Mkelly86
Bounded Type edit
Bounded Type, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
- Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
Thank you for helping Wikipedia! Krashlandon (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Region (Analysis) edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Region (Analysis) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Ravendrop (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
William Beckner edit
No. There's no reason to consider either of them the primary topic, and that's what would happen if we removed the middle initial from either of them. Going with just their names is simpler than, and thus to be preferred over, distinguishing them any other way. Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- No — as I just said, going with just their names is simpler than and thus preferable to any other form of disambiguation. Nyttend (talk) 18:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- No. As I just told you, neither of them is the primary topic, so we will not put one at an uninitialed title and the other at an initialed or otherwise disambiguated title, and we do not delete articles to resolve editing disputes. Please stop trying to get me to go against our usual practices, because we do not censor or otherwise hide relevant information at the request of someone associated with the subject of an article. Nyttend (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have told you, and told you, and told you: this isn't the way we do things when there's no primary topic, because when there's no primary topic, we give all of the articles the same name format. Moreover, if there were a primary topic, it would be the other William Beckner, because US Congressmen (like presidents) are almost never less prominent than mathematicians; if we did that, we'd have "William Beckner" for the congressman and "William E. Beckner" for the mathematician. Parenthetical disambiguation is appropriate in cases when we have identical names (or middle names aren't known, etc.), but when possible, we stick with the person's name without resorting to parentheses. Article subjects do not get to tell us how we write our articles, especially if their desires contradict the way we write them. Moreover, how am I supposed to know that Beckner even knows that there's a Wikipedia article about him? If we were going to throw our policies overboard for the wishes of the subject of an article, we'd require proof that the subject really was saying that; the words of just another Wikipedia editor are far from being sufficient proof. Now — I have no reason to disbelieve you, and I trust that you're telling the truth; I'm definitely not saying that you're a liar. Nevertheless, I ask you to consider our naming conventions and appreciate the fact that your preferred name for this article is different from what Wikipedia editors have generally seen as the best way to title biographies. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- Your latest comment completely changes the scene. You're absolutely right that we need solid sources for people's names, and when we don't have them, we mustn't include them, so we do need to get rid of the "E". I've looked around too, and I think I found one mention — but it's simply the fact that there was someone at Princeton in 1970 named William E. Beckner with an interest in mathematics. There's no way that we can say that it's the same guy. It's just about bedtime for me, so I can't get the pages moved tonight, but I'll help tomorrow if I can. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
- I have told you, and told you, and told you: this isn't the way we do things when there's no primary topic, because when there's no primary topic, we give all of the articles the same name format. Moreover, if there were a primary topic, it would be the other William Beckner, because US Congressmen (like presidents) are almost never less prominent than mathematicians; if we did that, we'd have "William Beckner" for the congressman and "William E. Beckner" for the mathematician. Parenthetical disambiguation is appropriate in cases when we have identical names (or middle names aren't known, etc.), but when possible, we stick with the person's name without resorting to parentheses. Article subjects do not get to tell us how we write our articles, especially if their desires contradict the way we write them. Moreover, how am I supposed to know that Beckner even knows that there's a Wikipedia article about him? If we were going to throw our policies overboard for the wishes of the subject of an article, we'd require proof that the subject really was saying that; the words of just another Wikipedia editor are far from being sufficient proof. Now — I have no reason to disbelieve you, and I trust that you're telling the truth; I'm definitely not saying that you're a liar. Nevertheless, I ask you to consider our naming conventions and appreciate the fact that your preferred name for this article is different from what Wikipedia editors have generally seen as the best way to title biographies. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- No. As I just told you, neither of them is the primary topic, so we will not put one at an uninitialed title and the other at an initialed or otherwise disambiguated title, and we do not delete articles to resolve editing disputes. Please stop trying to get me to go against our usual practices, because we do not censor or otherwise hide relevant information at the request of someone associated with the subject of an article. Nyttend (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Your recent edits edit
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 
or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you want to keep this page? You wrote the Beckner article there and then moved it to the article title; when you moved it, it became a redirect to the article. Many people who have redirects from their userspace to mainspace, such as this one, ask for them to be deleted, because they really don't help anyone find anything, but there's no reason for it to be deleted without your consent. If you want it, you need not do anything; if you don't want it, just add
{{db-g7}}
to the page (clicking here if you can't easily get to it otherwise), and it will soon be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bounded Type, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bounded Type edit
Hello Mkelly86. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Bounded Type".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Bounded Type}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Exponential Type for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Exponential Type is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exponential Type until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)