Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello and welcome to the wikiproject. Here's the bulletin - if you don't like it just delete it from your talk page. Kind regards --Mcginnly | Natter 00:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Articles related to architecture over the past two weeks are listed automatically by AlexNewArtBot.
This list was generated from these rules. Questions and feedback are always welcome! The search is being run daily with the most recent ~14 days of results. Note: Some articles may not be relevant to this project.
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
possibly others). Would you mind transferring those to Wikipedia:Commons? That would make them available for the other language Wikipedia projects as well. While doing so, you may also want to use more descriptive file names in place of just numbers. Thanks! --Latebird 11:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on Scott tallon walker requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. — ERcheck (talk) 12:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on Scott Tallon Walker requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. WebHamster 12:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please create a separate article for the Gifford company. It is absolutely against common practice and WP conduct to overwrite established redirects to geographical articles named and redirected in accordance with standard conventions. Sorry if that's a bit technical, please ask if you would like it clarified. However, Gifford (company) or Gifford UK is probably all you need for now. You can copy / paste from this revison: [1]. Thanks, Deiztalk 05:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply
I hope i am in the right place to bring you some comments. i would like highlight what i have found in your recent edited structural engineering article. i referred to the third reference you provided and it does not point out Imhotep was a civil engineer but a structural engineer (please be informed a structural engineer can never hold a civil engineering degree or license such as those from architectural, mechanical or other backgrounds ). Secondly, i think the 1st reference means structural engineering is previous viewed as an activity within civil engineering rather than a subset of civil engineering. Thus i will edit it again to ensure that readers can receive correct information. Lastly, your contributions to the article are much more appreciated. Thank you. User:Tigershark82007, 03 December 2007
Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hallo, you've recently added a template {{WikiProject Human rights|importance=mid|class=B}} to the Talk:Karl Marx page. I can think of several different reasons why the Karl Marx article should be a part of this WikiProject (Marx as a theorist of Human rights, Human rights violations by Marxist, ... ). Perhaps it would be a help for those people who are mainly interested in the Karl Marx article to explain (here, or on Talk:Karl Marx) why the article has been included,
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, Tkn20. Just a friendly note and a couple of q's. I noticed that Human rights recently failed FA promotion. The nomination didn't produce much commentary. Maybe we should ask for a peer-review? Understanding that the article is an introductory article for a number of HR related pages. It seems like there could be a History of human rights page built out of the first section. I'm thinking that a long-term goal for the page might be to summarize sections with spinout articles and maybe add a little more content explicating what various HR are. What do you think?
And don't take this the wrong way, but why don't you use edit summaries? You're a great editor, did you spend a lot of time working anonymously or on another project? I'm just curious, no need to answer if you feel my questions are intrusive. Have a nice day! Phyesalis (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Re edit summaries: I'm lazy about a lot of things, too. There's a book about the Perl computer prgramming language which says that the three main virtues of a good programmer are laziness, impatience and hubris. Of course, that's meant to be humourous, but they usefully develop those themes here and there throughout the book. One concept that really appealed to me is the concept of being vicariously lazy: that is, you arrange things to allow yourself at a later time, or some other user, to be totally lazy and avoid having to do the slightest bit of work such as one extra click of the mouse.
I wonder if I could encourage you to be vicariously lazy with the edit summaries. Yes, the information is there if one compares the versions, but if several different people are going to look over the edit summary, isn't it better if they can each just glance over a list of edits and approve of them in a fraction of a second each based on the edit summaries, rather than having to click on the diff, wait for the page to load, and try to figure out the essential content or purpose of the edit? For example, people looking at the recent changes log have to make decisions about which edits to take a few seconds to look at in detail and which to skip; similarly for anyone who has the page on their watchlist. Or if someone for some reason wants to figure out when certain content first appeared in the article, it's a lot easier if they can search the list of edit summaries for a key word, rather than having to look at many versions of the article before narrowing down when it happened.
I like the idea, given at Help:Edit summary, that for edits of about 400 words or less you can simply copy and paste your edit into the edit summary box. Only the first part of the edit will show up because there's a limit to the length, but usually for short additions, that gives a pretty good idea of what the edit is. For longer ones, you can say something like "added 3 paragraphs." (or maybe "+ 3 pg's".) I appreciate meaningful edit summaries like that when I'm doing various things that require searching the page history.
Look at it this way: Every time you make an edit without an edit summary, one or more people looking at the recent changes log is probably going to have to look at the diff of your edit, which takes up time they could have used to look at some other diff, and some vandalism on another page may be missed as a result. (Of course sometimes they also look at diffs when there is an edit summary, but less likely to.) --Coppertwig (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the response, Tkn20. Check out WP:Peer Review. I was thinking about doing it myself, but I've got tons on my plate. If you have any questions, let me know. I'm not a terribly experienced user, but at the very least I might be able to point you in the right direction for answers.
As for edit summaries, they can be extremely useful. I hope you don't think this too pedantic, it's just that edit summaries are kind of SOP. It's the kind of thing where if you ever got into a dispute with someone, he or she might use it as a point of contention. However, when you're making small changes that don't affect conceptual content like this one, you might consider just checking the "This is a minor edit" box under the edit summary field. Summaries aren't as necessary for these kinds of WP:Wikignoming tasks, if the edits are marked as "minor" (this doesn't affect things like edit counts). Also, I think you can check an option for auto-summary in "my preferences". I've never used it so I don't know how it works, but it might be something to look into. Happy editing! Phyesalis (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
I'm curious, what is your rationale for assessing Waterboarding as "low importance" for WikiProject Human rights?[2] —Viriditas | Talk 01:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
And now Human Rights Day is "low importance"? [3] I really don't understand your assessments. What criteria are you using? —Viriditas | Talk 01:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
No worries, that's what I assumed, but I just wanted to check. I'll try to help out in the near future. Thanks for taking the time to explain. —Viriditas | Talk 11:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field - please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 01:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
First, thanks for the fantastic improvements you have made to this article. Second, please, please, please use the 'show preview' button to avoid making an unnecessary number of multiple, successive edits to the same article. I know, because I end up doing it myself, that sometimes you just need to get off and back on again, so the desire to save a change even when you will make another one soon is great - and often smart. Likewise, I know that often after 'save page' is hit, another needed change becomes apparent. However, for those of us coming after you who are trying to find when a change was made and what the justification for the change was (I will add to the above comment about the 'edit summary' box), having to trawl through huge numbers of edits in search of the relevant change is a time consuming drag. Anarchia (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I've reviewed the article and overall very nice article. Overall just a few small places that could use some citations and a few prose tweaks and it is good to go. Some may be due to dialect issues between American and British English, so bear that in mind if you think I've gone off my rocker. I've put the nomination on hold for seven days to allow folks to address these issues. Feel free to contact me on the article talk page, here, or on my talk page with any questions or concerns. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A tag has been placed on Template:Geneva Conventions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
I am trying to translate Euler-Bernoulli_beam_equation into
Japanese, ja:モールの定理. Thanks to excellent writers, the article is very fruitful not only for English speakers, but also for other language speakers like Japanese speakers including me.
I would like to ask you if you mind my putting your great beam example pictures to wikimedia commons, or kindly you are to put them on commons, so that I can put those pictures on Japanese translation project.
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for uploading Image:Indore_City_Street_before_Slum_Networking_Project.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nv8200ptalk 21:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Right to assembly, right to protest and protest articleedit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
High there, I have extended the right to assembly article, started a article on the right to protest, and taken out the human rights footer you have recently added to the protest article. The reason is that there is a distinction between actual protest, and the perceived human right to protest that may arise out of other rights.... in short have a look, i think it works better now. I wanted to ask if you could help me to take the diversion to "protest" out of the human rights footer. In the footer, when you click on "right to protest" you get diverted to the "protest" article, but it should link to the "right to protest" article. I don’t know how to change the footer, so any help welcome.
--SasiSasi (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, I reverted an edit to the Euler-Bernoulli beam equation which was inconsistent with the example equations you put there. But to me there seem to be some typographical errors in the equations for several of the examples. For instance signs and the label A, B, C referring to the point where they apply. Regards, Crowsnest (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The discussion about whether/how to include abortion on the humanrightsfooter was all taking place on the talk:abortion page, rather than on the talk page for the footer. Seemed like having the discussion on another page would make it harder to maintain the footer. I moved the discussion to the footer talk page, I hope that is okay with you. Since you posted the first message in the discussion, I thought I should let you know. Zodon (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An IP-based editor ( 124.188.149.205 ) is currently working through this article, editing a lot of the text which deals with Utzon's part in the design, and various more or less controversial parts of the House's construction history.
The net effect of these changes (apart from improving the quality of the writing) is to tone down or remove any criticism of Utzon, remove references to or de-emphasise any collaborators in the design, and generally ramp up the hagiographic qualities. - eg changing "Utzon's plywood corridor designs" to "Utzon's exquisite plywood corridor designs".
While a lot of the changes are improvements, and I'm reluctant to revert anything, this seems to be veering away from WP:NPOV, and really should not be being done without some discussion, I think.
As one of the people who seem to have made sensible edits to the page in the past, and who is involved in the architecture project, I was wondering if you might like to take a look over the changes and see what you think? Machina.sapiens (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
Disambiguation link notification for November 16edit
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Structural Awards, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages URS, WSP and Arup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alfaisaliah.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:BHPentagram.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
Disambiguation link notification for November 18edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Structural Awards, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bangor, URS and Arup. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Ewb-uk logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Tkn20. 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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Tkn20. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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.
Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Expedition Engineering Logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Template:Infobox professional association has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Template:Articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Amisom (talk) 13:17, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Template:Infobox engineering career has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox engineer. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)