Saligron

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom and using headings, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: We, wikipedians, dislike fragmented discussions. If you leave a comment for me, I will most likely respond to it in here, in this same page, on my talk page, as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, always feel free to respond to it there, on your talk page. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Percutaneous pinning

Hi there; I do not quite know how to source this article. I am a medical practitioner, and as far as I am concerned it is common knowledge.--Anthony.bradbury 00:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There should be a textbook or journal article which explains the procedure. They should be cited according to Wikipedia:Citing Sources. Or you could just write in the citations (preferrably more than one) in whatever way you want, and someone else could clean it up for style and markup. (The term isn't common knowledge to us non-medical folk ...) Saligron 00:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I know how to do it. It's just a matter of finding the refs.--Anthony.bradbury 12:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The Strategy Paradox

Hello. My intentions are good. This is a great book. Nevertheless, please delete the posting for The Strategy Paradox. After the book is published, I am confident someone will create a Wikipedia entry. Bluestripe 00:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't actually delete articles because I'm not an admin. As an aside, inclusion into Wikipedia is based on notability, not greatness. Saligron 04:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiThink

Wondered how long... (not that long, about 50 mins). Oh well... delete if you must — seems a shame though!

Defeated once again. Cordeaux 00:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Prod notice at Sheraton Hong Kong

Seems pretty notable to me (1.6m Google hits is a fair whack) but if you have worries about the notability, feel free to take it to AfD. --Dweller 13:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

After doing a Google search, I only see hits for hotel booking sites or hotel websites. Nothing else. I think the article should be deleted since it doesn't meet several policies and guidelines such as WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR. Well, its useless to have an article of Sheraton on Wikipedia anyway. I'm fine with the article being deleted. Nothing can be salvaged since everything can be found on the hotel's website or a travel guide. Terence Ong 14:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine, seems fair enough to me and I'm sure Saligron would agree. Find an admin to speedy delete close the AfD at article originator's request? --Dweller 14:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

.berlin

I do not quite understand your intervention. "Notable .. means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". .berlin is notable in that sense, as are all the other TLD-initiatives that are mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlhbln (talk • contribs)

The article has no indication of the proposal attracting notice from multiple independent sources, and there is also no indication that it is a serious contender for being accepted as a TLD. It also has a tendency for self-promotion where it says why it should be accepted as a TLD, and has a lack of encyclopedic content such as who first proposed it when, at what ICANN meeting or document the proposal is being seriously considered, etc.

Basically the biggest problem is the lack of sources backing up the notability of the article. (WP:NN) A less serious problem is the way it's written to promote the TLD. (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX) Saligron 13:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at ICANN's website Also take a look at the press clippings on the dotberlin site.

Apart from that I still can't see the difference between this article and for instance the one about .cym or any of the other articles that describe the various initiatives for new TLDs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlhbln (talk • contribs)

Include independent sources in the article instead of telling me. Also, .berlin has too much self-promotion, which is a big difference from .cym (in addition to the lack of any third-party sources). Saligron 10:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Mohammad Badshah Qadri-ul-Chishti Yamani Raichuri

Thank you for putting Mohammad Badshah Qadri-ul-Chishti Yamani Raichuri up for discussion. It certainly needed it, although it is not a hoax. Please read my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Badshah Qadri-ul-Chishti Yamani Raichuri and see if you believe that this article needs to be deleted. I whole-heartedly agree that it needs rewriting. For the interim, I have added the three electronic references to the article, although the last one doesn't add anything and is not from a reliable source, and I will probably delete it. I hope that someone can visit a university library and check out the two source books for which I provided the bibliographic information. Unfortunately, I live 80 miles from the nearest non-technical university library. --Bejnar 04:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Stouts Hill

I've done a quick tidy-up on this page, which really ought to remain, if only because Stouts Hill was the birthplace of the great Persian scholar Edward Granville Browne. --NigelG (or Ndsg) | Talk 15:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

RGIS Inventory Specialists

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article RGIS Inventory Specialists, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. w^{L<speak·check>} 23:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)