User talk:Mathrick

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

. . . . . . . . ____
. . . .,,--` ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ` ' -,
. -`; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯\
.,; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \
(; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;`\
.\; ; ; ; ; ; __,,---,,__ ; ; ; ; ; ;}
. |; ; ; ; ; / . . . . . . . . }; ; ; ; ; /
. .\ ; ; ; / . ,.-., . . ,-., .\ ; ; ;/
. . . `| . . . .`` .\ . . `` . .| )`
. . . . .\ . . ,- .c _, `-, .|
. . . . .`| . . .oz##zo . `
. . . . . .|. \. . . ¯``¯. . ./
. . . . . / -, _ `.¯¯¯ . . ,\ ,
- .` . .\ . - . . `- ¯ /;;\ . .| `'--.,,__
. . . . . \ . . . . . \` \;;;;\` |. . . . . - . ```--_
. . . . . .\`-,`-., . \ .\;;/ ./ . . ./ ``. . . . . . .` `\
. . . . . . \ . . . . . . \|;;;\/. . . /. . . . . . . y/ . . ..\
. . . . . . .\ . . . . . . .\;/ . . . . . . . . . . /`. . -`. . . \
. . . . . . . .\. . . __ ./ . __ . _____ . y . . . `'. . . .-,
. . . . . . . . . ./``. . ``'" / . .|` \ . . . . . .```` . . .---.,, .\
. . . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . . |``| . .| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
. . . . . . . . . -`` .`` . - .¯¯ ```-----,,,._______ . . . ./
\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .__ .-`. . . . . . .````
. ` ` \ . . . . . . . __ . . .- - - --` `. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .`````` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . T A L K ' S . . . . . . C L O S E D. . . .

Waf[edit]

Wikipedia isn't here to publish information that hasn't already been covered in a reliable source. If there are no reliable sources (excluding the project's own webpages) that covers Waf, then it is considered original research and it is not notable enough for inclusion here. See Wikipedia's verifiability policy for further information on the standards for inclusion and how content must be verifiable. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

See notability guidelines - particularly the "rationale" section: "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources." Simply saying that a user could Google for the information is not enough - reliable sources must be provided in the article. This is covered in WP:V. --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
What I know or do not know about the topic is irrelevant. WP:V is policy, and it states:
User talk:Mathrick| Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. User talk:Mathrick
If the article does not prove that the subject is notable, citing reliable source, then it fails inclusion criteria. Right now, the only reference provided is the website of the software. That really doesn't prove anything. I could easily write a program and create a website for that program, but it certainly wouldn't be Wikipedia material. The fact is, articles need other sources to prove notability.
Please note that I am not listing the article for deletion at this time. All I have done is tagged the article indicating that it doesn't provide sufficient sources. If you do not want to or cannot do this yourself, feel free to just leave the tag there for another editor to review and perhaps improve. --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

attn mr mathrick[edit]

why did you move Kagetsu Tohya to Kagetsu Tohya without discussing it

please reply

attn mr mathrick II[edit]

Please read review comments in the "discuss" area. Also, I am not questioning whether the article is clear to yourself after your rewrite. However, it is not acceptable to most reviewers. I still suggest you put your article to your personal blog and have only a link in the restored article (and the "dependency injection" article as well) to express your different opinion. Thanks!

Voretustalk 16:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

SocialPicks[edit]

I don't know if you've seen this article, but would you stop by the AfD page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SocialPicks to offer your opinion on whether the article subject is notable? Thanks. Dimension31 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Massacre of the Innocents[edit]

Hi, thanks for taking an interest in this article. I rv'd your edit partly as you had made a substantial change and marked it as minor, and partly as the change unbalances the lead. It has been a long term problem to get the balance right, so please keep cracking on! I will have a go now, feel free to bash it about of course! Springnuts (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. A little wholesale in dismissal of Matthew as 'credible' maybe ... ? However, the trouble with using "supposed" is that the article then falls down on the unhistorical side of the fence. So, I had another go - see what you think. The aim as ever is dispassionate NPOV - the extremists on either side will never be satisfied of course! Springnuts (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Danish and Norwegian alphabet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Numeral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Compartment syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swelling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thunderbolt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rostrum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Old Frankish RM[edit]

Hi Mathrick, how do you feel about moving Old Frankish to Frankish language, as suggested in the RM? I think your opinion would be the difference between a move and a no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Freedom From Religion Foundation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Juan Mendez and Steve Benson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Osteopathy[edit]

Why did you revert my edit? The text could not be correct, since it's self-contradictory:

The scope of practice of osteopathic practitioners varies by country. In general, osteopaths are trained outside of the U.S., are not physicians, and are limited in practice to non-invasive manual therapies, and may provide nutritional, postural, and other health advice. Conversely, U.S. trained osteopathic physicians practice the entire scope of modern medicine.

If the text is trying to refer to the differing terms as used in the US for that reason, then it's structured wrongly and confusingly. The lead is for ostheopathy, and it shouldn't rely on information it has yet to introduce to be comprehensible. Either way, it needs rewriting. mathrick (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, the problem is that there are no osteopaths trained in the United States, only osteopathic physicians. The wording in general osteopaths trained outside of the United States implies that some may be trained in the United States and that is simply not the case. If you wish to reword the sentence to make it clearer for a broader audience (this is the first I'm hearing of this particular sentence confusing anyone), be my guest. I'll be sure to take a look, but it's incorrect as it currently stands and was correct before (technically possible for someone to be an American-trained physician DO or MD and then decide to obtain additional training in Europe in an osteopathy program, but it needs to be clear that osteopaths and osteopathic physicians are not the same thing). If you can reword the sentence to suit your needs while still adequately conveying this point, then I won't object. Also, the rest of that paragraph goes on to explain the differences for anyone unfamiliar with the difference between osteopathic physicians and non-physician osteopaths. I can't say I understand where the confusion is coming from. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)