Psychlopaedist
|
Reply edit
Hi! No problem, sometimes that bot can do weird things. You seem to be off to a good start, please let me know if you need help with anything (I've been here for too long). Cheers, Khoikhoi 18:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Health Wiki Research edit
A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.
Please consider taking our survey here.
This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.
We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.
Thanks, --Sharlene Thompson 18:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Vandal on Asia edit
Thanks for reverting that vandal on Asia... He's just a typical troll, normally we don't pay them any mind... But I'm a little concerned by your edit summary "rv hatecrime", especially writing "hate crime" as one word makes it seem even more like newspeak... It's just common trolling, a nuisance to be sure, but it pales in comparison with actual crimes...! Better to just revert without giving them any kind of attention... Regards, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 23:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Why did you revert a move? edit
Toronto subway and RT violates WP:NAME. The RT is not notable enough to be mentioned in the title. -- Selmo (talk) 18:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Return of the Jedi edit
The reason your version is less symmetrical has to do with the subtle present in the other articles. If you look at Attack of the Clones you'll see that it refers to the film taking place ten years after the Battle of Naboo, not The Phantom Menace. The same goes for Revenge of the Sith, which refers to the film taking place three years after the onset of the Clone Wars, not Attack of the Clones. They allow a specific event in the time frame for the entire Star Wars universe, not just the films. Your version, while it does have the right idea (as there was no time frame given), does not follow the set pattern of the other articles (including the four featured articles) as it rather blunt with the information. The version I attempted to add was more subtle, albeit a grammatical curiosity which I later corrected. Your adding the time frame did make the article more symmetrical, my adding a different time frame did as well.
On a side note, what's with the hostility? Granted I believe you are hostile because of my supposed hostility. However, I did not intend any hostility in the first place. I'm merely attempting to improve upon your improvement. It was in no way meant to be confrontational. However, if I did give off this impression. I apologize. The Filmaker 22:14, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- There is a long and complicated story behind that 3RR block, a story that hasn't even been fully resolved. Let's just say it was over a very stubborn and very incorrect user who was not violating any vandalism rules, but has a completely warped sense of what is POV. As for the paragraph opening, I was trying to find a large enough event to be placed and it did not dawn on me that the element of the Imperial occupation (I was too focused on the Han Solo and the Skywalker family revelation). I'll revise the opening to reflect that. P.S. For the record, and don't take this with any shred of hostility, but you do not need to lecture me on Wikipedia. I have read WP:OWN and am fully aware that there is no set pattern to articles (However, symmetry is nice considering the Star Wars saga has been voted a featured topic as well). I don't feel that my edit summaries were particularly hostile or extremely confusing and I don't feel that you should or can lecture me. If there is a general impression you are getting from the edit summaries and seeing the 3RR block, I'll let you know that the block was the very first block I had received. The circumstances at which it came about are actually debatable and I actually am contesting the block (even though it has, obviously, passed). This is not to say that admin were completely wrong for issuing the block, but they weren't completely right either. The point I'm making is that I feel you've jumped to conclusions about my character by lecturing me with the last paragraph of your most recent message. This is not needed as I have rarely come in conflict with Wikipedians who were not eventually proven wrong by an admin or another Wikipedian. Like I said, I'm not being confrontational or defensive. I am also not trying to intimidate you. But, I don't think you aptly understand my situation and my character. The Filmaker 02:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- We could walk the fine line over who implied what or who misconstrued what, but I don't think it would benefit either one of us. I will agree to disagree. The Filmaker 03:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Location Maps edit
On the WikiProject Countries talk page, you had either explictly declared a general interest in the project, or had participated at a discussion that appears related to Location Maps for European countries.
New maps had been created by David Liuzzo, and are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps.
As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions), and also which new version should be applied for which countries.
Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. The subsections on the talk page that had shown David Liuzzo's original maps, now show his most recent design.
Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option.
There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 7 Feb2007 20:30 (UTC)
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) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)