|
User talk:Wanderer57/Archive 3
Criteria for consciousnessThis interpretation, attributes the process of wave function collapse (directly, indirectly, or even partially) to consciousness itself. However, it is not explained by this theory which animals, living creatures, or objects have sufficient consciousness to collapse of the wave function ("Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer - with a PhD?"[1]). It is also not clear whether measuring devices might also be considered conscious, though generally measuring devices are considered to be in the same indeterminate state as what they measure until observed by a conscious entity. Some even suggest that some beings have a "higher consciousness" and therefore more capability to collapse the wavefunction, whereas others believe all conscious entities have an equal capability.
Are the bits in parentheses necessary? Is the "consciousness" of microbes and amoebas important to the discussion? If so, these points should be taken out of parentheses. If not, can they be left out altogether to simplify the thing a bit? Can the sentence about measuring devices be split into two sentences or more? There is a lot in that one sentence. What would it mean to say a measuring device is conscious? How might a ruler (for example) be considered a "chain of observations"? The language used here defies belief. A sentence with the word "also" used twice is distracting.
A mackemA mackem is a person who is from sunderland and speaks the regional dialect and your welcome. --Sunderland06 10:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Welcome!Hello, Wanderer57, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place
"Unparliamentary language" on History of IBMBwa-ha-ha! Great description. Trevor Hanson 20:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
New try at homeopathy introTo all involved: please see "My two cents" edit of homeopathy intro here Friarslantern 22:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC) Homeopathy POV tagPlease see: WP:NPOVD#What is an NPOV dispute:
Whig 00:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC) October 2007
HarassmentIf you do not want to be dealing with your own RfC, I suggest you try to restrain yourself. Thanks for AGF.--Filll 02:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
[1] Filll left this threat on Wanderer57's talk page. Whig 04:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[2] This is the immediately preceding edit by Wanderer57. Cause and effect? Whig 05:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Cautioning people and starting RfCs are supposed to have chilling effects on uncivil behavior and disruptive and tendentious editing and edit warring etc. This is the purpose. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not engage in endless nonsense. --Filll 05:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
It is inappropriate to discuss Wanderer57 here. I just want Wanderer57 to avoid the situation Whig finds himself in here, given some problematic behavior I have witnessed which I hope does not get worse. --Filll 06:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- - - End of text copied from "Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Whig 2" by Wanderer57 17:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC) - - - - -
Winnipeg General StrikeHi Wanderer57, Just thought I'd pass on a quick link for you. WP:WARN gives you a complete list of warning templates for situations like this. I just noticed that you were ad-libbing your notes to User talk:142.26.149.2. Nothing wrong with that, just thought you might find the templates helpful. Cheers, --Bookandcoffee 19:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC) Process or PatternThe Introduction section ends with: "which had held it since 1929, culminating a process of political alternation that actively had begun at the local level during the 1980s." I have read this several times and have a vague feeling that there was something wrong in it. I think political alternation is not a "process". I suggest the word "pattern" instead. Wanderer57 22:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC) (I am not making a change to the article as I don't know anything about Mexican politics. My comment is based only on my understanding of the meaning of the words.)
Sorry to take so long on this. I'm still thinking this over because the wording is very tricky. I'm handicapped by not knowing the history. If saying "process of democratization" or "process of electoral reform" is reasonably accurate, that is much better than saying "process of alternation" because it is more specific. This is what I do not know: during the time period mentioned, did Mexico move from a "one party system" to a multi-party system? OR was it a matter of going from a multi-party system with one HUGE party and a bunch of small ones, to a multi-party system where more than one party had a chance to win an election??? Wanderer57 06:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
0
VandalismHey Wanderer, thanks for the compliment on my name! You're right about 216.56.42.62 vandalizing articles; however, it looks like he or she has only vandalized one talk page recently, and he or she also reverted that edit. So you can see it, I've put {{uw-selfrevert}} on their talk page, under the October 2007 heading. You can report obvious and persistent vandals at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Before posting there, a final warning in an escalating series should have been posted to the user's talk page (for example {{Uw-vandal4}}, {{Uw-spam4}} or {{Uw-speedy4}}), and the user must have vandalized within the last few hours, including after the final warning was given him or her. Various warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Your block request is unlikely to be acted upon unless you follow these steps. Cases that are not simple vandalism can be reported at WP:AN/I. Of course, in conjunction with warning against and reporting vandalism, you have the ability, mandate and are encouraged to revert all instances of vandalism you find yourself. So, in the future, if you see IPs or users vandalizing consistently, make sure that they've gotten a final warning, and if they keep vandalizing, you can go ahead and report them. If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me! GlassCobra 20:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace#Usual warnings NPOV not required in Talk?NPOV not required in Talk? (copied from Stephan's talk page
Is it true that NPOV policy does not apply in talk pages? If the people who like to vandalize Wikipedia find out that no one is supposed to change a section title after it is created, they can have a lot of fun. Thank you, Wanderer57 20:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Hi Wanderer. See WP:TPG, especially the section on "Editing comments". There are exception, and of course plain vandalism can be reverted under WP:Vandalism. But it is generally strongly discouraged to edit comments (both yours (!) and other's) that people have already replied to, as it changes to context of these replies. And no, WP:NPOV does not apply to talk pages. From the summary on that page: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view" - that does not include the talk pages. The talk pages are where we hash out the different POVs. Also, of course, NPOV is not the same as political correctness. This particular header is rather stupid - something I gladly admit - but it is part of one contributors rather stupid POV. See it this way: Do you want to give extra weight to his POV by making him sound more reasonable than he is? --Stephan Schulz 20:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC) Hi Stephan: Thank you. That makes sense. Being new to Wikipedia, I'm still learning as I go. Cheers, Wanderer57 18:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC) cardinal-nephewI don't know what to tell you about the talk page. Generally that is used to resolve editing disputes, and that wasn't really an issue with this article. Yes, there were some cardinal nephews who were sons. See List of cardinal-nephews. Savidan 03:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Mimicry developmentNot sure exactly how long, but wheat has been harvested since neolithic times so there has certainly been plenty of time for it to happen. Introduction of purple coloured crops lead to purple weeds within years in India, so it can happen very quickly. Richard001 03:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Growing liverwortsI have seen liverwort growing in an old greenhouse. Can you tell me, is deliberate culture of liverworts practical? Thanks, Wanderer57 20:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Help pleaseWhile looking at a diff page, how do I get code that I can paste elsewhere to let other people go to the same diff? I have a lot of problems finding things in the help system. For example, I searched for diff code, and found pages, but not the answer to my question. I found Help:Diff, which told me how to code a diff URL, if I know the page numbers of the two pages. I know there must be an easier way. So, 1) how to get the diff code when viewing a diff. 2) how to find things in help pages. Thank you, Wanderer57 16:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC) (PS I tried to look up the template to ask for help by searching for help template. That found me a help page explaining templates, but not the help template code I need. The two I used above are guesses. I was lucky on the second guess.)
Thank you. Can I get a bit more help please? Any ideas about finding stuff in Help? I really looked. Wanderer57 16:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hope this helps, Tim Vickers 20:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Peter morrell message
Removal of AN/I commentsI do apologise. I have no idea why it happened, I certainly didn't do it deliberately. Looking at the timings of the edits it looks like it could have been a combination of of edit conflicts and something going awry. If you look at the last edit I made and the one immediately before it, it's a duplicate the only difference being the time stamp and your missing comment. It looks like the server has received 2 copies of my message with yours sandwiched between them which in effect deleted yours. Weird. ---- WebHamster 02:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC) IndeedI understand that their stage names are offensive. They are a band, a black metal band. Their job is to be offensive. That doesn't mean people get to be offensive to each other, especially on a respected site such as Wikipedia. Navnløs 18:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Is Subluxation Theory a Straw Man(I brought this question here from Talk:The National Council Against Health Fraud#proposed version, which was the wrong forum.) I would like to pick up on Fyslee's point: "the foundational vertebral subluxation theory is nonsensical, unproven, and not accepted by mainstream medicine at all". Without disagreeing with that statement, I think subluxation theory is used regularly as a straw man for attacks on modern chiropractic, not all of which depends on that theory. I would be interested in people's thoughts on this. Wanderer57 23:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
To be fair (to me!), I will place the whole sentence here (so others can work with all the facts while I leave), and so others can see it is not my idea (alone):
No need to focus on me (let's face it, life is unfair to chiropractic), just focus on the content. Here is the source material so the whole situation can be checked:
To sum it up (as regards chiropractic's subluxation theory), there is agreement on its status as unproven and nonsensical in the scientific community (elaborated by PBS), PBS itself, NCAHF, reform chiropractors (represented by John Badanes in the show), Alan Alda, and myself. The ACA obviously takes another position on the matter. -- Fyslee / talk 03:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Subluxation repudiatedThis section placed here by Fyslee, related to above discussion. (From here. Originally written to chiropractic editors here.) Good question. The first part ("never been proven") is a falsifiable comment. Of course what is deemed acceptable "proof" in this case means different things to DCs on the one side, and MDs/PTs, etc. on the other. The medical world is not yet convinced by the chiropractic claims of proof. To make it worse, so many aspects are mixed up in the differences in definitions of the same word that it gets pretty hard to explain or "prove." That's why I think that the chiropractic use of the word "subluxation" is a confusing misuse of the term that creates many more problems for the profession than it is worth. Keating and others (like Carter) say basically the same thing. Ronald Carter, DC, MA, is the Past President of the Canadian Chiropractic Association. Carter's basic message below (and in the whole article) is that adherence to "subluxation" is the "silent killer" of chiropractic:
I hope these thoughts from the inside of chiropractic will inspire you all to make changes within the profession. These are just might thoughts here, and certainly not for the article. -- Fyslee 13:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC) END OF OLD STUFF -- Fyslee / talk 16:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Wanderer57, thanks for the warm welcome. I think you have a unique perspective that neither Fyslee nor I can claim. We have tried to illustrate it on the Chiropractic article; that chiropractic has experienced a metamorphosis of sorts especially over the last 30 years, so it was good to hear your experience. I assure you that things are not as dire as Fyslee makes them sound :-), though I think his heart is in the right place. I would be glad to explain anything I can, so if you have any questions, I'll do my best. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Copied from User:Gleng(I copied this here as a reminder to myself. Others are welcome to read it. And to add comments below, if they wish. Wanderer57 02:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)) Gareth Leng [4]. -- Goodbye -- I am leaving Wikipedia. I have learned a lot, so thanks to you all. I expect to make no more contributions to articles or article Talk pages. I may write some pieces here, anyone can use whatever if they wish. I am an academic, I teach medical students and science students, and a lot of what I teach is about the process of science, and how to critically interrogate what we think is true or what is said to be true by finding and analysing the evidence objectively. what I teach is, find the facts, eliminate from your mind what you "believe" to be true, and start from what you can "show" to be true. This, for me, has been an exercise in “practise what you preach” I became involved lately in two articles chiropractic and vitalism, subjects on which I had acquired the popular prejudices, and started to listen, read, and hunt down the sources to find what was actually said and done. The exercise was for me a practical demonstration that there is no alternative; being a scientist is about being a conscious determined, relentless skeptic – most importantly about the things that you believe are true. If you do not play this game, if you do not engage in the intellectual hazard of refuting what you yourself believe, then you are not playing the game of science. -- What is wrong with Wikipedia -- One thing I dislike about WP, is the willingness of editors to judge the edits of editors by the presumed POV of the editor. Whatever the policies of WP, which are I think well judged and well considered, in this they are simply ignored. Judge the edit not the editor is a mantra, but one shamefully neglected. Every time I see a comment on the Talk page that suggests that a comment can be ignored because it comes from an acupuncturist, or a chiropractor, or a “professional skeptic”, or Jew, homosexual, marxist, conservative, whatever, I cringe and wonder what I am doing here on these pages lending authority to the collective thoughts of people who judge by what they think others are, or what they think they believe, rather than on the merits of what they say. There are some editors who I would be proud to have as academic colleagues, who have been remarkably true to V RS, and objectivity, who have listened and learned, and talked and taught, and have brought to their own areas the discipline of science as objective cool skepticism anchored in scholarship and good sources. There have been others wearing the "mantle" of support for science who do science, as I understand it and practise it and teach it, a disservice. They give legitimacy to accusations that what is paraded as science is, in fact, mere prejudice, buttressed by false authority, full of double standards and hypocrisy. If we don’t take such charges seriously and eliminate any just cause for them, then we have only ourselves to blame if science does not have the authority we would like it to have -- What is right with Wikipedia -- I have met on these pages many editors, from many backgrounds, who I would love some time to drink with, laugh with; lively, interesting, intelligent people with knowledge and wisdom to share. I will have missed the chance of talking more with many others also; but life is too short. -- So what should be done here? -- I came to see an experiment in democracy. Democracy requires faith in the goodwill and intelligence of the people, and it requires also an acceptance of a duty, a duty of intellectual engagement in the issues on which you express an opinion. Will that lead to some biased articles? Maybe. Bluntly, there are a lot of those anyway (everywhere). There is something that has been learned on the best articles (and there are many very good ones), and is being learned on others – That on any article, if you believe that one interpretation of the facts is true, then it is in your best interests to show the case ‘’for the opposite position’’ as strongly, clearly, and honestly as possible from available V RS, as well as the case for your own position. If you do not accept the need to “write for the enemy”, then the article will not ultimately have credibility, and anything you do write will accordingly be a waste of time. - - Comments - -
Boilermaker!Hi Wanderer57: It's actually the first—somebody who makes boilers. The name was applied (derogatorily, I might add) by Notre Dame University fans back in the late 1800s, during a football game between the two schools. This was back in the days before leagues (or even proper rules) and some of the players for the Purdue team had been hired from the local boiler making factory. The Purdue fans decided they rather liked the nickname, so it stuck! And I think Purdue might have won the game... :) MeegsC | Talk 19:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC) RE:NPOV disputed tag on Whitby Library articleWow, I just had a flashback :-) I placed the {{NPOV}} tag not because it was written by a librarian, but because it was written by a librarian who worked there. That violates WP:COI. And, yes, I think it was solved satisfactorily. Happy editing! --Agüeybaná 22:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Mexican EagleHello again! Thanks for the info on the "Mexican eagle". That answers the question about the flag, but unfortunately, the one about the national bird is still wide open. As I said in a message to Supaman89, about half the sites I checked said it's the Golden Eagle (Aguila Real, in Spanish), while the other half said it's the Crested Caracara (which is also widely known as the Mexican Eagle). So who knows! :) MeegsC | Talk 00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Searches of ANI
The "Administrators Noticeboard Incident" search that shows up on each ANI archive page is apparently not searching achives more recent than #235, which was archived Spring 2007. Can you please tell me if there is an alternate tool, or who can "fix" the current tool? Thank you. Wanderer57 06:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Try http://www.google.com/custom?domains=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators' --Fuhghettaboutit 12:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC) AIV reportHello. Thank you for your report[5] at WP:AIV. For your information, the relevant policy is Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC) (The deleted information was: ) From Template:Reflist: "Using {{reflist|2}} will create a two-column reference list, and {{reflist|3}} will create a three-column list."--Straightpress 03:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC) SPOV NPOVThanks! It's supposed to be a tough one. I ask it because I think it cuts to the heart of the meaning of NPOV and how Wikipedia is supposed to work. As an historian of science (i.e., as someone who studies science from a humanist perspective), the relationship between scientific knowledge and whatever other sorts of knowledge people have or think they have is central to what I do, and to my mind it's sort of the central question of practical epistemology. So the answers give a good window into how sophisticated an understanding someone has of the basic core of the project. I've found that it serves voters well, if not candidates; answers that please me will raise red flags with other Wikipedians, and vice versa. On that note, you might find my exchange with ScienceApologist interesting. --ragesoss 05:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC) HelloHey, I heard about your trip to Mexico, so where are you going? are you going to Cancun or Acapulco? or to some colonial town? if you can, you may wanna go north to see some Norteño culture like in Monterrey, Chihuahua, etc. by the way every winter there are snowfalls in Chihuahua, it would we pretty weird to say "I when to Mexico to see snow ~.~" ok take care, just don't drink to many margaritas lol, good luck. Supaman89 19:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Pro MiloneHi Wanderer57. In regards to your question, I'm going to give you the answer you were expecting - of course it was :) The reason for the confusion as to the delivery of the speech is actually explained in the article, but I'll make it clear: the fact is that the surviving work was NOT the exact version that was delivered by Cicero in court. Because of all the Clodian supporters in the court room (who had a history of violence if things didn't go their way), the pressure exerted by armed guards in the courts set up by Pompey's special decree, and all the damning evidence against Milo that the last 4 days had brought up, Cicero actually delivered a very reduced version of the Pro Milone for the actual court case. We don't know precisely which bits were missed out, though educated guesses can be made. It's even said that much of Cicero's speech was drowned out by shouting from the Clodian mob. Hence the humour of Milo's statement, having received a copy of the full, unabridged speech after the case was closed and he'd been exiled in Massilia - something along the lines of "If you'd delivered that version of speech in court, I wouldn't now be enjoying this delicious red mullet" - i.e. if Cicero had been more daring and given the 'proper' version of his speech, Milo would have been acquitted (red mullet was a regional delicacy of Massilia (modern day Marseilles) at the time). If we had an extant copy of the actual speech he delivered that day, we might be able to make a more informed opinion as to whether there was any truth in Milo's quip - having studied the speech in detail I can say that it's definitely the best and most convincing of Cicero's works that I've read - as well as one of the most grammatically challenging! Hope that clears it up for you. Say hi to Moreschi for me! Davers 13:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Re: MestizoHey thank you for your message, actually I'm not in Mexico right now, I'm studing in London, Ontario (how did you think my English got so good? lol) but I'm going back in like 6 months or so, (I can't stand the cold weather) just kidding actually I'm going back cuz I wanna study law down there, and also because I just can't stay away from my homeland, so in a couple of months I'll be editing Wikipedia from Mexico City, oh yeah. Supaman89 04:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Hello!
Regarding your comment to me on my talk page... Thanks for catching my typo! I can't believe I said "decent".. I didn't even notice that! I'll get to fixing it immediately. Hmm...? When you click on spontaneous human combustion, it goes to spontaneous human combustion? I don't understand. It redirects to the same thing, you mean? By the way, thank you for the compliment- I didn't expect I would get any positive criticism, considering it's a bit more simple, and not as detailed as some. Thank you so much! ^^ Mizu onna sango15 05:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC) Question from Wanderer57Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?
Thanks, Wanderer57 November 2007
Using ImagesCopied from Infrogmation's talk page Hello Infrogmation: I found my way here by looking for messages about fair use of images. I haven't tried to bring any images to Wikipedia, but in editing text I have seen enough to realize it is tricky. I would much appreciate if you would answer a couple or three basic questions, OR point me to the right place to find the answers. I understand about copyright, in general terms. I don't understand the process of verification related to images. 1) If I take a photograph that may be useful in a Wikipedia article, HOW DO I TELL/CONVINCE/PROVE TO WIKIPEDIA that (a) I actually took the photo and (b) that I'm making it freely available? (I know that I am honest, but Wikipedia doesn't know that.) 2) Same question except suppose the photo was taken by my brother-in-law? (he is actually a photographer.) 3) Suppose the photo is from a website outside Wikipedia (say www.xyz.com) and they send me a e-mail message saying their photographer took the photo, and it is fine to use the photo in Wikipedia. I sent a request to www.xyz.com, and they replied, and I have their e-mail, but how can I prove to Wikipedia that it is a bona fide e-mail and not something I edited? Any help you can give on this would be appreciated. Thank you, Wanderer57 01:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
re: I'm backHey what up man welcome back, two days ago it was kinda snowy here in London but not too much, I need to go get a tan myself (~.~) anyways good to "see" you again, did you get any pictures? Supaman89 (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Durova's AnswerQuestion from Wanderer57 [edit] 32 Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused? Thanks, Wanderer57 01:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC) In terms of actually resolving a dispute I'd recommend article content requests for comment over user conduct requests whenever possible. A good content-based request shifts the focus from personalities to the subject at hand and often brings in enough unbiased opinions to break a deadlock without putting any individual on the defensive. Conduct-based RFCs have the opposite tendency; that's the nature of the beast. Sometimes they're useful in terms of demonstrating that a large number of people agree about a conduct issue and sometimes that results in improved behavior when the obvious next step would be arbitration or a community sanction. A greater number are little more than grudge fests. The success rate is low. Durova 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Your question...... has an answer :) It's here, and it's fairly detailed. Please read, and let me know if you have any follow-on questions, either on that page or privately as you wish. Best,
ANISorry for that, the two comments were posted just before I've made my reply to the afd tag issue and likely have stomped and annulled previous edits before. This happens quite often when you edits a page on its current version while multiple users are also doing edits to it at the same time. I had never removed intentionally removed or touched those comments. --JForget 15:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Copied from Maser Fletcher talk page for my referenceI was an IP edito for a few months, but finally decided to register an account after reading why I shoould register. Though I did edit articles related to Family Guy most of all, I began to get interested in anti-vandalism, as I find it annoying when I see vandalism. Is there any efficient way to revert a vandals actions, and where can I find vandalism? Maser Fletcher 04:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Level of Arbitrator activityHi Wanderer57, you asked how the level of arbitrator activity can be gauged. There might be lots of private stuff going on, but I look at the RfA page, where arbitrators discuss accepting or rejecting cases. I also look at arbitrations. Not all arbitrators work on the Workshop pages, but all should be casting votes (and some crafting language) on the proposed decision page. And those are where I've looked, and I've found some arbitrators always there, some usually there, some at 50%, and some much less. One arbitrator seems to have disappeared without a word (see Newyorkbrad's answer to this question). Jd2718 (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Internal link to a closely related term?(Copied from Wikipedia:Help desk) Currently Wikipedia has no terms volatile sulfur compounds nor its abbreviation VSCs. At this time I do not wish to start them either. I only want to internally link the words volatile sulfur compounds with the existing term organosulfur compounds. How do I make such a special internal hyperlink to an existing Wikipedia term that is not identically worded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zymatik (talk • contribs) 22:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Statistics on Editing(copied from Wikipedia:Help desk) Is there somewhere to look at statistics (or a graph) on the level of editing activity on Wikipedia? Why am I asking? - Based on my little watchlist, I get the impression the current (this week) level is low, and I wonder how to check. Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
ArbComThank you for your questions. I have however decided to withdraw my nomination as I do not think I am ready. Thank you however for taking the time to ask me a questions. Regards, LordHarris (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC) re:Two thingsI use IE7 because it works faster than Firefox. I think Firefox clashes with some other software on my PC and it loads pages really slowly as a result. Which box/es are out of place? This is roughly what it looks like for me:
_______________________________________________ ___________________
| | | |
| | | |
| advert | | |
| | | |
|______________________________________________| | |
| vandal info |
| |
________________________________________ | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| automobiles box | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|_______________________________________| |__________________|
Sorry for hogging your talk page space, you can remove it if you like :) James086Talk | Email 13:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
=Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Outreach/Newsletter December 2007 editNo not at all - it is one of those things I keep making mistakes on - after 50 years of mistakes it is hard to start getting it right. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Replied on my talkI did. GRBerry 20:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC) I have semi-protected that page to prevent further IP vandalism. If it continues (what a strange choice for vandalism!) please let me know on my talk page. - Philippe | Talk 01:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Help request
I just put a note at User talk:LeContexte. I cannot get my note to appear separate from the previous note, which is a barnstar, so the barnstar appears to be part of my note, which it isn't. What have I done wrong? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiLove -- Levine2112 discuss hopes that you are joyful! Joy promotes WikiLove and hopefully this little bit has helped make your day better. Spread the Wikilove by melting the clouds of sin and sadness that weigh down someone else. Try to brighten the day of as many people as you can! Keep up the great editing! 07:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Changes reverted in Book of Mormon article
(section title inserted) Wanderer57 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
ThanksGood eye. I can't catch them all. Happy New Year. ZeeToAaa (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Can you help? I am still too new....I found your name in the history as someone who is better versed in the use and editing of Wiki than myself. I wish to report Cumulus Clouds for using Wiki to promote his/her own personal opinions. He/she has been repeatedly informed that he/she has acted heavy-handed in his/her editing of the Paris Hilton article and he/she still insists on making continued edits in violation of protocols and guidelines. This is someone who acts without waiting for consensus. Could you look into it? More pointedly, please review the various talk pages where this person is repeatedly scolded for acting out-of-hand. What can be done? Thank you, L.L.King (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC) Wish I knew more....Thanks for the advice and the help. Careful now that we've exchanged ideas that he does not accuse you of be my puppet as well. You advice was extremely helpful... and now I am sorry I ever mentioned my problems with this guy to anyone... as I suspect a few associates and neighbors in my apartment complex are now on Wiki and giving him a rasher of shit, though they aren't admitting it to me. They support me and now I'm a puppeteer... Sheesh. I'm gonna love when the checkuser shows these users all originated from my apartment's local IP network. The good side is that except where they deal with him, their contributions... though narrow in scope... have all been worthy of Wiki. Again... thanks. - Leon. L.L.King (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC) RfC you may be interested inhere. Please don't feel obligated to participate, but I thought it should be brought to your attention. —Whig (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
WikimessWanderer57 (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Hi there!Thanks for the advice about the userboxes...I took a look at what you did with the spacers. Honestly, I'm SO new to this coding stuff that such a thing never would have occurred to me....glad to have the input! Yeah, I've read a lot of RfCs, RfArs, and the like...they're generally just so doggone SERIOUS. And--maybe it's my life-experience talking here, but: it's an ONLINE ENCYCLOPEDIA. If every one and zero of it, mirrors and forks and backups and the works, disappeared tomorrow, the sun would rise the next morning, in the east, on schedule. Yeah, lots of time and energy would be lost, but the sum of human knowledge would remain the same. Wikipedia is important, sure--but not THAT important. I have no tolerance for real-life drama; online drama is a whole separate class of nematode, and the main reason I read it is to learn how best to avoid becoming involved in it. If I can generate any light to balance out the heat, I try to; if I can defuse the tension, I try to do that as well. Thanks! Take care...see you around WP!Gladys J Cortez 02:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
MexicoHi there, here is a poll link Talk:Mexico/Archive_2#Poll, was 1 year ago, also you can find several discussion between a few users after and before such poll, as you can see there is no mention of Middle America, however I'm agaisnt of it use as long Mexico be considered part of North America and not or which is what Corticopias is trying to implicate. Cheers. JC 19 January 2008 14:14 (PST)
archiving test 1when will it be archived? Wanderer57 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC) archiving test 2when will it be archived? Wanderer57 (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC) gghfghfhghgf Book of MormonI probably erred in suggesting it; rollbacks are much more difficult to do unless there is something grossly wrong with a series of edits by a single editor. However, in this case there are a number of editors that have participated. My concern is objectivity. The article has evolved more into a religious tract rather than an encyclopedic article. Given its controversial subject, it is difficult to find the balance. However, we need to ensure we distinguish between beliefs and historical fact. As long as we do that, it is easy to write an article regarding a religious topic that is done professionally. Whether we revert or not is not really the main objective. At this point, I wonder if we should not just use a brief outline and then fit the information in the article into it. Thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Admin noticeboardThanks, I just couldn't resist the pun on civility! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC) . Religion and warReligious Preference, Religiosity, and Opposition to War Jerold M. Starr Sociological Analysis, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Winter, 1975), pp. 323-334 doi:10.2307/3710520 This article consists of 12 page(s). This study finds religious preference to be significantly correlated with opposition to war among a sample of over 900 college freshmen. Even when controls are applied for frequency of religious attendance, sex, father's education and family income, those with no religious preference are most opposed to war, followed somewhat closely by Jews. Protestants and Catholics are close in their degree of opposition to war, but rank well below Jews and the non-religious.... http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-0210(197524)36%3A4%3C323%3ARPRAOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2 - - - - - http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=474 For more material, google the words church opposed to war. (not in quotes) (date added) Wanderer57 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Princess Consort"It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title the Princess Consort when the Prince accedes to the throne. http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Text-of-the-Clarence-House-statement/2005/02/10/1107890349201.html List of Royal Consorts of Canada A royal consort is the spouse of a ruling king or queen. Consorts of Canadian Monarchs have no constitutional status or power, but are members of the Canadian Royal Family, and may have significant influence over their husband or wife. In the United Kingdom, all female consorts have had the right to and have held the title of Queen Consort; as Canada does not have laws laying out the styles of any Royal Family members besides the monarch, they are accorded the same title as they hold in the UK as a courtesy title. Prince Philip, husband of Elizabeth II, does not have the title of Prince Consort. Victoria (a widow) and Edward VIII (a bachelor) reigned without a consort. As Wallis Warfield Simpson married the Duke of Windsor after his abdication, she was never Queen Consort of Canada. Though Camilla Shand will technically become Queen Consort, Clarence House has stated that she will be styled as Princess Consort due to public opinion regarding her relationship with the Prince of Wales. (date added) Wanderer57 (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC) You may want to look at the history before assuming I was talking to myself. Someone requested more information while accidentally logged out. The edit was oversighted for their privacy. I was replying to their (now deleted) request. --B (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your noteI will take the information and your suggestion under advisement.--Filll (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC) bad link on your user pageHere's a better link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ScienceApologist&oldid=172803462#Archive_from_WP:VPP. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Even my fleas are unimpressed.Wowsers. What a steaming morass THAT whole deal's become. In situations where I have no stake, I generally think I'm pretty good at cutting to the core of the issue--taking the debris and all the emotional stuff out, in other words (not trying to ascribe to myself any sort of wisdom, 'cuz I ain't got none) but in this case, just trying to keep straight all the who-said-what-about-whom-on-which-talk-page is making my eyes cross. I used to be a junior-high teacher, and this reminds me of trying to sort out the issues behind various girl-fights amongst my seventh-graders. I'm pretty sure EVERYBODY'S wrong in this case, to some degree--your comment about the RfC being evidence that everybody still needs to cool down was the most salient point I'd seen in pages. There's a rule I live by: It's best not to stay in a room when people start throwing spaghetti, unless you want sauce on your shirt. I don't believe I'll be stepping into this particular food-fight. Gladys J Cortez 05:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Page layout coding (copied from Help desk)Where should I look for information on coding of Wikipedia page layout? E.g., how to keep images from overlapping the text. Wanderer57 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to all. I will look into this coding more deeply. The immediate problem is a image box on top of text. I went exploring based on Omtay's note, and found code that seems to work. Is this edit likely to mess up the layout in other browsers? I appreciate if someone will check it. (I made the edit, then reverted it.) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pope_Leo_XIII&diff=188891884&oldid=188888048 The problem image is the B&W photo of Pope Leo VIII, in his article. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Red Link Removal (copied from Help Desk)If I find red links on disambiguation pages, should I remove them or leave them alone? Eg, James Simpson page has three. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Biting Question (copied from Fuhghettaboutit's talk page)Hi Fuhghettaboutit: This relates to your answer on S's talk page. When I saw what MER-C was doing to S's edits, I asked a question on MER-C's page. I'm going to copy the gist of it here, and hope for an answer from you, partly because MER-C is offline, and also because I think it's important. "== Treatment of Newcomers == "On the evidence I see, I object to your reverting of the links that User:S put into the Paris Hilton external links section. The two links are definitely relevant to Paris Hilton. I see you also reverted other links by the editor. Maybe there is some factor I am not aware of in this situation, but I think the Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers policy applies here. Seems to me that removing most if not all the links placed by a new editor, here for only three days, is defying that policy. I would appreciate your thoughts on this. " (I think the situation was aggravated by the fact that the first message posted on S's page was the bot warning about an image, the second was the message from MER-C about links. I added the welcome message later when I first saw the situation.) Feedback please. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a noteHey! Thanks for helping out at User talk:Singaporeano. Just a friendly reminder, when helping users who have placed the {{helpme}} template on their page, you should replace the template with "{{tnull|helpme}}" after you have helped them. This removes them from CAT:HELP and prevents other users from mistakingly thinking they need help. Thanks! --omtay38 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Use of colour in Wikipedia (copied from talk for "how to edit an article)how can i change the color of text? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paradox King (talk • contribs) 02:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Late reply to your Help desk questionI added a late reply to your Help desk question: which should eventually archive as:
I'm letting you know in case you had stopped monitoring it for answers. --Teratornis (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Re: BarnstarsThank you very much for your very kind message. It is always nice to be appreciated. I may make a push for admin sometime in the spring or summer. If I can ever be of any help to you, please let me know. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: Artifacted.jpeg artifacted is a quality issue that is sometimes caused by having a lower-quality camera, sometimes by bad post-photo processing. Please see WP:WIAFP/Examples_of_technical_problems for a visual reference of artifacts and some other common photo quality problems. As far as the specific image, I saw artifacting most stronly among the trees in the lower third of the picture. That is usually the type of artifacting caused by a lower-quality camera: there's so much detail in there it can't accurately render it all. Hope this explanation helps. It took me a long time to figure out what people meant by "artifacted" when I first started taking pictures. I would say, "what are you talking about? It looks fine. It's something that after you see the good and bad compared, you have a clearer idea of what to look for. Cheers! Clegs (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Syntax of user page namesHi. I have moved User Wanderer57/draft messages to User:Wanderer57/draft messages to comply with Wikipedia's standards for syntax of user page names. I have listed the former (which is now a redirect) for proposed deletion. As soon as you acknowledge the page move I made, please replace the entire contents of User Wanderer57/draft messages with the tag {{db-rediruser}}. Thank you. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 15:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC) WP:AIV reportingHi there! I just wanted to drop you a note about your recent AIV report. In the future, please try to properly format reports; also, remember to adequately warn the vandal in question before you report them. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 21:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC) My Paris Hilton edit commentI'm assuming you got the "blank mind" part. ^W - Control-W - is the "word delete" keystroke in TENEX and in many Unix-like systems, and caret+W is used to signify a deletion when you're saying one thing and then jokingly "correcting" it. Guy Harris (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC) ParisAh, I see. Yeah, saying "Barron" is sufficient. As for whether or not he's notable enough for his own article, probably not, a redirect to Hilton family would probably suffice. --Golbez (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC) user getting blocked quicklyWhat were you referring to? Cheers, Enigma (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Incarcerated categoriesFYI: my request/intention to fork the category. Cheers, OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Paris HiltonI understand your rationale about Paris Hilton as a Norwegian American, but her genealogy bears it out; it is factual. In fact, if she is removed, then so is Nicky, Barron, perhaps Conrad, who were already listed. What constitutes a Norwegian American? 1 generation from immigration? I belong to a Norwegian American groups including the Chicago Torske Klub -http://www.torskeklub.org , Vesterheim http://www.vesterheim.org and the Norwegian American Chamber of Commerce. It is not like an Indian tribe where one has to be 1/8 of their tribe to be a member. The lineage is very thin for some. If Paris were to state her lineage, I suspect she would say Italian, German and Norwegian. That is my rationale for adding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsonk (talk • contribs) 06:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC) Paris HiltonI would agree that her ancestry is an interesting footnote to the article.I'll research that more. Ken L (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Absurd accusations(Some absurd accusations by Supaman89 against Wanderer57 have been moved here so as not to impede progress on Talk:Mexico page.) Yeah! FIVE nationals, FIVE patriots. To start with, this, by itself, is very suspicious for the integrity od the article as a whole. --User:Mhsb 01:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC) You know what!? I am sick of it. For now, I am pissed off. Let's see what you guys can bring to the discussion. I will be out for a couple of days but I'll be back. Remeber: Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia, not private. Everybody can contribute, including mexicans and non-mexicans. Cheers. --User:Mhsb 01:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Look, I just want to comment about my edit to the U.S. article, I'm sorry if it wasn't the most appropriate thing to do, I just wanted to make a point, anyways regarding your accusations: "FIVE nationals, FIVE patriots" let me tell you, the only patriot here is me, and I haven't even really been involved in this discussion, Dunadan (American) and Wanderer (Canadian) are just users who have contributed to the Mexico article for quite a while I can assure you they’ve always had a very neutral opinion towards Mexico, so I would suggest to you to stop making accusations just because they/we don’t necessarily agree with you. User:Supaman89 03:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Deleted articlesI believe the content is available on a case by case basis from admins. You could ask one of the admins listed at Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles for more information, but I think that's the answer TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 20:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
An sectionLet's keep it in one section, please (for ease of toc). Don't worry, we can tell it's a separate question. Thanks. El_C 18:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Edits in Book of Mormon articleHi Eustress: I'm putting this note here rather than in the article talk page since it is a technical point, not about the subject of the article. I don't know if you realize this. Editing to change from 2 spaces after a period to one space creates unnecessary edits and complicates the edit history by inserting extra steps. It has no effect on the appearance of Wikipedia, as the software ignores extraneous spaces. For example, the following: Example A. (One space is used.) Example B. (Two spaces are used.) Example C. (Three spaces are used.) I would much appreciate if you please do not make this type of edit. Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Mystery editI was just reverting an editor who had removed the space between the initials in "H. P. Lovecraft." Deor (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Image of pig Salome YokumDear Betacommandbot: QUOTING YOUR MESSAGE: "Image:Salome Yokum 5-01-42.png is being used on this article. 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 this Wikipedia article 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. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, and so on.................. BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)"
Is it just me?Is it just me, or do other people also find this image business hopelessly confusing? It's a wonder there are any images at all in Wikipedia. Wanderer57 (talk) 16:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
ThanksThank you for your kind comments on my talk page. Sometimes I'm too close to the subject matter and your very non-POV comments have been very helpful in improving the Book of Mormon article. Cheers (Taivo (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)) To Someone Well-deserving
Thanks for noticingHey, I saw that you made a comment on my standards page. Just wanted to pop in and thank you for noticing. Useight (talk) 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Welcome message
{{#if:|__TOC__|}}
{{#if:|<div style="background:white; border:2px Blue solid; padding:12px;">|}}
{{#ifeq:|true|==|'''}}Welcome...{{#ifeq:|true|==|'''}}
{{#switch:{{{cookies}}}|true=[[Image:Chocolate chip cookies.jpg|170px|thumb|right|Welcome!]]|}}
<p>Hello, Wanderer57, and [[Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia|welcome to Wikipedia!]] Thank you for [[Special:Contributions/Wanderer57|your contributions]]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. {{#switch:{{{npov}}}|true=Unfortunately, one or more of your edits {{#if:|to the page [[:{{{article}}}]]|}} have not conformed to '''[[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV)]]''', and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.There's a page about the [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view|NPOV policy]] that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole.</p><p>|}} Here are some {{#if:|other||}} pages that you might find helpful:</p>
{{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:[[Image:Crystal Clear app ksmiletris.png|23px]] '''|*}}[[Wikipedia:Introduction|Introduction]]{{#if:|'''|}}
{{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:[[Image:C05.png|23px]] '''|*}}[[Wikipedia:Five pillars|The five pillars of Wikipedia]]{{#if:|'''|}}
{{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:[[Image:Crystal package utilities.png|23px]] '''|*}}[[Wikipedia:How to edit a page|How to edit a page]]{{#if:|'''|}}
{{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:[[Image:Crystal khelpcenter.png|23px]] '''|*}}[[Help:Contents|Help]]{{#if:|'''|}}
{{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:[[Image:Crystal Clear app ksokoban.png|23px]] '''|*}}[[Wikipedia:Article development|How to write a great article]]{{#if:|'''|}}
{{#switch:{{{icons}}}|true=:[[Image:Crystal Clear app kedit.png|23px]] '''|*}}[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style|Manual of Style]]{{#if:|'''|}}
{{#switch:|true=<p>I would recommend that you get a username by clicking '''<span class="plainlinksneverexpand">[{{fullurl:Special:Userlogin|type=signup}} sign up]</span>'''. You don't have to [[Special:Userlogin|log in]] to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and has many [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|benefits]]. As a registered user, you gain the use of an [[Wikipedia:Username#Inappropriate usernames|appropriate]] [[Wikipedia:Username|username]] of your choice, a personal [[Wikipedia:Watchlist|watchlist]] to which you can add articles that interest you, the ability to [[Help:Starting a new page|start new pages]], and much more. Also, your [[IP address]], Wanderer57, will no longer be visible to other users.</p>|}}
<p>Please [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|sign your name]] on talk pages using four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place </nowiki> Thanxthans for stopping mee on the whole paris hilton thing lol, sorry i dont know the date but i know it was in the UK parer the Metro and the headline was Poor lonly paris!, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whattimeisituk (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC) SpellingThanks.. we all make mistakes sometimes. I think I'm also going to rewrite it, my post I mean.— Dædαlus T@lk\→(quick link) 07:43, 14 March 2008 09:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Can you help mehey yeah, can you help me put it back in the article please, it would be a help and thank you dude xo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whattimeisituk (talk • contribs) 15:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Thank You!So far, this has been one of the best birthdays in my life. I just joined the Wiki community a few days ago. Although I am trying to be very active, if you have any pointers or see any corrections I could make, feel free to lend constructive criticism. Thank you for the Birthday balloons. It is also Einstein's B-day, as well as Pi-Day. --InvisibleDiplomat666 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC) ThanksThanks for this. I too thought I was being pretty clear. :) Cheers. 75.45.104.255 (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Rob Grill deletionWould you be willing to restore the information you removed? / edg ☺ ☭ 02:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Re:I need help as soon as possibleToo right! With questions like that...and in that amount! ;-) Lradrama 13:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Okay, I'll rewrite the lead.--十八 01:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Paris Hilton Citation SourcesHi Wanderer! I am trying to remember where I saw the specific Paris Hilton article that described how hard she works on her fashion line / shoe business. It may have been in www.msnbc.com-- or it could have been FOX or CBS... The article was very recent (last two moneths)-- Wish I could remember more. I will try to look when I have time. The observations about her character are my own (and I am not citable because I am not a journalist or a published author)-- But one can see what a sense of humour she has about her social station by observation of many of her public comments and appearances-- she is not always light-hearted in what she does-- she can be very serious-- but she often is very light-hearted about what she is doing. Being able to be lighthearted and laugh at oneself is, in my book, a sign of true character. Others must see this too. I also agree that the negative press coverage of young celebrities is really sick and abusive. You know in previous generations the press showed much more self-restraint about famous people. There was a sense of kindness in reporting. Not any more! It's very sad and destructive how this has changed... Sean7phil (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Whisky articlesHi Wanderer- I used to be a very active user 2-3 years ago, went dormant, and in reading some of the whisky articles I have decided to come back and work on them under a new username, starting with the Islays. The principle I'm applying here is the same that is applied to beer, wine, and other spirits. For example, Dogfish Head, Penfolds, and Smirnoff. This principle is used on some distilleries Glenlivet but not others Macallan. Hope that makes sense and I didn't do anything wrong. Nestorius (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Mexico MusicHello, when i submitted the edit, i forgot to type in a summary. I think that the ones i posted are more widespread than the ones currently listed because are the most influential singers in all of Mexico, and Thalia and Belinda are really new, and as opposed to Pedro Infante, Jorge Negrete and José Alfredo Jiménez, have not influenced Mexican music in any way or form. they are not considered idols in any way. I'm Mexican and I talked to several people about the singers that were listed and all of them agreed that Thalia and Belinda feels so disgraceful to represent Mexico as "well known singers". Also wikipedia lists them as greatly influential and the most representating, all 3 of them, while Thalia and Belinda are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prozaker (talk • contribs) 03:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
BLP DiscussionThe Merle Terlesky discussion was scattered widely. Here are links just in case you are interested to read it. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Merle Terlesky picture and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Opinions Wanted
Talk:Merle Terlesky in these three sections, which are hopefully still adjacent.
Also there is a brief discussion here: User talk:Reginald Perrin#Re Merle Terlesky I probably was regarded as a nuisance in these discussions. I think everyone else involved was on the opposite side of the issue.
Ashley Olsen MergeI think this is a great idea to merge them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brycemoose (talk • contribs) 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC) Foundation issuesI am not, off the top of my head, able to authoritatively answer your question. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Calendars of 2008Hi. I've been really busy with exams lately, so I'm sorry that I haven't been able to contact you. I'm very glad that you have offered to fix the Calendars, as I am currently the only maintainer and will only be able to make major edits in a month or so. Thanks again, --Munchkinguy (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Hi, I've approved you for this tool. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC) re:GTMHi Wanderer, sorry for the delay, I checked the website but the last update was in 2006 so I don’t think they put their research in the page, I found this though “En la actualidad el OGTM cuenta con ocho grupos de trabajo: gestión, intraestructura, cómputo, instrumentación, caracterización y pruebas, ciencia y divulgación. En la página de los grupos de trabajo del OGTM se puede encontrar una descripción más detallada de las tareas de estos grupos.” It says that currently they have 8 work groups and it gives you a description of the tasks of each one, what do you think?. Supaman89 (talk) 20:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC) Since you helped peer-review this article through the Biography Wikiproject, I figured I'd let you know I've nominated it for a Good Article. You can't review it, but if you wanted to help push it over that hurdle, it'd be appreciated. Cheers, WilyD 22:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the message. The facts in the article that you brought up were all written by me and they are all sourced (although that part about Collies and female dogs is from an older text - I should see if that has held up in newer editions). I also altered the image caption to indicate that that is a histological stain from dog tissue, which is probably why it doesn't look much like green algae (also there's no chlorophyll). --Joelmills (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC) St. Patrick's PurgatoryRead the Catholic encyclopedia article listed there. it's at [8]. the article itself does seem to need a little re-emphasis, but it's basically real enough. I'll keep an eye or it--it's my sort of subject also. DGG (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC) BLPbotI told it to revert a revision, but for some reason, it didn't, so I had to do it manually. Bug was fixed; the bot was given rollback. Sceptre (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC) You found me out.I was highly amused by your post,[9]. I can't believe I hadn't thought of signing up for the account you mention so that I could give free vent to my crabby thoughts! However, in reality, long live assume good faith, say I. --Slp1 (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC) GenieYou did not read the extract I posted from the newspaper. Why? It shows clearly that they called her **name redacted** in the AP, and the UPI stories for several weeks. Wjhonson (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thewinekonethewinekone is this guy on youtube. He's pretty funny. Anyways, CIF stands for California Interscholastic Federation. --thewinekone (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Normative Ethics, Meta-ethics and UtilityDespite the pretentious title, I have disappointingly little to give you as an answer to your thoughtful question. You are right about all three suggestions you make (including the mutually exclusive options). Very perceptive! Specifically:
I realised, upon rereading my post that it was ambiguous. Because the it doesn't matter is followed by what matters, I'm using structure and context hyperbolically. I didn't change it, because in the case at hand I think using Susan or Genie will make very little difference either way. So I do literally believe the decision doesn't matter in this case. However, I also decided not to clear up the ambiguity because I do believe it is not what we do that matters, but why we do it. Two more things to say. 1. At an emotional level I actually respond to real personal names in a different way to psuedonyms. If I know a name to be a psuedonym, it distances me from the person. I feel excluded, unwelcome, univited and I respond appropriately and keep my emotional distance. If, however, I have a name, I feel "in touch" with the other in some way, as though they are within reach. Beliefs regarding magic have often involved real names. The modern Hebrew conventional denotation for God is haShem = the name. I'm not some spooky freak. I'd just argue spooky freaks pick up and exaggerate something real in human psychology. 2. The more I think about it, the more I really do believe it's not what we do, but why we do it that matters. Maybe 100%. I could argue this from the Bible (and some Bible believers would disagree). But I might just be able to explain my instinct in this matter without reference to God or Bible. (a) Easy from Bible: in Genesis 50 Joseph explains to the brothers who tried to kill him that he forgives them because they were only doing God's will, which God intended for good, though they intended evil. With other readings a Biblical view is: all results come from God for good purposes though these are often opaque to us. It is our intentions we should be most concerned about. (b) Without the Bible I can only argue intuitively. Is running good or evil? It depends on whether you are rushing life-saving information to the appropriate place, or whether you are mercilessly tracking someone to rob him. If it is not the actions themselves that make them good or evil, is it the results? This cannot be, or emergency surgical proceedures ending in death would be murder. Rest assured I think what we do matters, why we do it and the results. The reasons why we do things involves our beliefs about how things are done and what their consequences are -- but that's just the mechanics. Additionally there is a motivational level that seems rather complicated. In the case of Susan's article and Wiki, I think we can only work at the mechanical level. But wouldn't it be wonderful if we could understand and share motives with an intrinsic worth of their own? Thanks for asking your questions, I really appreciate it. Perhaps you detected and responded to an underlying invitation to ask those very questions. That is quality co-operative communication. Perhaps I read too much into your questions. I say and think too much. Peace friend. Alastair Haines (talk) 14:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Re Appomattox CampaignPlease, is the accent on the "po" or on the "matt"?? I think I know the answer but not being an American, I never hear the word used. Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living peopleI notice you have transcluded User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch to your user space. Given that the page has been deleted, I instead created Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Living people. This works slightly differently, and should not be transcluded, but rather watched. But you all look to be old hands so I figure you'll get the hang of it. I hope you find it useful. All the best, Hiding T 16:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Paris Hilton editHuh, you're right. That's odd--AWB has been pretty good about summarizing my edits. Dunno why it screwed up there. Looks like it transposed an edit summary from a different article. Couldn't tell you why that happened.—Chowbok ☠ 01:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Texas A&M would be like totally different, manThat would be libel. Thanks for the chuckle. David in DC (talk) 22:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC) Re: HypocrisyWithout going into too much detail, edit summaries were used to place a personal attack. I don't want to go into details on-wiki, but if you're really curious you can drop me an e-mail and I'll explain what happened. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Conclusion: Image placeholders centralized discussion Hi. I'm sending this to you because you participated in the Centralized discussion on image placeholders that ended on 23 April. That discussion must produce a conclusion. We originally asked "Should the addition of this box [example right] be allowed? Does the placeholder system and graphic image need to be improved to satisfy policies and guidelines for inclusion? Is it appropriate to some kinds of biographies, but not to others?" (See introduction). Conclusions to centralized discussions are either marked as 'policy', 'guideline', 'endorsed', 'rejected', 'no consensus', or 'no change' etc. We should now decide for this discussion. Please read and approve or disapprove the section here: Conclusion --Kleinzach (talk) 10:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Please note this message conforms to WP:CANVASSING and has not been sent to anyone has not already participated in the centralized discussion. Celiac gangliaThanks for your note at WP:WPMED about . . . Celiac ganglia. I've tried to improve the lead, but anatomy isn't my strength, so I didn't want to do much more than that. If you would take a look at the changes I made and let me know whether that addresses any of your concerns, I'd appreciate it. I hope that someone more knowledgeable will be able to further improve the article. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC) KUDO 1080Perhaps when you can tell us from memory anything at all of substance about the radio station KUDO, you may continue reverting edits to the page. What's the major controversy going on with KUDO right now? Can you name the 3 local hosts? No - don't google it - know it. Live here. Do something productive. As it stands, there is nothing on the page that users couldn't get straight out of an FCC webpage. Pointless. Wikipedia as a sea of reformatted data extracted from a database. I am rewriting the KUDO entry to reflect the actual station, programming and people. Vandalism? Hardly. Kudofan (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC) e-mail addressHOW can I e-mail you, Wanderer57? You sent me a message via a WIKI site ("Genie"), and I'm sorry to say that I lost it. However, I remembered your name. I'd be happy to e-mail you to answer your query, but you are not giving me your e-mail address here. Please tell me how I can contact you without giving up my own privacy.68.72.109.121 (talk) 23:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC) re:SupamanYeah man, you're right I meant leave not live (damn English spelling lol, jk) regarding Corticopia, he's probably taking a break or something until everyone forgets all his warnings, he's been this close to getting banned so many times that I'm surprised he's still here, but we'll probably see him back in a couple of months. Anyways changing subject a little bit, I'm going back to university in Veracruz in 2 months, I'm organizing all the papers right now, I just can't wait to go to the beach, meet with the friends, some chicks, etc. Supaman89 (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it seems like Alicia is not coming back for the answer mate. O.o Supaman89 (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Happy Independence Day!As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway! :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Solidarity logoGenerally, non-free images are supposed to be used only in the article that specifically describes the organizations, in this case, the Solidarity article. The same thing will also be done with the NASA logo article. In short, an unlicensed image is used in at least one article, but usually only one. This is why I reduced its usage to just the article about the trade union. Hope this helps. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC) BennettHowdy Wanderer! Not sure if you caught the controversy on these pages (re: plural marriage) in the last month - one user was insisting on including the 'abortions' allegations made by Sarah Pratt in 1886 in her interview with a German anti-Mormon journalist. Since this allegation has been repeated by at least two modern writers (based, of course, on the 1886 interview), several of us tangled with the user that this was still an unreliable source. In the end, it was agreed that only a very short mention would be made. Since Pratt claims she received this info from Bennett, I am the one who added the 'balance' on Bennett so that he did not look like the wonderful, good buddy of JSJr. that the user was painting a picture of. This is why it is NOT expanded. Perhaps on the Bennett page? I have so much on Bennett that I could retire now and just sit here and write all day... Best, A Sniper (talk)
Question about linking(copied from Help Desk) (This question is all in 'nowiki' for clarity.) [[PageOneHundred|100]] displays "100" but provides a link to PageOneHundred. Is it possible to provide a URL but display something else instead of the URL? For example, [[<http://www.whateveritis.xxx>|Whatever]], where only the word "Whatever" is displayed. This code provides the link but it also displays the URL. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
(signing copy) Wanderer57 (talk) 13:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Message on my talk pageYou are probably right. Of course, that leads to the question of exactly how you think it's best to deal with a person whose stated goal is to try to claim that there are no experts on the topic of Jack the Ripper and thinks anyone who has ever written a book about the case is a hack and a crank who should be ignored so that his views on the case can take precedence? Or people whose entire history of edits on the article has been explicitly striking out at people they dislike? I've tried the ignoring them thing for months at a time, it never works. They just continually make false accusations to try to get me blocked and toss off insults. This latest flare up isn't appreciably different from how things have been for at least a year and a half. If we could get other editors to state unequivocally that:
I think Arcayne and the others will be forced to either shape up or give up. So much of their strategy depends upon trying to pretend that I am a bad guy who should be completely ignored despite the fact that I'm the one there who knows what all the experts say and can cite them that if they lose the ability to fall onto that they'd have no choice but to fly straight. Do you think those expectations listed above are reasonable? They sound extremely reasonable, even obvious to me, but it's exactly that which has been a problem on this article. DreamGuy (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC) Class, but, andRe. the Brideshead article, I hope you agree that the "but" works better than the "and." "A was X and Y" tells you that, yes, A was X and Y. But "A was X but also Y" tells you more. It tells you that "A was X and Y" and that "There is something about X and Y which makes their juxtaposition unexpected." But I saw your question in an edit summary, and so I want to elaborate. The reason this juxtaposition works in the case of wealth and couth is that, as I said, class correlates with class. At least traditionally, in the west, the wealthier had more couth than the less wealthy. That correlation has become weaker in the modern period. In some ways that's a good thing, in some ways that's a bad thing. But there is still a correlation, and it is because of the correlation that intelligent readers "get" the sentence that "He was wealthy but uncouth." theloavesandthevicious (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Poster TextThis text is from an old poster, or, more precisely, a reproduction of an old poster. Loden dal Brun Schio (Veneto) Figl'ali:
Cataloghi -- campioni gratis Scrivere: "Loden dal Brun -- Schio" Based on the city names, I guessed this is in Italian. The Babelfish translation site gave a partial translation as follows: loden from brun schio (the Veneto) figl' it tows Milan Rome Naples catalogues champions gratis to write This is not enough for me to grasp the meaning. Will someone please assist? Wanderer57 (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Coincidence?Hi Wanderer57, is there any reason you can think of that both yourself and a new editor would take a simultaneous interest in the state of the universe in San Francisco on August 14, 1972? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Lyrical not inaccessibleHello B9 hummingbird hovering: This is about your contribution to the "Spiritual" section of the article Western world. I am not so enamoured of my reading and comprehension skills or so bold as to say that the paragraph in question is incomprehensible. However, I will say that in my opinion it is insufficiently transparent to be appropriate in the context of a general encyclopedia. Perhaps as a starting point you would be kind enough to paraphrase "reify the polarity" in more down-to-earth language? Thank you. Wanderer57 (talk) 20:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
War in Afghanistan CombatantsHi, I'm writing to you because of the Afghanistan War combatants list. I was trying to say, that there are 5 countries included in the list (there are 45 countries in the ISAF, so I thought that it was better to show five countries with greatest troop contributions plus link to other 40 rather than just link to the ISAF). I don't know if you're from Denmark, but I'm definitely not talking about the sacrifice of that or any other country. I think every country helping with the War on Terror makes certain level of sacrifice. Second thing is, that Denmark is not often in the combat actions. Thanks --Novis-M (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Inauguration of Barack Obama
Thank you for the editorial assistance that you gave to help improve this article. Keep up the good work as we try to take this article to WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC) Hi created peer review for the page for good article please try improve, thanks. Wikipedia:Peer review/Sylhet/archive1 Bangali71 (talk) 15:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC) You are now a Reviewer Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010. Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages. When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here. If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC) Destructive drillingHello, thank you for your question. You will find my answer here. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Valour RoadHi! I finally got around to photographing the Valour Road monument. I wanted to do it on Remeberence Day so that I could incorporate the wreaths, etc. --Munchkinguy (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC) The GraduateYes, Magnificator has a demonstrated history of large and complex edits to articles with nary a word to anyone about why. He/she seems loathe to provide Edit Summary information. Figuring out what's he/she is doing is difficult because each edit seems to be made up of a zillion little ones (one of the reasons I tend to deride "edit count" as a useful indicator of anything). Thing is, these edits are sometimes good and sometimes terrible. Since you mentioned something in the article's History, I'll defer to you. Are you going to look after this one? Thanks! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
He's Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!Magnificator just dumped a bunch of unsourced, unexplained stuff into Star Trek: The Next Generation. I dealt with it but I thought I'd give you a heads-up so you could keep an eye on the articles you monitor. Gee, I wish we could get that guy to read the rules and work cooperatively! He certainly has a lot of energy and could help out here. Thanks again, BTW, for your work on The Graduate. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 13:11, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
RevertAny particular reason you felt this warranted rollback? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Lamps"The lamps are going out all over Europe; we shall not see them lit again in our lifetime." - Viscount Grey Wanderer57 (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Book of Mormon hatnotesPlease visit Talk:Book of Mormon#Disambiguation hat-notes to help resolve this edit-dispute. DMacks (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC) /* Thermodynamics for beginners */Thread moved from my Talk page. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC) Hello Cuddlyable3: I'm posting my two cents worth here rather than extending the discussion at the Reference Desk. I am frequently impressed by the high standards of the information service provided at the Reference Desk and it bothers me to see a truly minor dispute interfere. Yes, the wording "...produces more heat than it's own input of energy..." should have been "...produces more heat than its own input of energy...". As one of those blessed with a mastery of educated English, you are able to understand what was meant. In my opinion it is counterproductive to point out a minor and common punctuation mistake in such a way as to derail a RD discussion. If you felt the mistake needed to be pointed out at all, it would have been sufficient to write something like: "...produces more heat than it's (sic) own input of energy...". In my opinion. Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Re-Talk:Wenzhou train collisionI tagged it since most appears to be in Chinese, so I can’t understand it, but by what I can gather the user is trying to accuse the Chinese government of a cover up. I was wondering if it was true, a political attack, off topic or just needs to be translated in to English? I put a note on the talk page to. Wipsenade (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC) ur postthankq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breachloader (talk • contribs) 01:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Discussion re wikipedia article RadionicsI'm in an area where power was out for 2 days, so nothing could be responded to 'til now; and although your page indicates that information should be e-mailed rather than left on the talkpage, I could not find an e-mail reference on it. Other than the offensive mis-definition referenced below, the article referenced below was too far out of my range of things to follow up on (i.e., unrelated to pure science, general medicine, general topics, etc.)... so I hope the current editors can assign the necessary article clean-up to someone else who was involved on the related topics..... "BASED ON WIKIPEDIA's article: . . . Radionics is the use of blood, hair, a signature, or other substances unique to the person as a focus to supposedly heal a patient from afar.[1] The concept behind radionics originated in the early 1900s with Albert Abrams (1864–1924), who became a millionaire by leasing radionic machines which he designed himself.[2] Radionics is not based on any scientific evidence, and contradicts the principles of physics and biology and as a result it has been classed as pseudoscience and quackery by most physicians[3]. The United States Food and Drug Administration does not recognize any legitimate medical uses for such devices.[2][3][1]" and per: http://www.answers.com/topic/radionics . . . I had the following for the radionics page introducer(s):
My sincere thanks for providing the article link. It confirms my basis of argument --- i.e., the topic contributor(s) confused a pre-defined / pre-definable word with medical processes(s) for which the word was applied. Saw talk messages which led me to conclude that other editors are just as reluctant as I to jump into it, but I'll go ahead and draft the correction into the page at some point this weekend or early next week. Blurbzone (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Hello there, mission is now partly accomplished....And again, thanks for the link that send me down the right track. As a joke, the word in question has been to more places than anyone's postal service!Blurbzone (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC) 2/2/2012: Am not at a convenient computer snd reference information is elsewhere. FYI: The Merriam-Webster reference online appears deleted, so I can't quote the edition number. You may have checked under English language category...but as I said, the word appears in more places than even I knew. Worldwide versions (e.g., science textbooks and conjecture, industry, product commercials, etc.) are as stated on the rewrite I did of the page. Blurbzone (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC) 2/3/2012: Don't worry about the dictionary reference as much as that there are more than four or five floating definitions out and about. One problem is that usage of the word is sometimes indiscriminately applied for applications (uses), devices, components --- as well as the physical definitions of the (per physics) forms of matter it pertains to, which is why the definition I stated in the re-write includes those derived using strict rules using the physics or nature of matter being discussed. Blurbzone (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
2/6/2012: Have done more than 2 weeks research on the general topic and the add'l text and references have yet to be drafted in; so you'll have to let me handle how many definitions to include or exclude. As I said prev. there are at least 4 or 5. Since last week I've found at least 2 or 3 more, dating before or after the original coinage (can't tell yet, it would depend on whether wireless was the source of the more oblique versions). The Merriam-Webster source is the one with the original interpretation of the word as presented from the Alt Med field(s), and it still holds. A [relatively unattested] paper on Abrams has the same version as found here==> NB: Search works only with the singular 'radionic': http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/radionic (someone at the dictionary company has included the word in with rhyming words---prob. on the same page as this). Blurbzone (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Just to let you know...Just to let you know that following our "conversation" about Cwm Rhondda, I have endeavoured to canvass the Welsh Wikipedians on this topic, so far with little success. Hope to give you some more insight before too long. Kindest regards, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC) IP block exemption has been added to your user accountI 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. Please check your email for more information. J.delanoygabsadds 23:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC) Computing DeskHi Wanderer57 Just so you know, I left a reply at the computer desk reference helpdesk for you to mull over, cheers Mrlittleirish 10:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
If you get stuck, let me know, I'll help where I can. Mrlittleirish 08:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC) CommentThanks for your message and good wishes on my birthday. Of course, you are absolutely right... it is a clumsy and awkward section title which I will change immediately. Best wishes Jack1956 (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC) I'm delighted to hear that you're interested in visiting. My first tip would be to look at the Wikilink in my title. Melbourne and Sydney are both in the blue bit in the bottom right hand corner of the map, but Sydney only just. I'm from Melbourne (nearby anyway) and I find Sydney can be unbearable in summer - far too humid for me. Not sure where you're from. That makes a lot of difference to what you will like. The articles on Melbourne and Sydney both have good climate sections. Do have a look. I recommend autumn for visiting Melbourne, maybe mid-March to end of April. That's typically a time for mild, stable weather. But be aware that Melbourne has an old saying that seems to apply on some days at any time of the year - "If you don't like the climate, wait a minute." It can be very changeable. I'd recommend Sydney a little later, maybe May, June. Being nearer the equator it's generally a bit warmer. For both over a few days, try late April. One weekend to avoid in Melbourne (unless you're a fan, of course) is that of the Formula 1 Grand Prix, usually in March. I'd check their website for the schedule. To avoid school holidays, check the Victorian and New South Wales government websites for school term dates. Good luck. Hope you come, and enjoy. HiLo48 (talk) 05:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phaseHello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Merry Christmas and a happy New Year, Wanderer 57.jpg)  Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – is wishing you the season's greetings. Your edit on Rob FordGood catch Wanderer. I agree. There are many other similarly confusing and self contradictory items in the BLP, imo, so perhaps you could be giving the entire article a copy editing audit so that when the protection is removed you can contribute similar improvements. I think you could have an extremely positive effect on the Rob Ford BLP. May122013 (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Question re Categories
Help please. The article Paeonia (plant) is included in a bunch of categories, including: "Start-Class United States articles Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance Low-importance United States articles Start-Class Indiana articles Low-importance Indiana articles WikiProject Indiana articles WikiProject United States articles" Since peonies grow in many countries, what does it mean to say this article is a United States article or an Indiana article? Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Edit to confirm my accessOk. Wanderer57 (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC) Gib ral tarWikipedia:Requests for comment/Gibnews [[10]] [[11]] Wanderer57 (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC) RenameHi Wanderer, target name ("Wanderer57") has been renamed in it.wikipedia so now it's free for you. Regards, --Gnumarcoo 23:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC) Request for CommentBased on your comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Avoiding_harm, I am interested in having your feedback/criticism dialogue here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guideline_for_crime_victims_of_world_wide_significanceMeropeRiddle (talk) 10:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC) COnsiderationNo problem, Thank you for the reply back.MeropeRiddle (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC) Flying Pig measure fixedI think I solved your complaint with the Flying Pig Marathon distance. According to the official course certification by USATF the distance is 42.195 km. Friecode (talk) 00:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Hi, Possible removal of AWB access due to inactivityHello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
 Hello, Wanderer57. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Your access to AWB may be temporarily removedHello Wanderer57! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II talk 20:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC) ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Wanderer57. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
