My archivesEdit

Red means no archive that month.



Snooganssnoogans deleted all the passages relating to Ian Fletcher by saying that he is not an economist. Yet he is clearly recognized as an economist [1]. I'd like to put the deleted passages back, but I don't want to have a publishing battle with him. Do I have permission to restore the passages? if you allow me, can you tell Snooganssnoogans to stop the editing battle and stop deleting these passages. Thank you.Taroq (talk)

Snooganssnoogans considers Ian Fletcher is not an economist because he defends tariff. He does not respect the neutrality of point of view, which is one of Wikipedia's founding principles that all articles must respect. It is a matter of presenting all relevant points of view, attributing them to their authors and this implies not systematically imposing a point of view, by categorically revoking what might seem to diverge from one's own opinion.Taroq (talk)

Supersession vs SupercessionEdit

Hi, There's some discussion here. Doing a google search for site:uk Supersession gives 59,300 results while site:uk Supercession gives 2,040 results. Making the site moves the balance to 9,630 results vs 68 results. I'm still inclined to think Supercession is wrong but I've no great attachment. Cavrdg (talk) 12:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

@Cavrdg: Well I never... The OED quote persuades me that wp:ENGVAR is not relevant. I will reinstate your edit. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers. Cavrdg (talk) 16:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


Hi John. Thank you for your kind message. When I began editing Wikipedia, I found this feature where the algorithm would automatically find a random article that requires improvement at the click of a button. However, I can no longer find where this is. Any ideas? Also, is there a way for me to find (for example) mathematics articles that need improvement, as the Community Portal seems to find articles of any kind. Thanks TentativeTypist (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2019 (UTC)


Could you maybe check this new article regarding mistakes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wname1 (talkcontribs) 15:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Wname1:, I've had a read over. Your english is good, there were just a few places where the word order was not ideomatic but it was completely understandable. I think the big challenge is to show that it is still relevant. In most countries, the political parties that had XYZexit policies have quietly dropped them, seeing the horror-show of Brexit that has only just started. You need to show that the party that was proposing it is still in favour. You especially need to show that this party is significant in Danish politics: has MEPs, Members of the Danish Parliament (and not some wp:FRINGE interest). I have placed a number of tags in your draft that will need to be resolved before you can safely put it forward. Finally, if you can find any more citations in English, that would really help. And something after 2016! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

You worked on Draft:Danexit it is excellent, thank you! Wname1 (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC) My work on Draft:Danexit is a little finished I think it would be good, if you could take a seconde view for "tags". Wname1 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Question: You mean "She"? Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen or "He"? Morten Messerschmidt? [clarification needed] Wname1 (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)