Rude, abusive or nonsense messages will be deleted immediately.
Rail transport in Germany task force - conventionsEdit
I take your point about the deletion of comments and will be more careful in future. In fact the comments made me realise that the conventions needed to be on a separate page, not on a talk page, hence the move. The comments I also recognised the need to 'back up' the guidelines with clear references to Wiki practice in order to provide some credibility. However, my impression was that a lot of the comments came across as a tirade simply because folks disagreed with the naming of one article. When I looked at the claimed 'contradictions' with Wiki practice, I didn't see a lot of evidence - rather there seemed to be a lot of misquoting i.e. purporting that Wiki guidance says "x" when in fact it doesn't. It came across almost as vandalism of the conventions section (which I fully accept needs to evolve). However, I am content that the comments are now where they are, so others can take a view as well. Let's not have a war - we both want Wikipedia to get better! --Bermicourt (talk) 08:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you felt the comments came across like that. Perhaps mine could have been described as a "tirade", but it was against the guidelines and not particularly in reference to our requested move discussion. Disagreement on the naming of articles such as that one is nothing to be surprised at, and while I disagreed with your position, and argued hard against it, I don't think there was much wrong with the discussion. When following up your reference to "conventions" however, I was really quite surprised both at their content, and that you felt you could refer to them to back your position up when there was no evidence that anyone except yourself had even seen them, and my comments no doubt reflected that. I really do think that the draft conventions do not reflect consensus on English Wikipedia. However, I can understand if you don't want to take my word for it. Since the Rail transport in Germany task force has interests in common with WikiProject Germany and WikiProject Trains, can I suggest that a good start towards validating the conventions would be to leave informal messages requesting comments on them at the talk pages of those two projects. This would give a broader view of where they lie in regard to the consensus, without any question of the commenters being biased by current or previous interactions with you, and entirely independent of my opinion. Can I also suggest that you familiarise yourself with the way the term vandalism is used on Wikipedia. I'm sure once you have you will agree with me that it is not an appropriate term to use with regard to my edits on those pages, or in fact any edit of mine on Wikipedia. Since you appear to believe that I have acted in good faith, and bad faith is a prerequisite for vandalism, I hope that you will retract the accusation. --Rogerb67 (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Links to Railways of Germany forumEdit
Saw your deletion of the RoG forum links. I thought this was a useful link to place on German railway articles, but English Wikipedia doesn't seem to approve (why?). If an article on the RoG website were generated could that link to the forum? And could the existing links be converted to point to the article? Or is there another way?
My aim is to link those with an interest in this subject with a forum that shares the same interest. I already do the same in reverse by keeping the forum updated about Wikipedia in this area. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
A while a back you withdrew your nomination to deleted based on Notability, for the Dave Carlock article. The Notability tag is still there, I think from that time. Is it ok to remove? (I've been doing mostly small edits, and rather not take something like that off, without a review by someone who's been around a bit more...) Thanks! Ward99 (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Naming Conventions. RFC: Removal of exceptions to "use common names" passage.Edit
This is to inform you that removing exceptions to the use of "most Common Names" as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.
Template:Religious text primaryEdit
A TFD has been opened on Template:Religious text primary. The TfD was opened on 2 December; so is due to close in two days time. Notification being sent to all participants in the previous discussion Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_30#Template:BibleAsFact. Jheald (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
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) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)