Remember me

Welcome

Hello Remember me, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! You (Talk) 21:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Convention on Psychotropic Substances

There isn't a bot that can do this, no. However, the footnote system uses the tags {{ref}} and {{note}}. What you could do is include the link again in your next footnote, or refer to it explicitly by noting the previous footnote. If you want to, you could also link to the previous footnote by a link of the format [[Convention on Psychotropic Substances#(reference of previous footnote)]]. If you set it up as per Wikipedia:Footnote3, I'll have a look and sort it out if anything needs changing. Alternatively, if you are a bit wary about this, I'll sort it out myself. If the latter, please drop me another note and I'll do so. Cheers, smoddy 16:27, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm doing it now – if you give me half an hour, I'd be much obliged. :) Cheers, smoddy 16:39, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have just gone through it all. I have removed some references that were not needed, or were too awkward to fit in and weren't necessary. I did, however, get your note too late (I was only translating the notes from place to place, not checking them). What I propose is to remove all links to that, then stuff in {{wikisourcepar|Convention on Psychotropic Substances}}, which renders as shown. That would sort everything out, I think. Is that OK? Cheers, smoddy 17:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You mean replace the refs, or the notes? Thanks, Remember me 17:48, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

All the refs and all the notes that link to the convention. smoddy 17:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The template belongs at the bottom. I have moved it for you. smoddy 17:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What we still need to do:

1. Give short summaries in the external links in the endnotes section
2. Prune the References section for duplicates
3. Remove all {{ref}} and {{note}} tags that link to the convention out.

The wikisourcepar template is added in the References section, and doesn't need to go anywhere else. smoddy 18:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is okay, but isn't perfect, as the wikisource document is not properly formatted. I was suggesting just removing references and notes 1, 4, 12, 26, 27, and 28. What do you think? My considerations above are all that really apply still. smoddy 18:17, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Right. What I meant was to remove every reference item that duplicates a linked item. Secondly, what are currently references 1, 4, 12, 26, 27, and 28 all link to the same document, without really acknowledging it. I don't think we actually need them. I think it would be adequate to leave the wikisourcepar box, especially as the first occurence of the term for the convention is linked to its own article. Thus would be quite fine to remove those references I referred to. Finally, the links just need to basically describe what the page is. For example, 14 would probably read something like 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(4) from theUS Department of Justice. If the site is named, and the page is explained, then that would be sufficient. BTW, I just actually read the article, and it's great. Well done! Cheers, smoddy 19:34, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks great. Just 35 to go! Cheers, smoddy 19:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Quick migrate left! That page looks fantastic now. If references were the only concern with WP:FAC, it must be ready now! Cheers, smoddy 22:05, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seems you've already managed to get everything working, all that's needed now is manual editing of each footnote to store reference info (author/title/date/publisher/summary). If there's something else I can help with just ask. Mozzerati 20:57, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but I still feel that footnotes are needed - even if we don't have a proper footnoting system built into Wikipedia. The problem is that if the article is left for a long period of time it will be impossible to know which bits of the article are referenced by which source material, found in references. Even though citations are duplicated, I would like to see footnotes used. Btw, great job on that article! - Ta bu shi da yu 23:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Er... is there an issue that you need fixed via page deletion? I am no longer an admin so cannot assist with anything other than regular page moves. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have shifted it for you – is there any reason that you couldn't have done it yourself? Anyway, I have left a blank page at the old location, so you can go and fill it in. When it's nominated, drop me a line so that I can support! Cheers, smoddy 12:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, having read TBSDY's talk page, I understand now. Well, it's all sorted! Good luck, smoddy 12:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cheers for the pointer: I have supported. Cheers, smoddy 13:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you for your support!  Grue  06:38, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Convention on Psychotropic Substances for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --33rogers (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)