article to be restored.
Would you mind if it were restored and not linked directly from this page? Perhaps we could reach a middle ground by having that article restored and linking to "Precession", but not the opposite (no links thither from Precession). I personally find irritating the usage of ancient Vedic texts as "scientific evidence", nonetheless I found it interesting - there may be a relationship between this pseudo-scientific model and the Nemesis one, if only the "Binary Research" presented it in more "orthodox" ways...
It would be great to have the "Binary Model" with a "Criticisim" section on it, where your objections recorded in the Precession's discussion page would be placed. Yours TrollDeBatalla
Why do you not remove the NAS editorialization? Dan Watts 20:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your vote of support on my Jean Schmidt article. I'm pleased to say it is today's featured article of the day. PedanticallySpeaking 16:51, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Hello. Just to say that I've put a short note onto the Flood Geology discussion page re: the ongoing debate about the citation of that "academic" reference. I can see this spinning off into a flame-war (or whatever one has on Wiki), so my view is (perhaps foolishly) to compromise, and allow a short reference to the work in. Certainly something much reduced and much more NPOV than what's been proposed to date. Then it can subsequently be qualified and commented on. I'm probably giving too much ground to the creationists, but I'm very conscious of the fact that (however dubiously) the reference is published, and that allowing said creationists to cry censorship can be dangerous. --Plumbago 08:30, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm back at it again with my Bruce Johnson article, nominated as a FAC. He's Ohio's lieutenant governor and already at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bruce Johnson are votes opposing. I hope you don't find me a pest, but I find when I don't go out and ask folks such as yourself for their votes, my FAC's invariably are defeated. So I'd be grateful if you'd put your two cents worth in. Ave! PedanticallySpeaking 17:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello. Could you kindly take a stab at rewording the info on the school that gave David Duke his doctorate before deleting it? Something should remain in the article itself. I think the fact that the school has 30,000 students and is considered legit is notable. It is surprising to many observers, and therefore more (not less) info should be provided to the reader. ThanksDannyZz 18:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Gerwani, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page. |
I recently made extensive additions and revisions to Moab. Since you helped improve Edom after I did a similar overhaul on that article I thought you might want to know. --Briangotts (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
The Six Day War article still needs some cleanup, but is starting to look pretty good. We may actually end up with an article on an Arab-Israeli war that is actually a history, rather than an apologetic diatribe. How long it will stay that way is another question. Brian Tvedt 19:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
In June you voted on the featured article candidacy of W. Mark Felt, which failed. It has now been resubmitted. In the event you would like to vote on the new candidacy, it is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks - the problem was not particularly with the intro (which is mostly based on Zeq's paragraph) but with the "Effects on Palestinians" section. I have on numerous occasions given in to the opposing editor's demands but he apparently insists on redundancy, bad grammar, and removing balancing statements from his own UN sources which he provided. I don't see that his/her version is too different from mine, but am having a difficult time "giving and giving" instead of "giving and taking" with him/her. I have asked an Israeli editor to add to the "Effects on Israeli security" as well. Thanks for your input. Ramallite (talk) 15:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Ramallite? I'm concerned with the POV expressed by some of the oppose votes. Jayjg (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
From my few past interactions with you I know you are a responsible and rational editor, however I strongly disagree with the new six day war article. Although you have properly cited your sources, it seems like you have downplayed the traditional reasons for the war which most historians still agree upon. I understand your desire to present the other side, but instead of being neutral the new article virtually places all the blame on Israel for the war. Would you agree to help present both sides in a way that is as neutral as possible? please respond on my talk page with your thoughts, thanks.- 10:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk)
Thank you so much for supporting my RfA, it was a rough one but I made it through. I greatly appreciate it! Ramallite (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Is this really a good source? From what little I've read, it appears to be overly simplified, and seems to use quite a few sterotypes as proof for his reasoning. Have you heard anything negative about it? or is it generally well regarded?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
"This phase of the war conducted during the exiting of the British from Palestine. Areas that the British evacuated became fastly to battle zone. The British withdrawal had a deeper significance regarding the development of fighting. The British evacuated their forces on specific axes of evacuation, and refused to let the sides to fight on this axes as long as they didn't evacuated forces from there. In some cases the British even forced the conquerors (Jews or Arabs) of an area to evacuate it for not to disturb to their exiting from the land. Likewise, during the British evacuation the Jews feared to make large conquests, in the faith that a British retaliation act will come. Therefore, in a substantial part of the cases, the Jewish fighting limited to military retaliation acts against the Arabs of Palestine and then retreat back. After the evacuation of Haifa which started in April 21 1948 the Jewish conception changed and the Jewish military organizations attacked Arab settlements in order to conquer them.". What is wrong in this section? I suggest that we will repair this section and put it in the article, because it is written about this issue in the Hebrew Wikipedia! Toya 06:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Hi Ian. Your signature is causing trouble. For example at Talk:1948_Arab-Israeli_War everything from your latest sig to the end of the page is bold. The reason is that the Wiki software is changing your </b> tag into </b> (hope that displays correctly). Maybe if you use the wiki bolding method of 3 apostrophes. --Zero 23:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Just out of curiousity, what do you think of Zero? do you think he is a good administrator or do you think he is overly condenscending and rude?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg User_talk:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg;(talk)]] 20:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
In reply to your comment- but presumably NPOV to include this bizarre conclusion without references: "During the uprising, Arab general strikes and riots targeted both the British and Jews alike. Moderate Palestinian Arabs who were seen as collaborators were also lynched and assassinated by Arab extremists. In fact, it is possible that the number of Arabs murdered by Arabs constituted the greatest number of the victims of violence of this period." It is not my conclusion, it is merely an edited version of a passage that you deleted I added just added ambiguity to it so that it would be less controversial (it is possible that the number). So please don't be so critical of me when I didn't even do anything so bad.
Also the reason I edited so much of your new "Great Uprising" section was because it seemed like much of the material was devoted to making it seem like the revolting arabs were completly justified in every act they were engaged in, while the Jewish militias were only there to make the palestinian's lifes as miserable as possible. I also editede passages like the one describing Wingate as a "Christian Zionist" or the one that called the 1948 war "The Catastrophe", I do not think what I did was really that unjustified or controversial.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 23:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
You can self revert. see talk page. Zeq 10:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Ian, rather than respond here and on others' talk pages, I will respond on the talk page of the 1948 war article. Kriegman 15:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The reason I sent the message to Heptor was because I felt that many of your edits were similar to what was removed from the 1948 article that we all had previously edited. However, you are correct, it was rude of me to not talk to your first, for that I apoligize.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Ian, all editors have to edit in accordance with the three content policies, which are WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Both NOR and V require that we supply credible sources for our edits and anything challenged and not sourced may be removed. Likewise, they should not be removing material of yours that is properly sourced, so long as it's relevant and not a violation of NOR. I can't comment in detail because I don't know the isues, but you should try insisting that the policies be adhered to and see whether that helps. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Ian. I see you have been you have been having running into difficulties with other editors recently. If you think I can help in some way, please let me know. Jayjg (talk) 19:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello Ian, I just wanted to let you know that you violted the three revert rule on 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Now that the page is protected, please discuss your edits. Additonally, like Jay, I'm willing to help if you need it. Thanks.--Sean|Black 03:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Please read up on speedy deletion criteria. "Non-notable" is a reason to put something on WP:AFD for discussion, not to speedy it. Please take a little more care with your tagging in the future. (I would still delete it under CSD criterion A1, though.- Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the help on a lot of my recent additions... I'm a wiki-infant and definately need some cleaning up after. (Mrfish33)
You added births and deaths categories to Karl Josef Weinmair in 2 minutes after creation. You are impressively fast! GRuban 18:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Hey Ian Pitchford! Thanks for your support on my RfA. The final outcome was an unanimous (45/0/0), so I am now an administrator. If you need help, or have a question, please don't hesitate to let me know! Again, thanks! :D --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 03:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
MLK had five kids dumb ass. his fifth kid died after 3 months. his name was Deandre. 19:44, 23 December 2005 Big Pimpin
Hi Ian,
Hi Ian! I so appreciate your vote. Thank you for your kind support on my RfA. -- Szvest 17:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC) Wiki me up™
Thank you for your support in my recent request for adminship. I was successfully promoted with a final tally of 74/0/0. I will endeavour not to let you down. Thanks again. howcheng {chat} 07:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi
My name is Michael, And Im interested to help with the Asia project. Im interested on the suryoyo people (syriacs,arameans,assyrians,chaldeans,maronites and melkites).
Im woundering if there is any possiblity to make such topic.
Best regards
Michael
Hello,
I reply about british involvment during 1948 war. I don't understand how you can conclude that British were not neutral and even pro-Hachemite from the fact that british officers would have been ordered to abandon the battle if Arab Legion would attack jewish state territory. This is not "much" to have such a claim. This is not exactly true because they attacked jewish quarters of old city of Jerusalem. More what you write implies they were british officer. If that is not an involvment, what is in an involvment ? The white book, some of their diplomatic fight against partition vote, the interdiction of immigration until 15 may with chypriot settlements, their wish and diplomatic fight to see Neguev under hachemite control, ... Historians also write in that direction (eg Pape which is rather more pro palestinian than pro zionist). All this tends to prove that British were neutral with some support for (Trans)Jordania.
???
I really find the complete article very bad. It sounds like a battle between two sides to have the opportunity to add some comments that would "blacken" the image of the other side. The chapter "background" is really badly written doesn't deserve there so much lines. This should be summarized with references to another article in wikipedia.
User:ChrisC 11:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
HJello Ian. Thank you for your answer on my talk page. When the dispute is settled I think it is interested to work on the article. Happy NeW Year. User:ChrisC 16:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Squeakbox says the Costa Rica statement violates the NPOV i dont think it does because its just a statement people have made to about Costa Rica. XGustaX Could you please help me out. I want to end this conflict.
Hi Ian, a happy new year! I noticed you are doing a wonderful clean-up job in many articles. I do have a question. I am somewhat puzzled about your adding the category Israeli people to Yitzhak Shamir, Yigal Amir and others. Is there a change that I missed in categorization policies, both in specific categories and underlying categories? Regards, gidonb 18:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello Ian. I have just spent 1 hour reading different articles around 1948 conflit. Congratulation for your contributions. You really makes a nice and good job ! User:ChrisC 20:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I think this discussion about naming conventions for books is interesting, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Titl(ing) books. Please participate! Cheers -- Szvest 22:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
You are abusing your Archiving Privileges
Please respond to comments and Don't Pretend they were not ever made. You were warned several times To be careful how you edit using AWB and your talk page seemed suspiciously Empty so i had to Check you archive to find out you have received
You are abusing your Archiving privileges. Please respond to comments, Don't Delete them. If you are trying to Not get blocked from editing AWB Removing Warnings about your Editing AWB will make it harder for people to find your mistake and make them assume good faith when you have repeatedly done the same office over and over again. Don't make it harder for us to Make sure you aren't abusing AWB. Removing warnings without addressing them makes us suspicious. Thanks for Archiving but Archiving is for Old issues, not reoccurring ones. You have numerous warnings on your achieve. Act appropriately. You are not a new user. You will not be allowed to Edit using AWB if you continue to try to cover up your mistakes and pretend they never happened. Everybody makes mistakes. Just don't try to cover them up. Accept what you do and strive to fix it.--E-Bod 20:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.