Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Smyth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I'm afraid I had to do the same thing with Linux distribution. I'm sure you mean well, but when 9 out of 10 of your changes make an article worse than it was before, perhaps working on existing, well-established articles is not a good idea until your English improves.
However, there are still ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. You could research and create new articles which do not yet exist or which have almost no content. Here is a list of sub-stubs -- articles that are not much more than dictionary definitions. And here is a list of wanted pages which have links pointing to them but do not exist.
Of course, before creating or expanding one of these pages, check that another page with about the same thing but with a different name does not already exist, and if it does, create a redirect instead. And if creating a new page, make sure that it is worth creating, and investigate the pages that link to it to see the context in which the page is mentioned.
– Smyth\talk 12:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm a new wikipedian, however I should note that MOST articles are poorly written.
1-Read the discussion page on Linux Distribution 2-Revise the page you reverted again 3-Revise it again and read it outloud 4-Get back to me and apologize
You really are not reading the article carefully like every good wikipedian should. For a fact, THERE IS NOT GNU OPERATING SYSTEM. For another fact, an application RESIDES on an OPERATING SYSTEM.
Here's even an excerpt right here to clarify things more switfly, no offense - you really don't understand enough to edit this article.
"A Linux distribution or GNU/Linux distribution (or a distro) is a Unix-like operating system plus application software comprising the Linux kernel, the GNU operating system, assorted free software and sometimes proprietary software, all created by individuals, groups or organizations from around the world."
Taking this segment "is a Unix-like operating system plus application software" suggests that an "xxx operating system plus application software" are not referring to the same question as "What is the Operating System"? because "application software" is also derived from GNU developers. Now if you don't grasp to understand what I just said, then it can be explained by the fact that Operating Systems are terms used to define the set of another Operating System contained within it; now does that yet make any sense? No, I didn't think so. And if you just said no, then maybe you have at least 1 brain cell still alive.
Now bringing your fattied American brain away from the tv and try pulling a few more braincells back to life, you have the possibility of realizing that the previous paragraph is quoting that xxx Operating System is containing another within itself. Now go back to the article and read the entirety the way I left it and then speak. But before you do read the following.
Having used Linux for 5 Years I mention that ALIEN is EVIL. There should be no Inter-Crap Section..This is totally irrelevant to the case that anyone at all whatsoever has a good reason not to RTFM like he should so he shouldn't have to break his system. What is the relevancy then? That there should be no recommendation to something which isn't good in the first place? Well stupid! that's what the reverted changes you made suggests..That just tells you just how much tv you've been watching. Alien is known to be BAD and I also have judged it from my own experience- not only me but many other experts as well coming from debian circles. Of course Articles I write are professional indeed, and there are probably 1 per 30,000 articles on Wikipedia that I would class as professionally crafted..and not from American writers, that's for sure!
You will not read the article like a Canadian would.. American. You big chunk of fatass nimslim braincell tv-culture society are possibly the worst english writers I've ever seen on the face of this planet..You're all fat, dumb and lazy and don't even know how to write even the simplest forms of definitions for what any Operating System actually means..because you can't think and only think about killing the world world and having on display your dirty Entertainment Retardness of genital camera-lens slaping laughing comedy all year-round- something that is all what you folks down there take for the main source of intellectual classes for improvising your literary art! Now go watch you're fun killing innocent people around the world and your Entertainment TV along with your potatoe chips! and try reading the article again you lard..It's no wonder that even people I know in University shy away from the english wikipedia.org..You're simply put, Americans- a whole dam nation who don't know how to read, write nor even understand what the fuck they have even actually written.. You folks shouldn't even deserve to have access to Wikipedia.org, you're all shit cummingload of retards in comparison to say, well not only us Canadians, but to the rest of the world. Time to say "Go home Yankee" or Come to this country and denounce your international war-crimes- perhaps if you do you're mind may come back to life away from your perversive past of American atrocities exercised all over the dam world. The least you lards can do is say you're "sorry" and accept the fact that tv is destroying your ability to actually read and write like an average world-wide English literate can. Americans..hmmphmm, they scale more physically than they do mentally..not surprised..and then they don't understand the rest of the world because they're not able to think anymore..hmmphmm..I will turn on my tv when I hear about another 911 and shoudn't surprised either..you all deserve it for the international war crimes you've been committing..and don't even read alternate sources about it on the net and are all rather brain-washed with your Shit national news which never admits half the truth anyways..May you all burn in hell!
- I have no problems with the factual content of what you wrote, just that your English was so bad that it overwhelmed any factual improvements that you might have made.
- I'm Scottish.
I think we're in disagreement on a point relating to the gender of the equipment (ie monitor etc) end of the IEC power cord. By your recent addition to Gender of connectors and fasteners I take it that you consider both ends to be male. I quite firmly believe that the monitor end is female, based on the current-carrying contacts being recessed, despite the overall fitting being meant to slide into a recess. This would be consistent with the paragraph "The gender of a connector is determined by the structure of its primary functional components...". Now, I wrote that paragraph, so I'm citing it not as independent authority, but as content that stands in conflict. If you can point me to an authoritative source which considers the monitor end to be male, please do so. (If this is the case then other parts of the article will need to be revised.)
I am willing to grant that here is a case of the female end being considered a plug, at least in some literature. This would also warrant revision of other parts of the article.
Sharkford 15:21, 2005 May 4 (UTC)
- You may well be right. I only made the change because the previous wording seemed to rather clumsily imply that both ends were entirely male. Feel free to make any changes you want. – Smyth\talk 15:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Exactly why is the fact that an AP exam is given in Java un-notable? -CunningLinguist 03:21, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- The fact itself isn't un-notable, but as an isolated reference dropped into the middle of discussion of the language itself, it was out of place. It would be more appropriate to have a section called, say, "Education", which discusses the general trend in education all over the world to change from Pascal/C/C++ to Java, and cites the AP exam as an example. – Smyth\talk 10:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
ok now i'm confused... i think you are right. but i can't think of this clearly anymore. :-) see Talk:Kilobit_per_second - Omegatron 14:11, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
he article contains many verifiable facts, but that doesn't mean it's not a ridiculous rant. Certainly hemp is a very versatile plant, and there was a lot of misinformation being circulated around the time it was banned. Indeed, a lot of the things mentioned in the article are also covered in Marijuana#History. But it's not magic, it won't singleplantedly solve world hunger, or replace crude oil, and for God's sake it's not extraterrestrial. Having this article cited as a reference does the encyclopedia no favors at all. – Smyth\talk 30 June 2005 21:12 (UTC)
- Yeah, I suppose it's a little over the top near the end... maybe let's replace it with the "alt.hemp.faq" instead? --Thoric 30 June 2005 21:42 (UTC)
Thanks for the reversion, seems a strange choice of bird to target! jimfbleak 9 July 2005 13:48 (UTC)
I was thinking about our recent discussion on Talk:Terrorism.
Would you perhaps be interested in working with me to identify and nominate for simultaneous deletion all of the Insert Adjective Here Terrorism articles? It's difficult for me to imagine any of these articles being accorded an entry in The Columbia Encyclopedia or any similarly reputable publication. Current news events will likely increase partisan chaos on all or nearly all of these pages, increase vandalism, and make them even less useful than they already are, which is saying something.
What do you think? BrandonYusufToropov 14:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's an interesting idea. Let me look at those articles (I've always tended to avoid them in the past) and I'll answer properly tomorrow. – Smyth\talk 21:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Having looked at them, it seems that their content is fairly unobjectionable. Zionist terrorism and Palestinian terrorism, in particular, both use the word "militant" throughout. Perhaps a better solution would be to push for a "terrorism" → "militancy" renaming? See Category:Terrorism, and especially Category:Terrorists, which has a definition of its own but virtually no members, and its talk page, where it was nominated for deletion. – Smyth\talk 21:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- I think you've hit the nail on the head. Militancy actually says something, whereas "terrorism" is the "no YOU are" word of the moment. This seems like much the better approach. BrandonYusufToropov 23:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I have made some format changes to your entry on WP:RM. Please read the guidelines on WP:RM
to make sure that all the steps needed for a requested move have been completed. Philip Baird Shearer 18:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
check out my newest version. Kzzl 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
I was content to have "abduction", ideally with the Wiktionary definition Wiktionary:abduct. The reason for my last edit was that someone was trying to remove all reference to the illegality of what happened, even that it happened at all! But yes, the compromise is somewhere in the middle. --Red King 17:30, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
User:Zephram Stark contends that he has achieved consensus for his new version of the introduction, because, in his view, he introduced it to the Talk: page 3 days ago, and "no-one objected". He's now insisting that he can insert it, and any changes to the introduction must be approved in Talk: with him first. I have pointed out that he inserted his new intro into the middle of a huge Talk: page, and that I didn't even notice it until he edited the article to insert it. I've also pointed out that it is full of neologisms and other original research, which is forbidden by Wikipedia policy, and have at least removed that. Did you, in fact, agree to this new introduction? Could you comment further at Talk:Terrorism? Jayjg (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your concern. However, my user page was mentioned on Wikipedia:Help desk#Experienced user, so why can't I find out how to do things? as an example of how some users create their own "Tool" page, or a collection of tools on their user page. So assume good faith concerning those edits to that page. But of course, that user cannot hide from his/her contributions... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:06, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
I've requested arbitration against Zephram Stark. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Carbonite | Talk 19:17, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Fred Bauder has drafted a finding of fact describing the focus of the dispute in the Zephram Stark arbitration case, and has added it to the proposed-decision page at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Proposed_decision#Focus_of_dispute, where it is currently being voted on. It says:
- "The focus of this dispute is the article terrorism which according to Zephram Stark deteriorated due to the aggressive editing and other actions of Jayjg and SlimVirgin. He has waged a campaign to restore what he considers an adequate article, free of the complex ambiguities introduced by his opponents, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism."
I feel this is not an accurate way to summarize the dispute. Would you mind taking a look, please, and perhaps commenting on it? The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Workshop#Focus_of_dispute. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
You comment that this page must be deleted seem to be rather hasty. One needs to discuss rather then just pass a judgment on someone' efforts. Charlie 11:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- If asking for a fair discussion is making trouble, then I am very sorry that I am in the company of rather uncivilized persons. I still believe it is not so. Charlie 11:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Since you have previously taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. Thanks. bobblewik 20:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You may wish to see the proposal at: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#linking_of_dates. Thanks. bobblewik 18:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey Smyth, it's been a while. Hope things are well with you. The reason I'm dropping this note here is that someone is attempting a massive POV re-write of Terrorism; would you mind taking a look? Much appreciated. Jayjg (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, nice to see you on a Talk: page again, haven't seen you in a while. :-) Jayjg (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Uh-oh -- you're trying to introduce science, thought, and reality into the over-illumination article. Good try, but don't be surprised if it doesn't work. ;-)
Atlant 13:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
He, Guy, kept deleting my justified and backed-with-facts addition. Then why do you give me that message about reverting and why did you delete that particular statement?
- The three revert rule is extremely well-established, and intended to encourage people to discuss disagreements rather than just mindlessly reverting each other in a war that nobody can win. Guy has been blocked for this in the past, and if you break it again then you will certainly be too.
Your comment in that thread seems to biased as you say Israel is doing a good job. How is that relevant?
- I have never made such a comment. Be more careful about copying and pasting replies you made to other people. :)
That statement has been issued, it is relevant and people have the right to know it. It has been agreed that council is well known in Israel and has much influence. See the thread. Please put it back. 62.163.161.226 12:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You closed a request for Sea of Fertility tetralogy. In what way was this request "malformed"? – Smyth\talk 16:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- See step three at Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Steps_for_requesting_a_page_move. -- tariqabjotu 19:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
This was a trivially obvious move with no possibility of controversy, which I would have done without asking if the target was unobstructed. The template was posted on the talk page and attracted no comments. What is the benefit in discarding such a request because of a tiny procedural deviation, especially when it is already 12 days old? – Smyth\talk 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
- Feel free to contact an admin (via Wikipedia:List of administrators or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard) if you feel the move should be done immediately. -- tariqabjotu 21:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
if u seem do remember i removed the reference to bible quotes from the buttocks article as it was completly irrelevant.. However people keep re-instating it. Would you agree this is now vandalism? DARReNTALK 17:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- User:Fastifex keeps reinstating it, but I don't think it falls under the definition of vandalism, just being a prat. See also his actions on Mooning. – Smyth\talk 18:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
He seems to be making a series of misguided and unhelpful comments and i suspect these edits are not made in good will. Also his obbession with all things faecal (fecal if ur american) is quite disturbing. i have warned him anyway for his actions. DARReNTALK 19:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
do not break up other users comments as u did on Talk:Qana_airstrike#Survey. it can become very confusing to read and acertain who said what & when you insert anything into another users talk you shld clearly note u have done so. also if you can't be bothered using a dictionary, read the article you refered me to. the term is factually descriptive, regardless of wether or not it fits w/ your biases. ⇒ bsnowball 11:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- I apologise for splitting your comment, you had used two bullets and I didn't realise they were supposed to be together.
- But I stand by what I said about the word "massacre". It is not a purely factual description, as is shown by your own definition "the killing of a number of people in cold blood". Israel claims that it did not deliberately kill the people who died in the airstrike, because it was targetting Hezbollah (who were engaged in combat with them and were therefore, according to the current version of Massacre, ineligible to be massacred). Whether you or I believe them or not is not important here, the point is that the article should not make such a judgement.
- You also asked me to use a dictionary. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/massacre uses such words as "savage", "cruel", "wanton" and "excessive". Again, whether you or I think that the attack could be described like this is not relevant; the point is that if the word "massacre" suggests these clearly non-neutral things, then it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to use it about anyone. – Smyth\talk 21:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Good day Mr. Smyth!
I will be obliged if you can please explain the rationale of removing my article, Lies & Distortions by the Media about Hudood Ordinance, from the article named Hudood Ordinance in this encyclopedia. The article was posted by someone else before and it remained there successfully, for atleast 20-25 days--and no one objected to it. I was surprised to see that it was removed after 3 weeks and I tried to put the article back up there, but, it was removed again.
I hope you will soon explain the rationale of removing my article; I am keenly waiting for your reply. Actually, the article is very relevant to the issue and is very informative too. It is based on months of my research on the issue; I had studied legal documents, deicisions of courts, annual reports, even discussed with legal experts and judges. Only after this investment of time & energy that I have furnished this article. That's why I am so keen to know about the cause of its removal.
Thanking you in anticipation,
Best regards,
Abdul Rehman.
Mr. Smyth!
Please respond to my previous message. Several days have passed by since I sent you my previous message, but, I have received no reply from your side. Please respond soon, so that we can settle this issue of editing. I have not tried to post the link again, because, it would have been arrogance and haste on my part.
So, I hope you will soon come up with an encouraging, soft and cooperative reply.
With best regards,
Abdul Rehman.
- Sorry for taking so long to respond, and thank you for contacting me first. Your article is very good, but the issue is not its content but its reliability (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources). You do not appear to be a professional in an appropriate field, but just an interested person who has done a lot of research and posted it on his own website. Anyone could do this, and that is why such websites are not acceptable as Wikipedia sources. You will observe that in my subsequent edit to the article I removed, with the same justification, another reference from someone with the opposite viewpoint to your own. So I hope you agree that I am being objective here.
- However, you can still contribute your research. If you are careful about the neutrality of your writing, you could even insert excerpts of your article, along with references to the supporting sources which I can see you have plenty of which meet Wikipedia's requirements. – Smyth\talk 17:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Good to see your response, Mr. Smyth!
All your points are completely valid and candidly, I agree to them. Thank you for referring me to the relevant Wikipedia policy pages. Since, this is the first time I am trying to contribute something to Wikipedia, that is why I was ignorant of all these rules. My article is clearing against the Wikipedia policies as it is OR (original research) and moreover, not verifiable too.
I think that your second proposal of adding neutral content to the original article, with reference to reliable sources, is suitable in this case. I will soon post my proposed amendments in the talk page as this will eradicate the chances of any disputes arising in the future.
Last, but not the least, thank you for praising my article and calling it good. Your comments are precious for me.
Thanking you for your support,
Best regards,
Abdul Rehman.talk
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Osman_Hussain.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 12:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I added more information to and refs to it. I will admit that I'm not particularly the best at wording things, and since you did a nice job earlier, could you please see if there's anything worded strangely (again)? And I'm curious, what did Shadyaftrmathgunit do here? I'm supposing it didn't change anything of the infobox visibly, but I'm not sure. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. Is there anything I've recently worded strangely at 2Pac? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Smyth,
I see that you reverted two of my edits with an edit reason as reverting spam. According to Wikipedia:Spam, spam is either advertisements masquerading as articles or external link spamming. Therefore, I feel my edits should not be thus classified as spam. In particular, I do not see how linking to another page within the wiki would ever be considered spam. Perhaps your belief is that the original article is itself spam? If so, lets deal with that issue instead and not a symptom of cross linking to said article within the wiki.
In this case, SIP Broker is a free service to which I am unaffiliated, although I do use them as part of my home VoIP solution to maximize free calls. In particular when the called party has both a PTSN and a VoIP phone one may dial the PTSN line, but via the ENUM mapping provided by SIP Broker, the VoIP line is used instead. I believe that the information I added was useful and was motivated by the fact that SIP Broker was an orphaned article from 2006 which I was trying to correct by introducing links to the article.
Please let me know what you think.
Thanks.
WilliamKF (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I apologise for my knee-jerk reaction: as you may know, VoIP-related articles are major spam magnets. However, I think that of the three articles you linked from, ENUM is the only appropriate one. VoIP and E.164 are too loosely-related. – Smyth\talk 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Mythical man-month (book cover).jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Orange Book (CD standard) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lunchscale (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cdda.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Cdda.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Why the strange additions to the modulor? The criticism section isn't there as a place for you to criticize it (that would be too easy). It's there to report criticisms that you find in reliable sources. The source you cited didn't mention the modulor. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- "Criticism" isn't what I meant it to be. As the more famous Vitruvian Man is already mentioned in several other places the article, don't you agree that it makes sense to compare them in some way?
- Now that I've found an actual image of the Modulor (something that the article clearly lacks), I see that the "entire height", of which the navel is said to be half, actually includes an upraised arm, so I was comparing the wrong thing. Even so, what the Modulor diagram does imply is that the navel is in the golden ratio to the head-to-foot height, which is exactly what that source argues against, even if it doesn't mention the Modulor specifically. – Smyth\talk 17:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
In case you are not aware, the Wikimedia Foundation has proposed that the copyright licensing terms on the wikis operated by the WMF – including Wikipedia – be changed to include the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC-BY-SA) license in addition to the current GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) as allowed by version 1.3 of the GFDL. The community has approved this change with 75.8% in favor, and on June 15, 2009, the change will take effect.
You currently have {{NoMultiLicense}} on your user or user talk page, which states that your edits are licensed under the GFDL only. On or before June 15, this template will be changed to reflect Wikipedia's new licensing terms. If you accept the licensing change, you do not need to do anything (and feel free to remove this message); if you do not accept it, we regret that you will no longer be able to contribute to the encyclopedia. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#NoMultiLicense template if you have any comments.
Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC) for the Village pump. Report errors here.
I recently posted the following text on Wikipedia regarding the creation of a new computing-related project:
'WikiProject Java is a Wikipedian community that aims to better organize information in articles related to the Java programming language and its platform.
- If I'm cor-rec-to, there are about 900 articles on Java technology in Wikipedia, which may be more than ALL other programming languages articles combined...
- At least, it's more than for C++, and there IS a C++ WikiProject...
- And it's MUCH more than the .NET WikiProject with 82 articles...
- There is also a Ruby project and a Python portal so...
- Now you can also see a proposal for the Java Portal (temp location).'
Please support this initiative, A l a i n R 3 4 5
Techno-Wiki-Geek 07:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Calque. – Smyth\talk 16:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
"I meant that this fact has already been explained in the article introduction, and there is no need to repeat it in any OS section, since it applies equally to all of them."
(moved to Talk:Mordechai Vanunu)
Engineering Wiki is a wiki entirely dedicated to collecting information about Engineering. I invite you to join this wiki.
Sorry, this is being sent twice as I didn't add the == the first time to make this a separate entry. DTH
Hi - I notice that you have been editing the article on 10 Downing Street. I am wondering if you can help in another way. I have been trying with no luck to obtain more pictures for the article. So far all I have found are copyrighted ones. I have emailed the official 10 Downing Street site to ask permission to use some of their pictures. So far they have not replied (not surprising ha ha). Specifically, I think we need all or some of the following pictures:
1. Plan of the older section of No 10 by C Wren c 1677
2. Ground plan for the reconstruction of No 10 by W Kent c 1735
3. Downing Street cul-de-sac c 1827
4. Pictures of the interior during the late 19th century preferably with either Disraeli and or Gladstone in them as this would fit with the narrative
5. Plans for the reconstruction of 10 Downing Street c 1960-64
6. Various pictures of the interior as it is today such as Soane's State Dining Room and the Cabinet Room (preferably a picture with M Thatcher sitting with her Cabinet and the painting of Walpole above her, as this would fit nicely with the narrative)
I have seen all of the above in books and websites but as I said have not had any luck finding electronic versions that are not copyrighted. Please help if you can.
Thanks
David Hill
Thanks for the concise edit of the first paragraph of the TWiki article! -- PeterThoeny
Please take a look at this youtube clip, especially starting at 00:40 seconds in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU. Ayn Rand says, "amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages," when referring to Arabs. I will take this matter up with other admins if you do not retract your statement that "calling [her remarks] 'racist' is not acceptable." She is clearly racist. Readers of her wikipedia article should know this information.Corrector555 (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC) (Moved to Talk:Ayn Rand.) – Smyth\talk 23:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I notice you approved this. The reference (which I added) is here. I don't see anything in the reference which supports the material you approved. Can you be more careful, please? --John (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Why did you allow this edit (without an edit summary at that) through on Darlington F.C. a protected page?
The edit was non-compliant with MOS on several grounds
- references after punctuation
- using sponsored names, not in line with WP:FOOTY guidelines
- adding a section on club officials, not in line with WP:NOTDIR
- adding a section of players, a WP:POV change without any references
- incorrectly changing the official website address on the external links.
The IP in question has been warned several times and ignores any requests. If you look through the history of the page, both Woody and Struway2 have protected the page to prevent such edits. 91.106.122.56 (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- It is not currently expected that reviewers familiarise themselves with either the detailed history of the page or any topic-specific guidelines. So if an IP editor makes changes which appear to be mostly well-worded, well-referenced and well-styled, then reviewers will let them through. If you disagree with the changes and the editor refuses to discuss them, I'm afraid semi-protection may be the only answer.
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw your bold move to the poll. Not a bad idea, but I'm confused what your ultimate point was, since the "other responses" section is still listed in the poll, and still has two votes. Ocaasi (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Those are actual votes, conditional on improvements to the implementation. They're not discussion of the vote, so they belonged on the main page.
- I've placed an invisible comment at the top of the section to prevent this from happening again. – Smyth\talk 13:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Gotcha, that makes sense. I'm not sure the section is necessary since many votes already express sentiments like that (though they have to choose to place their comment in the close or keep section), but I agree that getting that discussion onto talk was a good move. Ocaasi (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Please see Talk:One-child policy#Suicide?; your input is welcome. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not complaining - I'm just puzzled. Why [create a red link?] Why not just leave it as it was? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia User Smyth,
It has recently come to our attention that you have possible blocked recent attempts for a NAB Committee Wikipedia page to be created and the NAB Committee information National Assessment Bank (NAB) page. I was horrified when you stated it was nonsense, that is unacceptable. If for some reason you do not believe or under stand the NAB Committee's role, purpose and that it exists, please take you time to email me at ncspeterbert@SQA.org. The Official NAB Committee Society is an extension of the SQA Education System to enhance pupils learning, it even has backing from the Royal Family. I do not know why you would remove and block pages and am disgusted, you are in no position to deny pupils NABs and I extremely doubt that you have ever completed one. So please do not spam wikipedia by removing our comments, I do not wish to contact the ancient Monarchy of France and HMNABI inspectors over this. Please return this message with a possible full apology, for these dismal comments.
Yours Sincerely
- Sir Peter A Bert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.20.130 (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Smyth
I ask you to stop editing the National Assessment Bank page! You may think it is nonsense, so do I but it is the truth, I am giving you your first warning. Also when you reply, I expect a reply on YOUR page! not mine! as that is what the Wikipedia guidelines state. Any failure to comply with that, shall be reported as vandalism acts. Also I am sorry that my IP address can just keep changing.
Thanks Again,
Sir Peter A. Bert
Thanks for uploading File:Osman Hussain.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
- Go to the media description page and edit it to add
{{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template. - On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Though the deleted sentence in UTF32 was probably unnecessary and confusing, I would be interested in an example you have of an actual string processing algorithm that looks at the N'th character without examining the N-1 characters before it (using the return value of a search does not count, because the search looked at the characters).Spitzak (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
- Imagine a standard programming language function to return a substring. If it wanted to index the string based on code points, then only UTF-32 would allow it to do so without iterating from the beginning of the string. – Smyth\talk 22:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
What produces the arguments to that function to return a substring? You need to show an actual index being produced without looking at the preceeding characters. Your argument is equivalent to saying "the reason you need string[int] to return characters is because you can't implement string[int] to return characters" and is meaningless.
Another way to look at it: give an example of an algorithm that cannot be rewritten to use offsets into variable-length strings. Your "substring" example is trivial to fix: the function takes offsets measured in code units.
Spitzak (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Alright: imagine I have a cipher which replaces each plaintext character with a number representing a position where that character appears in a certain book. Given that the cipher is specified to use character indexes, not byte or code point indexes, an efficient decryptor which permits non-BMP characters would have to store the book as UTF-32. – Smyth\talk 20:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- This can be generalised into any situation where the text in question is being used by the algorithm as a reference rather than an input, and where the reference is considerably larger than the input. – Smyth\talk 20:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your cipher can be replaced with one that uses offsets into a variable-length string. Both of your examples have been "part A produced an integer character index and therefore I need to use integer character indexes in part B". But all you have done is hidden the sequential access in part A and in both cases it is trivial to change A to return offsets into a variable length string. Here are some possible algorithms that would satisfy the requirements:
- An algorithm that never looked at a string or depending on data produced by something else looking at the string, produces an integer index into the string greater than 1.
- After locating two points in the string the difference between them is used to find another range of the same size in the same string.
- In both cases the algorithm must require that exactly the desired number of characters be in range (most of the examples you are probably thinking of only require that the end be on a character boundary, which is trivial and constant-time addition in UTF-8 and most other encodings to move the pointer to the next character). An example would be where it does further work on the range, perhaps a binary dividing it up, and the algorithm will not work if there are not exactly the predicted number of characters and it is impossible for it to recover if a different number are discovered.Spitzak (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your cipher can be replaced with one that uses offsets into a variable-length string. Both of your examples have been "part A produced an integer character index and therefore I need to use integer character indexes in part B". But all you have done is hidden the sequential access in part A and in both cases it is trivial to change A to return offsets into a variable length string. Here are some possible algorithms that would satisfy the requirements:
- You don't always have control over the entire system. If I'm Alan Turing working on a decryptor, I can't phone up the Nazis and go, "I say, would you mind changing your indexes from characters to code points, you're making it awfully inconvenient at this end." :) – Smyth\talk 00:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Message added 03:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Smyth,
I'd just like to acknowledge how pleased I am that we have been able to agree on a mututally acceptable compromise with regard to the Ian Tomlinson article. I do appreciate that I can be rather forthright when it comes to debating issues I feel strongly about (that fact has been commented on in real life away from the Internet!) and as a result, I know that I am probably not the easiest of people to debate with! So, thank you for your patience in the discussion and happy editing! Elvellian (talk) 18:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi Smyth, a message here.--Sum (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
It had originality, very unusual in today's society. Also what happened to your talk page it gone! Also I am inquiring, do you actually work for the SQA, because you seem very dedicated, protective, and appreciative towards it??? I may say the NAB committee is real, if you have any questions regarding it, please contact Biggar High School, and urgently ask for Mr Robert Black, on 01899 222051. Please, I ask you do not think this as a fake joke, it is serious, proof if you call, ask for Robert Black (me) from the Maths department, and I will prove it to you! Or you can email me (address at the bottom). Also please do not try any IP bans, or that, It could take me about 10s till I can require a new one :) this is not my first computing barbecue! I will explain all to do with my posts then, thank you.
R. Black
rblack@biggar.s-lanark.sch.uk
Edit: Sorry about the reposting of this message! just call the office and ask for me or email me? also dont think i am scamming you to get your email, look up the address after @ it is the real Biggar High School address.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.249.196 (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi there - An anonymous user undid your 22 July 2011 edits, yesterday and today, reinserted irrelevant material to Human Sex Ratio article. Tried the polite route - explaining the irrelevance on the talk page. Nothing useful came out of that. I wonder what is the best course of action here. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
You are deliberately only targeting nonislamic countrys whit your edit, when the source book clearly says that there are the problem and it targets both islamic and non islamic countrys. I understan that talking negativly about islam is a big sin in islam, but that dont exuse your trying to darken the things that are going about also in these countrys. i know that you came in to edit out these facts ase a muslim after the article was noticed buy som media.
- I'm not a muslim, I'm not aware of any media, and I'm not "targeting" anything. – Smyth\talk 16:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- Please continue this discussion at Talk:Human sex ratio, where more people will see it. – Smyth\talk 16:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Your question: "Says who?". Answer: Frank, Richard B. (1999). Downfall: the End of the Imperial Japanese Empire. New York: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-100146-1. Pg.313
(Personally, I'm unimpressed by Frank, and even less impressed by his opinions, so I'm not sorry to see it deleted.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I see you have edited some of the pages within the scope of immunology. Please have a look at the proposal for a WikiProject Immunology WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Immunology and give your opinion (support or oppose). Thank you for your attention. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 09:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Your edits to Chen Guangcheng are highly disruptive, and I ask that you stop removing the notable fact that he's blind from the lead section. The preponderance of reliable sources use this same wording in all their leads, and it is notable enough to state in the lead section. Your edit summaries tell me that you don't understand this, so if you feel the need to discuss it, you are welcome to use the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 05:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
- You must be confusing me with someone else: I only made that change on one occasion, and I believe I've only ever made two edits to this page. I agree that the lead should say that he is blind, I just thought that making it the very first thing we said about him was perhaps giving it undue weight, aside from the grammatical ambiguity. Your current version is much better. – Smyth\talk 05:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Partly done: I've restored it, but not to your userspace. I've realised that it shouldn't have been deleted in the first place (the most recent edits were spam, but earlier ones weren't), so I've simply restored it minus the more recent edits and plan to leave it where it is. Thanks for calling my attention to this page. Nyttend (talk) 11:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Message added 09:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
 |
With complements. Mootros (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC) |
Hi Smyth There's an ongoing discussion regarding the wording of the lead in the Ian Tomlinson article. SlimVirgin asked one of the editors previously involved in the discussion to if he would like to comment, but she seems to have forgotten to ask you. The discussion is here, if you'd like to share your views. Cheers, 87.113.118.169 (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Smyth, I opened a subsection here at the Ian Tomlinson discussion on the BLP noticeboard on 23 June to ask whether there was consensus for the changes to the lead, or whether we ought to return to the previous lead. I'm now trying to sum up who supports and opposes the changes. If you're still interested in commenting, would you mind leaving your views here? Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry, I've had enough of this one. My views are already clear. – Smyth\talk 01:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's fine, I'm sorry for asking again, I just wanted to be sure. Would I be correct if I were to add your name to the list of those who oppose the proposed changes to the lead during the trial? SlimVirgin (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Could you let me know why you reverted my edit to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learn_Chinese ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac.hsk (talk • contribs) 14:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited FileZilla, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IIS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I would appreciate your comments on how to make articles that mention a "minimum operating frequency" less confusing, at Talk:Intel 8088#operate on DC. Thank you. --DavidCary (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Smyth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been caught in a large blocked IP range: 176.31.0.0/16. I have one static IP address in this range, which is not an open proxy, never has been and never will be. I wish to use this IP address to edit because I am behind the Great Firewall of China, and the other circumvention methods I was using until recently have ceased to work. I will also require an exemption from the global block of the same range. Thanks.
Accept reason:
I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.
Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.
Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.
Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).
I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. An optimist on the run! 07:50, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Hiya, on 26th January at 06:10 you deleted a whole section from Google Drive. I for one don't agree with this scale of change without discussion on the Talk page first.
- What forum article did you use as your guide?
- Do you have any other references?
- Can you put something about this on the Talk page, please?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Google_Drive&curid=33367993&diff=534943175&oldid=534786251 --Alanthehat (talk) 08:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Please do not revert this comment again. If you have an issue with this, please open a discussion on the talk page, that is the place to discuss points such as this. Since WhatsApp compares the contents of the users contact list, this is a clear and unambiguous security risk that users should be aware of. Maybe a citation would be helpful, but IMHO not essential. Demanding a citation on this is IMHO akin to demanding a citation that jumping off a cliff is a risk to life. If you wish to debate this, please do so on the talk page.
Enquire (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
re-hi: By all means, add a "[citation needed]" tag, but please do not (at the same time) delete the material text for which you feel a citation is required. Also, please do make a reasonable search for such citations before summarily deleting content. The citations you will now see, were found my me withing a minute or two searching on Google. My concern is that good faith contributions are summarily deleted before others have a chance to challenge or respond to "[citation needed]" tags. I feel that, unless the content is clearly spam, libellous or vandalized content, that un-cited content should be left for a reasonable period of time for others to comments on, add citations, etc.
Ciao, Enquire (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that, in general, content which is uncited but plausible should be tagged rather than deleted. However, I make an exception to this rule when the content is negative or critical. Wikipedia is the first source of information for millions of people, so we have a responsibility to make it clear exactly who is the source of the criticism, rather than putting it in the more authoritative, detached voice of the encyclopedia. This is the case even in situations where libel law is not a risk. – Smyth\talk 04:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Moved to Talk:Stress_and_vowel_reduction_in_English – Smyth\talk 01:28, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello! Recently you were kind enough to make the tables and include the total list of characters for the "HSK test" page. I have just noticed a mistake in my list. The Lingomi lists which I used mistakenly cites the word 反应 (fan3 ying4)as part of level 4, but it should in fact be the word 反映 (same pinyin fan3 ying3). What this changes is that the character 映 in fact appears in level 4, instead of level 6 previously. I have updated the list provided earlier accordingly https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0AgNq2v7u0JgOdGY5UXEzdVA1WW4yYXQ3cDZLS2pzb1E&output=html. Would you mind making the correction in the article? (basically the only change is to remove 映 from the level 6 list and insert it into the level 4 list) Therefore the grand total is unchanged at 2633 characters, except that the numbers for levels 1 to 6 are 178, 171, 274, 452, 636, 922 respectively. I noted this in the HSK test talk page, but wasn't sure if you were looking. Thanks!Patphilly (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Protected Page Editor. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Lee Tru. (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
You told another user to "don't be a d---". please do not use such language.
The fault my be with the way Windows handles MTP but that is still directly relevant to the Protocol. You completely removed the information rather correct or qualify it. How could you think it is not relevant to the protocol? The complete removal is the action of a vandal.
The Media transfer protocol controls the transfer of data by overlaying the underlaying transfer method and limiting the full access the underlying transfer system allows. For example, it does not add to the abilties USB but it does control the access to and functioins of USB, it will not work without the underlying system functions. It does not "allow" the transfer of files, that is part of the underlying system and is already there, it controls how the data is transfered through the underlying sustem.
PTP was developed by camera manufactures to save cost by not having to supply a full USB interface. It allowed access only to those functions the device was capable of. Microsoft adapted it to control and limit the function of the full USB interface.
A paraplegic in a wheelchair will benifit from the improved access a wheelchair allows but but for a person who can walk a wheelchair controls and limits where he can go. MTP is designed to control and limit the access that the underlying system allows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.152.37 (talk) 04:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are two separate issues here, so I've created two sections at Talk:Media Transfer Protocol. – Smyth\talk 14:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou for pointing me to the Talk on Media Transfer Protocol. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.152.37 (talk) 02:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi ... I saw your edits and wanted to introduce myself. I have no affiliation with Roosh V, but out of pure interest I created stub articles on a variety of topics in the effort to document the fascinating sub-culture that is the manosphere. I have more references and other material but gave up in the face of repeated campaigns by biased editors. Perhaps you'll be more lucky than I if you care to try.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Female_solipsism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Beta_Provider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Marriage_Strike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/White_Knight
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Rationalization_Hamster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sexual_Market_Value
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Cock_Carousel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Manosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Dalrock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/GirlWritesWhat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Barbarossa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Roissy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/W.F._Price
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethicalv (talk • contribs) 09:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- The primary reason why these articles weren't accepted, is that, unlike the article on Roosh, they are not supported by what Wikipedia considers reliable sources. The sources Wikipedia requires are things like news organizations with a reputation for fact checking, commercially-published books, or academic research, but these articles are almost entirely referenced to manosphere blogs. I don't think there's much chance of finding acceptable sources for some of the subculture's internal jargon, but you could probably find enough coverage of the manosphere as a whole, and possibly Roissy due to his significant influence.
- Also, you will have to be careful to keep to a neutral writing style. Your article Manosphere is not sufficiently detached, and, from the first sentence on, frequently adopts the language and attidudes of the subculture. For example:
- "... feminism puts Western women on a pedestal of entitlement to the detriment of the supplicating men ..." (uses emotive language rather than describing their position factually)
- "These blogs emphasize the importance ... " (implies that there is importance)
- "... refuse to believe that a traditional "woman's role" is somehow shameful or to be looked down upon ..." (again, you're writing from their point of view rather than describing it)
- "... publicly admitting it had relied heavily on the input of ..." ("admitting" implies that there's something wrong with it)
- Finally, large lists of websites are unwelcome, because they tend to grow indiscriminately over time and attract spammers. So limit it to websites which have articles of their own.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Modulatory space, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A440 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Discount window, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. greenrd (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Smyth I was reading WP:PGCHANGE (the whole page really) and noticed that it answered your question about when and how policies and guidelines can be changed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting, thanks. Looks like you're right that "consensus for the change" is required, not merely lack of consensus for the status quo.
- Now that the discussion I was involved in is over, I'm not planning on watching the MoS page anymore. But for future reference, here are a couple of other points on WP:PG which I've noticed people failing to follow on WT:MOS:
- "you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion"
- "It is not necessary ... to cite an outside authority in determining Wikipedia's editorial practices." Especially on points of grammar and style, a lot of people seem to think that other organizations' style guides have weight, even though they're directed at people who are writing for a different purpose and with different principles in mind.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tokyo Rose, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axis Sally (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Constant Q transform, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kernel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Myofascial release, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Advertising Standards Authority (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Smyth, you associate your name with a man who is considered by the journalists in USA ""awful", "despicable", "downright psychopathic" and "the worst person we've come across in a very, very long time"" and "a misogynist and an attention-seeking charlatan" and you are protecting him, hiding from the world the truth about him. You help him make millions of $$$ from books sales.
[Removed copy-and paste of the disputed content from Roosh V. – Smyth\talk 14:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
Don't you have better things to do in life, then to hide from the world who Roosh really is?
Have a nice time with your family — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmech (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleting all these quotes about Roosh, which were read by hundreds of thousands of readers, make you very biased, and supporting a man who is on Southern Poverty Law Center’s extremism report, a privilege usually reserved for neo-Nazis and terrorists, and you to associte with him, is very damaging for your reputation, do you realize that?
[Removed copy-and paste of the disputed content from Roosh V. – Smyth\talk 14:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmech (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Scarlett Johansson". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 3 April 2014.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Template:Rainbow Books has been nominated for merging with Template:Compact disc. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Conquerist (talk) 16:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Scarlett Johansson, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pew may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- uncommon.<ref>A. Mather ''The Politics of Place: A Study of Church Seating in Essex, c.1580-1640'' (Friends of the Department of English Local History, Friends Papers No. 3, Leicester (1999)</ref><
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you moved part of the Antony Beevor article to Berlin: The Downfall 1945 article. My concern is that you cut 4,527 bytes, and then inserted 3,332 bytes into the new article. This makes it very difficult for other editors to track the significant edit you made during the move. Could you please insert the entire cut-and-paste, and then begin your edits. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Instead of just reverting someone, please try to talk about it on talk pages first, especially with edits related to intros, which don't usually require a citation. If you don't know what I'm talking about, then maybe you are revert warring a little too much. WP is losing enough editors as it is with this kind of behavior. Cla68 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- Citations are only optional in intros if the material in question is already cited in the body of the article, which does not appear to be the case here. I apologize if you thought my reversion was rude, I just think that on such a contentious article it's better to be thorough. – Smyth\talk 15:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Barra may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- '' {{IPA-gd|ˈparˠaj, ˈelan ˈvarˠaj|pron}}) is an island in the [[Outer Hebrides]] in Scotland]]. Apart from the adjacent island of [[Vatersay]], to which it is connected by a [[causeway]], Barra
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tach timer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Real time. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Slave Power, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to the article, but victor airways are not a US-specific subject like you stated in your edit summary. When I have the time, I will split the article into sections for the United States and Canada and highlight the differences. I had tagged the page in anticipation of adding this information in the future, but in the interim, it most certainly should have {{globalize}}. ~SpK 19:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Regarding your edit on the crt0 article, well, being an issue of garden path or not, if the reader can't find the implicit boundary between "... global constructors in C++" and "and C functions carrying...", I'd say that such a reader should go somewhere else instead of trying to get a grasp on C's execution startup routines. :) In other words, I really find that comma to be redundant. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
(Moved to Talk:Paul Nuttall) – 15:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quango, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dan Lewis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
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.
