User talk:Enchanter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I wonder if you are anyone I know. Deb

No - not to my knowledge, at least! Enchanter

Welcome! London is awesome... I plan to be there in late August. I noticed your interest in languages; do you plan to contribute any to the non-English Wikipedias? --Chuck Smith

I don't contribute to the non-English Wikipedias, but I do look out for articles in the other Wikipedias to translate into English (mainly from French and German). Hopefully we will start to see some of the non-English Wikipedias really take off - then they would be a fantastic source of new material.

Hello, in searching Google to see if it was ever going to reindex wikipedia (yes, it finally has) I noticed that some of the articles I worked on were on the first page of search results (this alarmed me rather than appeasing me--I added another 2 paragraphs to one of them).

I've since gone through and searched mav's page and LDC's and found a few dozen articles which are on the first page of google results, and quite a few which are the first or second page listed. I thought this might be a useful thing to know because it points out high profile articles that we might want to be especially certain are complete, accurate, and neutral. (there's some talk about this at user talk:Maveric149).

Anyway, mav pointed out that I might want to stop doing the work manually because you may know of a way to do it automagically. Do you?

Thanks, --KQ 23:23 Sep 1, 2002 (PDT)

No, I don't think there's an easy way of doing that automagically. Those pages are a great idea though - keep up the good work! Enchanter 15:07 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)
user:The Epopt came up with a Perl script that does it; he mentioned it earlier today (Sept. 2) in a post to wikipedia-l. I hope it proves useful.  :-) --KQ

I see you are fixing some American links - great job. However a direct link to the United States would probably be best (this point forward, no need to change what has already been done). --mav


Hello Tim,

I saw you had staked a claim to Unemployment and related topics. I have just added NAIRU. I would be happy for you to review it and link it as you see fit.

Thanks - alan (Alan Peakall 14:01 Oct 23, 2002 (UTC))


Thanks for the tips, Tim. You're a busy man ... [boom!]

I do plan to stick around, especially since so many of the beer and jazz links appear to be incomplete. I've also spread the word about Wikipedia.

-- Rethunk


I just want to thank you for all your hard work on making the Wikipedia:Help page a truly easy to use utility. I am amazed at how quickly most new contributors learn the ropes around here and I am convinced that a large part of that is due to the ease of finding out how to do things. Kudos! --mav


Responded to question from KF on m:Talk:What wikipedia thinks it is


Okay, you're sysop on meta. --Brion 23:59 Feb 13, 2003 (UTC)


Thanks for the sort out on the various "Latin" articles. That's much better :) -- sannse 07:28 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I got totally lost with my tenses on van der Lubbe. Danny


Hi Enchanter, it think it's time to regenerate the "most wanted stubs" page, as many articles mentionned there are no longer stubs. I could remove them by hand, but if you can do that automatically... --FvdP 22:21 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Done Enchanter 00:07 13 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I've responded to them here. Please do let me know your further thinking. Thanks again for the input. Alex756 12:03, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)

More comments added... Alex756 22:30, 7 Sep 2003 (UTC)~

Hi Enchanter. Nice to meet you. A word of advice: you want to be careful unblocking IPs without first examining the evidence. That 80.225.x.x vandal made some decent edits but he also did some 100% pure vandalism on at least three different articles. Please don't do that without considering it very carefully. (If in doubt, discuss with another sysop first - sometimes a second opinion helps a lot.) With that said, he's obviously on dial-up with rotating IPs, same as Michael, so there is no reason to leave blocks up for more than a short while. He does seem to be someone who just might turn into a worthwhile contributor if handled gently and firmly, seems to know his insects well, so I guess we just have to keep an eye on him and see which way he goes. Best -- Tannin 00:53, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Tannin - to clarify, the reasons I lifted the ban were:
  • At the time of the banning, he was involved in a content dispute over Peterborough, where he was making some reasonable points. We need to be very careful to avoid even the slightest perception that banning might have been used to try to settle a content dispute.
  • Banning is for persistent vandalism only - where only a few pages have been vandalised we can easily just revert them. This user had made a small number of vandalism edits and a fair number of good edits.:

Enchanter 22:14, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Could you take a look at recent history of Political economy? Stirling Newberry made massive changes I just reverted. Although you and I have had our differences regarding this article, I'd value your views on his changes. Slrubenstein



Hi

You might be interested to know that there is an economics article Labor market nominated for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. If you have the time, could you take a look and leave any comments that you feel are appropriate. mydogategodshat 04:10, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

NLP cultic issue[edit]

Thanks Enchanter. Nice to see a new editor on the NLP article - so welcome. Further to admin Guy’s assessment [1] the cult or cultic aspects [2] of NLP do need proper presentation. I agree that the line above that you mentioned should be removed. Its neither properly presented or attributed and does not frame it properly at all. Eisner’s 2000 quote will be more appropriate eg Eisner (2000:159) states that “Both Sharpley and Elich et al. conclude that NLP is akin to a cult and may be nothing more than a psychological fad”. It’s a recent quote and is clearly an agreed view between three scientists which makes the view very reliable indeed. This does need to be put in proper context though.

The cultic aspects need to appropriately placed with the quasi-religious aspects of NLP and its place in the new age. Singers book Cults in Our Midsts – is clearly about cults also and this seems to fit with other views that conclude NLP is not a religion but has religious qualities. There is a common view that NLP leaves itself open to use in cults. I’ll get the quote on that and I believe that fits well with the line you suggested by Langone.

Here is Singer in full: “Problems with Being "Transformed" at Work The following cases illustrate some of what has happened when employers sent employees to certain training programs. In part of these cases, the employees sought redress because they felt they had been coerced by their employers to attend and/or had been harmed by the programs. Aside from complaining that they were being put through programs tantamount to a forced religious conversion, employees also objected to specific techniques being used: meditation, neurolinguistic programming, biofeedback, self-hypnosis, bizarre relaxation techniques, mind control, body touching, yoga, trance inductions, visualization, and in some cases, intense confrontational sessions akin to the "attack" therapy methods that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s. Using intense psychological techniques some of these programs "induce ordinary people to suspend their judgment, surrender themselves to their instructors, and even adopt new fundamental beliefs." Trainers using confrontational techniques create a sense of powerlessness in the seminar attendees. Once this sense is achieved, it becomes a lot easier to erase old patterns of thinking and behavior. From a tire factory in Albany, Georgia, to a car dealership in Tacoma, Washington, workers began to put up resistance to the imposition of religious values and the intense influence techniques used in the workplace training programs.”


So the singer statement eg.

In her book “Cults in Our Midst” in the context of Being "Transformed" at Work” Singer states that “Aside from complaining that they were being put through programs tantamount to a forced religious conversion, employees also objected to” “neurolinguistic programming”. Using intense psychological techniques some of these programs "induce ordinary people to suspend their judgment, surrender themselves to their instructors, and even adopt new fundamental beliefs.

It’s a significant statement – Singer has written in depth about NLP in the context of “Crazy therapies” where she complains of therapists getting clients to adopt new age and other beliefs. So again – the cultic issue is clear. I’ll get back to you on the survey of cults information when I have it written in quotes. AlanBarnet 09:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Mnemonics article[edit]

Hey, I just read the Mnemonic article & it was interesting to read about some of the background for some of the techniques. Since you're the one who found and folded in the details, I'm hoping that you know and can include a better explanation of the following: "A similar system utilizing a combination of this and the preceding "abjad" system can easily yield numbers through 100 or higher (ex. 76 lash, 77 lilly)" because I have no clue how 76 and lash or 77 and lily are related to each other. Thanks! Elf | Talk 18:57, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

meetup[edit]

(spam) You signed up for wikipedia.meetup.com, and I was wondering if you were interested in the forthcoming London meet.


Comment moved to Talk:Annuity

My user Page[edit]

Thanks for making those corrections :-) theresa knott 13:07, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

copyrights[edit]

I rolled back your changes to wikipedia:copyrights from last month. You or mav haven't answered my questions, for example who exactly "we" might be. All Wikipedians? The foundation? The sysops? Martin 12:07, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The business and economics forum[edit]

Anouncing the introduction of The Business and Economics Forum. It is a "place" where those of us with an interest in the business and economics section of Wikipedia can "meet" and discuss issues. Please drop by: the more contributors, the greater its usefulness. If you know of other Wikipedians who might be interested, please send this to them.

mydogategodshat 18:39, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Geneva meeting[edit]

Hi,

Which date and date would suit you best ? Yann 17:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Problem at the main page[edit]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Error/Bug on the main page, any help appreciated. Andrewa 21:51, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fixed. I referred this to you as you were one of the recent updaters of the page, and I knew I was out of my depth with it. But it turned out we needed developer level action. Andrewa 20:22, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Talk:New York[edit]

I just wrote a response to what you wrote about preparing a dis-ambiguation page for the meanings of New York. 66.32.240.88 23:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

CC license template[edit]

You might want to update your CC license with the Template:DualLicenseWithCC-BySA. Just replace your current notice with {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA}}. That way, you'll be listed in What links here page. JesseW 07:03, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Proposed move of New York[edit]

There are 2 registered Wikipedians who disagree with your proposed page move of New York. See Talk:New York. 66.245.69.118 23:02, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Still, now there are 4 registered Wikipedians who responded and still none of them agree with your proposed move. 66.245.115.43 21:41, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Creative Commons[edit]

Hey, just wanted to let you know that you can use the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template on your user page to update your Creative Commons license to include version 2.0 as well as version 1.0. -- Ram-Man 03:40, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

London WikiMeet[edit]

Just a note to say that it was a real pleasure meeting up with you last night. I look forward to another opportunity to meet sometime in the future. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 08:29, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RFC pages on VfD[edit]

Should RFC pages be placed on VfD to be deleted? I'm considering removing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Slrubenstein, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jwrosenzweig and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John Kenney from WP:VFD. Each of them was listed by CheeseDreams. Your comments on whether I should do this would be appreciated. - Ta bu shi da yu 03:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Rienzo[edit]

Rienzo is still editing under further sockpuppets User:65.161.65.104, User:MahBoys, and User:Sandor, and User:130.236.84.134.

This is in violation of a 3 month ban from the arbitration comittee - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rienzo

I would appreciate an immediate block of these accounts. CheeseDreams 14:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yet Another London Wikimeet[edit]

Heya,

We're organising another London meetup, for Sunday the 11th of September; specifics still to work out, but it will probably be fun as ever, and involve a few drinks and a nice chat in a pub. We'd love to see you there...

James F. (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Long-dormant files[edit]

Hi. I'd like to generate a list of long-dormant files, e.g. those that have had no edits in over a year (or maybe several lists sorted by length of dormancy - over a year, over 18 months, over 2 years, etc.). My theory is that long-untouched files may have been forgotten and possibly fallen out of date. I also suspect that there may be many one-time posting of notes on anon user pages that can be done away with altogether. I lack the technical capacity to generate any kind of list, tho - since you invented the list of pages needing disambiguation, I was hoping you could help me on this. Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 19:58, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hi there. Are you aware of the automatically generated list at special:Ancientpages? This only does articles, rather than user pages etc, and I agree that in particular there is a good case for clearing out long-untouched anon's talk pages (perhaps we could see if we could get someone to write a bot to do that?). Enchanter 21:03, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
I had thought that was for pages created long ago, as opposed to edited long ago - I see now that I was in error - thanks for pointing this out! Who would I ask about writing a bot to scope the anon pages? Cheers! -- BD2412 talk 22:35, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, this is now a project at Wikipedia:Neglected articles. bd2412 T 19:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Meetup[edit]

Heya,

Just a quick note to remind you of the London Meetup this coming Sunday (the 11th of September) that you signed up for (as 'probable', so hopefully it's just a small push to get you to 'definite' ;-)). It's at the Archery Tavern, just next to Lancaster Gate tube station, from 13:00 (BST) onwards.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 14:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation - Giacomo Marini[edit]

Hi, Thanks for the mail. This arose out of an Afd for Cypress Ventures opened by CHAIRBOY (. When looking at that there are sentences copied directly from [3] (my fallible memory says that it was even more blatant at the time i.e. that the site has changed somewhat in the interval, but I have no evidence for that!). The same anon user created articles for Giacomo Marini and Pierluigi Zappacosta who are members of their advisor board [4]. Note they both are reputable and indeed probably notable individuals. There are clearly identical sentences from the latter URL that are identical to the Giacomo Marini article but you would probably be a better judge as to whether it's fair use ot copyvio. Again my memory of that URL, and the one I actually posted as copyvio, is that they were clearly copyvio at the time of my claim and hence that the sites appear to have changed in the interval. So my assertion is that a venture capital company spammed Wikipedia and is now trying to cover their tracks in embarrassment - once again though I have little firm evidence. Hope this clears up the history satisfactorily. Dlyons493 Talk 10:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

    • As a PS to that I think in future I'll put a copy of at least some of the Web page into the talk page. See e.g.

[[5]] - would appreciate any comments you have on that idea!


sense for newbies[edit]

I guess I am no longer a newbie, but when I try to do almost any-thing in Wik (especially the German version, but that's another story) from looking for an article to more advanced things, I brace myself for trials and tribulations. If I don't spell and format some-thing exactly the way the entry has it, I might as well foret searching: the lists given are incomplete (I've checked with confirmed content) and almost random (Alta-Vista, A9, etc. give much better near-hit responses). If I want to write a new article, I can get lucky and a nice page comes up that lets me immediately make a new page, but often I get some sort of search result with nothing that I see that indicates if or at least how to start a new page. Likewise, if some-one goess to the Wik start page, s/he is informed that any-one can edit - but it's a some-what tricky and long path to find out how to write a new article. One gets the impression one can only modify articles. (By the way, what is the text at the bottom of the Wik page on editing, "Wikipedia: Introduction," (Test edits... this sucks, i don't like it, how do you cite this site?)

?  Is that vandalism, or is that sypposed to represent some-body's sand-box work?  If it's that latter, it is both in poor taste and confusing.  I have raised the issue of simplifying and clarifying before, with not much response (except, e.g., being told that if I find it confusing I should fix it - yeah, sure:  I couldn't understand, so I should tell people how to do it!

Tags on article pages/talk pages[edit]

Hi there. I see you changed back an edit I had made at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, regarding whether cleanup tags should go in talk pages or article spaces, noting that the consensus was that they could go into articles. Please could you refer me to the discussion that this consensus was reached at? Thanks, Enchanter 19:38, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

There wasn't one unified discussion. This issue has arisen on several occasions at various templates' talk pages. I don't recall exactly which ones, but the older, less specific templates are the most likely. (The newer, more specific templates were patterned after the existing ones.)
As I referenced in my edit summary, none of these templates use the "CoffeeRoll" style (which was formally selected as the design for all talk page templates.) Article templates come in variety of colors (blue for cleanup, purple for mergers and splits, etc.), but talk page templates always should use the "CoffeeRoll" format. If a template doesn't, it's a safe assumption that it's either the product of a consensus for article placement or a specialized version of a such a template. A talk page link (which many of the templates in question contain) is another clear indication of article placement (because it obvious doesn't make sense to refer readers to a page that they're looking at). —Lifeisunfair 21:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


Intellectual Property[edit]

Just a note to encourage you to wade into the Intellectual property page - I've proposed a new lead paragraph that captures the controversy as an essential part of the concept itself. I proposed this on the Talk page; take a look, and see what you think. Best, Bryan 16:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Bomis[edit]

I left a note on the talk page. Talk:Bomis#CLEANUP --Gerard Foley 23:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Featured article protection[edit]

Please do not protection the daily featured article. Raul654 00:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Point taken - sorry, wasn't fully aware of this policy on semi-protection. Enchanter 01:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove "unreferenced" tags...[edit]

...unless you are, in fact, providing references. These tags serve several functions.

First, they alert the reader to content that does not confirm with Wikipedia's verifiability policy and may be unreliable. They mark the section as a sort of outline or draft rather than finished material.

Second, they alert any editor who has the page on their watchlist, giving people who submitted material a chance to add references. For example, I added an unreferenced item a long time ago to the article on Harvard University... the one beginning "The social milieu at Harvard is depicted in Owen Wister's Philosophy 4..." I didn't put in a reference at the time, partly because adding references used to be technically more difficult than it is now, but I had one. I was glad an editor had tagged it, and was able to provide the reference promptly. This often happens.

It probably won't happen with this article, because I suspect most of the material in the section on specific mnemonics falls in the category of WP:NFT and is based on personal recollections of editors... but that brings me to the third reason, which is:

They give fair warning to everyone. It can easily take a week or more for someone who isn't a Wikipedian regular to notice a change and respond to it. Even when all that's being done is to move content to an article's Talk page, it is important to give people fair notice.

As to the tags being ugly: yes, they are, but they reflect the underlying ugliness the content: many pages of material that does not provide sources and, in this case, is probably is not derived from content published elsewhere, as required by WP:V, but represent something like original research. Dpbsmith (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Question[edit]

On wikipedia, obviously a global venture, what is the take on spelling? Because I get really annoyed when people on wikipedia spell paediatrics with no a and humour with no u. What is the official stance, and can I start clearing up some of the horrificly americanised spelling. Surely proper english has the upper hand as the language was actually born here? Benjaminstewart05 09:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Benjamin! Yes, Wikipedia is very much a global venture, so we have to accept that there are many other editors who use English differently to us. So Wikipedia always has had, and always will have, a mixture of British and US English (plus of course Australian, Canadian, African, and lots of others). Generally the policy is to use the local version English for local topics, and to avoid words that are specific to US or British English where we can. For small differences like humour/humor, we just have to get used to it not always being the way we are used to. The full policy is here. Enchanter 10:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your assistance.
Benjaminstewart05 10:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did the Nazis not invade (Switzerland)[edit]

Here is an answer to your question:

Why don't you look at Operation Tannenbaum. This was the planned operation to invade Switzerland. Hitler quoted that he would "Butcher the Swiss". Jean-Paul 09:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

8o) LadyofHats 22:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Peer review for Actuary article[edit]

Hi, Tim of the Vorpal Bunnies. Now that Actuary has been considered one of Wikipedia's good articles, I would like to see it develop or improve, if and as necessary, to become a candidate for featured article status. Therefore, and advice, suggestions, or statements that you think it is ready for featured article candidacy would be appreciated on the peer review page here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Actuary/archive1. Thank you. -- Avi 19:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this Avi. This is an article close to my heart - creating it was my first edit on Wikipedia. Good to see how far it has come! Enchanter 22:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actuary: featured article candidate[edit]

Hello, Enchanter. As you were kind enough to weigh in on the articles peer review, I would request you leave a comment (support, oppose, or neutral) on the article's candidacy page here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Actuary. Thank you. -- Avi 22:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Bergier report[edit]

You are right to ask for a more specific reference. The direct connection with Nazi invasion plans should probably be rephrased, since such tactical questions did not fall within the scope of the study. The study deals with the actual ties of collaboration and trade between Switzerland and Nazi Germany. These were significant, and something to this effect belongs in the article. The commission's final report concludes that Swiss behaviour had the effect of assisting the realisation of the Holocaust (which is berated as scandalous by the nationalist right [6]). It stands to reason that invasion of a collaborative partner was less urgent for the Nazis; the Bergier commission was charged with establishing the extent of this collaboration, and all sides of course agree that the more the verdict falls on the "collaborative" side, the more Switzerland should be considered a partner in crime. The verdict is mixed. Swiss collaboration was considerable, but not universal. Again, while I insist that this state of affairs should be mentioned, I do not insist that it should be directly tied to tactical details of Operation Tannenbaum. dab () 20:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move[edit]

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

City of Winchester[edit]

I see you moved City of Winchester to Winchester district against the naming convention we use. Whilst I have some sympathy to the idea that the naming convention is not good: this needs discussing in general and it is not at all a good idea to just move City of Winchester without moving City of Canterbury, City of Carlisle and countless other articles. Why is Winchester special here? It's not. In any case, the existing naming convention would suggest Winchester (district) as an alternative name rather than Winchester district. Also, if we accepted this would we then want to move things like Charnwood (borough) to Charnwood (district)? Further there is the issue of where to put City of Wakefield - Metropolitan Borough of Wakefield would be consistent with having Metropolitan Borough of Oldham for example. I've therefore reverted because I feel the inconsistency is worse than the oddity of using formal names. Morwen - Talk 13:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I'm going to raise a proposal to do that at the appropriate style page when I can find it. Morwen - Talk 13:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK subdivisions <- there. Morwen - Talk 13:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request[edit]

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 21:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Option Adjusted Spread[edit]

I see that you study economics and that you made an edit to the OAS article. I've got some material that I like regarding OAS, convexity, duration, hedge ratios that might be of interest to you and perhaps Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have interest. Sarum blue 01:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tim the Enchanter.PNG[edit]

Hello Enchanter, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Tim the Enchanter.PNG) was found at the following location: User:Enchanter. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

political economy[edit]

consider this a permanent objection to removing political economy from the politics template. it is one of several that have been stated, but you wereignoring. --Buridan 18:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I don't have very strong feelings about whether or not political economy should be on the politics template, although I think the link is pretty tenuous compared to most other items on the template (for example, there is no significant mention of politics at all in the politics article). Some other users came up with some reasonable sources that considered political economy to be a subdiscipline of politics, and although this is only one possible viewpoint, it does give a case for including it in the template. Given the sources, I don't have a strong view either way, which is why I had not participated any further on the talk page. Enchanter 00:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK[edit]

Hi,

At some point you expressed an interest in supporting meta:Wikimedia UK. We're now ready to begin receiving applications from prospective members. If you would like to join, application forms and further information can be found at: http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/join. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions, either via my user page at the English Wikipedia or by email (andrew.walker@wikimedia.org.uk).

Thanks, Andreww 14:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(Membership officer, Wikimedia UK)

Irony[edit]

Typo fix Haha. You fixed it faster than I could, though. — Bob • (talk) • 22:02, July 29, 2007 (UTC)

Good to know that when you mess up on Wikipedia, there will always be someone to notice and fix it! Thanks Bob, even if I did get there first... Enchanter 22:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of economics topics[edit]

List of economics topics, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of economics topics satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of economics topics and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of economics topics during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. AzaToth 21:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:WikiEditsJan03.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:WikiEditsJan03.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of How does one edit a page/Redirect traffic from one page to another page[edit]

I have nominated How does one edit a page/Redirect traffic from one page to another page (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 01:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice[edit]

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

I think there is a very dangerous section in the NPOV policy, which I deleted and discussed on the talk page here. Now there is an RfC, I hope you will comment. Slrubenstein | Talk 06:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

PPP[edit]

I saw that you have started the article about PPP. The map published there shows data which does not correspond to the current information. I would recomend to update it. Otherwise it will lead many people to confusion. Thanks. --GabEuro (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of How does one edit a page/Redirect traffic from one page to another page[edit]

I have nominated How does one edit a page/Redirect traffic from one page to another page (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (in question) 23:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hainan[edit]

Hello. I restored the GDP statement at Hainan#Economy with clarification. Please compare it to the source to see if it's alright. Thanks for catching my mistake. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Tags from articles.[edit]

It is not permitted to just remove tags from articles as you did with iPAD 2 however much you feel they don't belong. If you feel a tag is inappropriate, it must be discussed on the article talk page and a concencus reached. In this case, I believe the tag is appropriate because parts of the article other than just the section iPad with 3G are US centric. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The article on iPad 2 had two tags, and both mentioned the same minor issue with one sentence of the article - I only removed one of them (and made that clear in my edit comment). I didn't see any other significant issues with the article being US Centric (beyond what would be expected given it's a US company and the US is the biggest market), but would welcome any comments in the talk page if you think there is a significant issue to resolve. Enchanter (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
It could be argued that the section tag is ripe for removal as the whole article is tagged. But, arbitrary removal of tags is not allowed. Although the product is a US design, it is sold in other markets and there are significant differences between markets. My iPAD 2 (Oh yes, I got one!) would not be fully useable in the US for example. 86.181.51.84 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Note that the template guidelines at Template:Globalise recommend that whoever adds the template explains their concerns on the article's talk page and link to the section title of the discussion they initiate. "Otherwise, other editors may remove this tag with alacrity...". There was no discussion on the talk page, and the only explanation give referred to a section already tagged, so I removed the tag. There's a good reason that that is sensible - without an explanation of why the tag is there, the tag is not helpful in directing editors to improve the article, which is its purpose in the first place. I again encourage you to specifically identify any improvements to the article, and highlight on the talk page or be bold and make the edits yourself. Enchanter (talk) 09:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, although I didn't add the template, I have expressed my concern on the discussion page. There is no question that the article is heavily US-centric. The European version of the iPAD is very different to the US version (and UK version, in turn, differs from the European one (for example, it doesn't support channel bonding as per UK restrictions)). I have suggested that the tag in the 3G section be deleted as redundant, and sought objections. Last time I looked there weren't any. 86.181.51.84 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Economics/Old talk listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Economics/Old talk. Since you had some involvement with the Economics/Old talk redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so).

MSU Interview[edit]

Dear Enchanter,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the communityHERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your nameHERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chlopeck (talkcontribs) 23:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

List of rock formations in the United Kingdom[edit]

Farm-Fresh eye.png You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of rock formations in the United Kingdom regarding the scope of the list and a proposal, because you created a listed article Cheddar Gorge. --21:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society[edit]

Ten Year Society.svg

Dear Enchanter,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Hex (❝?!❞) 02:39, 11 November 2012 (UTC).

P.S. It's nice to find a talk page of this vintage!

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)