Tban

Re: Metal Storm

Yeah, looks good. Well done on that, go ahead and do the honors. Ryan Salisbury 04:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I want to reword the intro a bit but I'm at a loss. The 'electronically initiated, stacked projectile' phrasing seems too densely technical for an intro. TomCerul 15:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Gday TomCerul, I get your point about the densely technical. It had the 'advantage' that it was Metal Storm's own description of their 'business'. Perhaps a '(see below)' following immediately after might give comfort to the reader (despite my having suggested not long ago that 'see below's' were redundant). I'll give it a burl.Tban 21:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Everest Near-Summit Route Guide

So far I have assembled a montage of photographs. I am still missing the ridge between the first and second step (except for two photographs of Mushroom Rock). I am also missing photographs of the ridge between the second and third step. And also missing the ridge between the South summit and the first step. My suspicion is that the ridges are either not particularly 'photogenic' or (more likely) hard to identify unless the person taking the photographs has taken a lot of effort to caption them re their locality.

I have, however, assembled enought to work out 'how' to represent the route with a sketch - from a perspective that involves standing 'inside' Lhotse

I have ordered a couple of DVD's of Everest summit climbs, hoping that the 'trudge' to the top includes 'boring' coverage of those ridge sections.Tban 22:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Videos haven't helped much. Will sketch what I have in a week or so (have been distracted by an urge to clean up Scott of the Antarctic).Tban 00:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A late welcome

Hello, Tban, 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
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

I also sorry that no one welcomed you before, you should have been welcomed a long time ago :-)

Again, welcome!  —Mets501 (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What the Bleep Do We Know!?

Hello, I'm writing you to determine if there is concensus amoung recent editors of What the Bleep Do We Know!? to remove it's NPOV tag. Please weigh in with your opinion on the talk page Talk:What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!?. Thanks!! Adelord 19:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:List of climbers

Hello. You have written: "Removing Elaine Hamilton (Elaine Hamilton-O'Neal) - American abstract expressionist painter and Fulbright scholar who in the 1950s made expeditions to Himalayan peaks including K-2. On the basis that there is no suggestion that she is a climber of significance, or in fact a climber at all."Tban 00:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where my reply belonged, so I'm posting it here after having posted it at Talk:List of climbers:

You say there is no evidence that she was a climber "at all". Obviously you didn't read the article about her or you would have seen that there are two sources for this: MarylandArtSource.com (a site maintained by, among others, Johns Hopkins University and the Baltimore Museum of Art and largely funded by the Institute of Museum and Library services) and the 2006 Benezit international dictionary of artists (Gründ, Paris). Perhaps she doesn't fit your preconceptions as to who could possibly have ever been a climber "at all"? -- MarylandArtLover

PS -- Aside from the question of whether the person was a climber "at all" -- the list doesn't say "list of significant climbers". In case you're too busy deleting things to follow this up, here's a big quote with source right here: "In Pakistan in 1959, she was asked to produce work for an exhibition that was administered by the foreign minister of Pakistan. The ministries of Pakistan also gave her permission to make her own K-2 expedition. This expedition resulted in the welcome realization of her individual artistic vision and the creation of her first completely abstract work, Burst Beyond the Image. During this time, she began to confirm that she was on a Buddhist path. Of her expeditions over the years to K-2 and Everest, she writes [etc.]" - from Marylandartsouce.com page on Eliane Hamilton -- MarylandArtLover

PPS -- By the way, here is a list of the institutions that provide and maintain the MarylandArtSource.com site (or go here to see it for yourself): Baltimore Museum of Art; Enoch Pratt Free Library; Johns Hopkins University; Maryland Institute College of Art; Maryland Historical Society; Maryland State Department of Education; University of Maryland, Baltimore County; Walters Art Museum

I would like to put her back on the list. Please look at these sources and let me know whether you will allow me to put her back on the list. If you won't, I would like to know why. -- MarylandArtLover

Hello MarylandArtLover, I hope this reply finds you. Firstly let me say that I appreciate your response, and indeed the effort you made in adding Elaine to the list of climbers (although we might disagree about its inclusion). The Wikipedia only exists by virtue of people 'making the effort' to contribute. I'd add that while editing - and even deleting - is important in creating a 'useful' Wiki, contributing is the most important thing any of can do to 'make it work'.

Could I also respond to your last point first. I have no role in managing or enforcing any policy in relation to additions or deletions from the List of Climbers, because there is no such policy, nor any provision in Wiki (that's applicable to this sort of entry) to 'appoint' someone to monitor it. In short, Wiki only exists as a consensus which includes (relatively comfortably) completely opposed views. Which means that you can re-enter the details regarding Elaine if you feel strongly that they should be there, and I could delete them again if I felt strongly that they shouldn't be there. Usually one person finds out that they feel 'less strongly' than the other and let the entry stand. Or, through dialog (such as we have here) one party might become aware of facts or views that change their opinion or the strength of their views, or find some alternate method for expressing them in some other place or form in the Wiki. Ultimately the Wiki editors might step in to resolve what they call an 'edit war', but matters usually don't go to that extreme. The discussion page is usually the forum for this dialog, and the inclusion of a section in the List of Climbers for 'Rationale for Deletion' was a deliberate starting point for these sort of discussions (and certainly not intended to 'close' discussion on the matter). The 'rationale' for deletion is usually put pretty sucinctly (as in this case) on the basis that further discussion will elucidate matters if required. So we find ourselves here.

I did actully follow through with the links to Elaine (that I understand you have largely built), but did not find anything that suggested that she had climbed K2 or Everest. I was looking for a specific mention of having reached the summit, and a year in which that occured. You can appreciate that I am making a distinction between a person who has climbed up to, or even on, a mountain and a person who has 'summited'. You correctly observe that this reflects a 'prejudice' on my part about what constitutes 'significance' in climbing, and a view that the list should reflect 'significant' climbers. Essentially two prejudices added together. You are perfectly entitled to challenge both 'prejudices' although the notion of 'significance' has been canvassed to some degree by Wiki in relation to lists and inclusion on lists. If we look at the specific definition of 'significance in climbing' however, Wiki gives no particular guidance. Essentially it is up to us to determine (by concensus) some agreed local policy which will stand until someone else (persuasively or persistently) knocks it down. Good practice in Wiki, however, does suggest that any local policy should be elucidated on the discussion page, so that contributors can 'see at a glance' where the concensus sits at any particular point in time. You might have seen the section in the discussion page on List of Climbers about 'inclusion rationale'. I take it that you are essentially challenging the rationale as being to limited in that it tends to exclude people (from the List of Climbers) who have climbing skills who have 'no particular' record of summits achieved. It should be noted that exclusion from the List of Climbers should not be taken as any reflection on a persons climbing ability, it is simply a subjective judgement regarding the significance of that person's climbing achievements - largely compared to the people who are already on the list. I mention this last point particularly because while we might expound 'rationales' on the discussion page, the other 'true guide' is to look at 'what's already there and seemingly accepted'.

Taking that last point you might observe that Aleister Crowley is 'in' the List. Now I haven't got around to Aleister yet, but I'd hazard the possibility that he is 'marginal' in terms of meeting the criteria. My understanding is that Elaine is no more marginal, but my inclination would be to keep both off the list, rather than have both on. For the same reason one of these days (soon) I will cull the list of some of the Turkish summiteers of Everest (on the basis that they are not 'significant' to the broad Wiki audience). I will more mindful than I have been in this case (and I apologise) when making an entry in the 'deletion rationale' section of the discussion page to 'invite comment or arguments for re-inclusion'. You'll see this has been done on previous occasions and it represents good manners to do so. I regret that I acted somewhat 'in haste' - as you might be getting a sense of now, it is not my normal nature to tackle matters overly hastily (or with undue brevity). So I'll leave the ball in you court for now. Best regards, Tban 04:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest any further exchange of thoughts occur on the discussion page attached to the List of Climbers, as it will be of specific and general interest to folk 'over there'. Cheers, Tban 04:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais

Hello, An article that I created as a part of Wikiproject Cycling called Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais and linked to the Mount Tamalpais article, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain Biking on Mount Tamalpais. Thank you, Bob in Las Vegas -  uriel8  (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of The Con Man (novel)

I have nominated The Con Man (novel), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Con Man (novel). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. magnius (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Killer's Payoff

I have nominated Killer's Payoff, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer's Payoff. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. magnius (talk) 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Shotgun (novel)

I have nominated Shotgun (novel), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shotgun (novel). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. magnius (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology Newsletter: II (April 2010)

Sociology Project • News • April 2010
The Sociology WikiProject is conducting a roll call (or min-census, if you prefer). More then five years down the road, we have over 50 members, but we don't know how many of them are still active in the sociology area. If you are or want to become once again an active contributor to the sociology content on Wikipedia, please move your name from the inactive to the active list on our roll call. In other news, we have reactivated the newsletter :) At least, for this announcement. We also have a new, automated to do listing, an active tag and assess project (which has identified about 1,800 sociology articles on Wikipedia, and assessed about 1,3000 of them), and three new userboxes for your self-identification pleasure :) On a final note, I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions.
You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a participant at WikiProject Sociology. • signed Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Sociology Newsletter: III (December 2010)

Sociology Project • News • December 2010
Spreading the meme since August 2006
The Sociology WikiProject third newsletter is out! According to our April mini-census, we have 15 active members, 6 semi-active ones and 45 inactive. Out of those, 4 active, 3 semi-active and 1 inactive members have added themselves to corresponding categories since the mini-census. The next one is planned, roughly, for sometime next year. The membership list has been kept since 2004. On that note, nobody has ever studied WikiProjects from the sociological perspective... if you are interesting in researching Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Research and wiki-research-l listerv. Moving from research to teaching, did you know that many teachers and instructors are teaching classes with Wikipedia? This idea is getting support from the Wikimedia Foundation, and some really useful tools have been created recently. I have experience with that, having taught several undergad classes, so feel free to ask me questions on that! And as long as I am talking about professional issues, if any of you is going to any sociological conferences, do post that to our project - perhaps other members are going there too? In other news: the a automated to do listing reported in the April issue went down shortly afterwards, but seems to be on the path to reactivation. We still have an active tag and assess project, and comparing the numbers to the April report, we have identified about 350 more sociology-related articles (from 1,800 to 2,150) and assessed about 100 (from 1,300 to 1,400). We now have a listing of most popular sociology-related pages. It is updated on the 1st of every month, starting with August, and reports which of our sociology-tagged articles are most frequently read. Of course, GIGO holds true, so after looking at it right now and trying to determine what is our most popular article, my first action was to shake my head and remove Criminal Minds (which, perhaps not too surprisingly, outranks all sociology articles in period tested). Second item I noticed it this month's Industrial Revolution, beating Criminal Minds, that moved from close to 30th position in August/September, to 9th in October and 2nd in November. If you'd like to discuss this or any other trends, please visit WT:SOCIOLOGY! Finally, with the reactivation of Article Alerts, we are getting our own here. Bookmark that page so you can keep track of sociology related deletion debates, move debates, good and feature article discussions, and more. Our first task force (Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology/Social movements task force) was created (1 June 2010). If you have basic or better graphic skills, our projects needs a dedicated barnstar (award) (currently the closest we can get is the Society Barnstar. As always, I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions.
Authored by Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC) You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a recipient of WikiProject Sociology Newsletter (Opt-out).

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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)