User talk:Kmccoy: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
Thanks for the proposal you have put there. I am really growing tired of the whole matter, and I would request you to see the whole discussion (previous two sections) in [[Talk:Pakistan]]. I think I have definitely said from the beginning that the issue here is not wheter Pakistan has or has not any link with Taliban or 9/11 terrorists, but whether these comments can be or "must be" included at the top paragraph, which [[User:SamTr014]] continuously assert. From the very beginning, I am all for having the article conform to the guidelines placed in [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject countries]]. I also maintained that I have no affiliation or connection with [[Pakistan]] other than maintaining [[NPOV]] in the article, which you can check out from my previous edits on the article. I completely support the notion of removing unnecessary remarks, judgements or disputable facts from the first paragraph of country level articles. However, [[User:SamTr014]] is adamant on the notion of adding those two sentences there. I just hope you understand my position in the debate, and I hope some other users, possibly admins would have the article on their watchlists and relieve me of being the scapegoat everytime I remove some possibly POV element from the article. Thanks a lot again for your initiative. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 05:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
Thanks for the proposal you have put there. I am really growing tired of the whole matter, and I would request you to see the whole discussion (previous two sections) in [[Talk:Pakistan]]. I think I have definitely said from the beginning that the issue here is not wheter Pakistan has or has not any link with Taliban or 9/11 terrorists, but whether these comments can be or "must be" included at the top paragraph, which [[User:SamTr014]] continuously assert. From the very beginning, I am all for having the article conform to the guidelines placed in [[Wikipedia:Wikiproject countries]]. I also maintained that I have no affiliation or connection with [[Pakistan]] other than maintaining [[NPOV]] in the article, which you can check out from my previous edits on the article. I completely support the notion of removing unnecessary remarks, judgements or disputable facts from the first paragraph of country level articles. However, [[User:SamTr014]] is adamant on the notion of adding those two sentences there. I just hope you understand my position in the debate, and I hope some other users, possibly admins would have the article on their watchlists and relieve me of being the scapegoat everytime I remove some possibly POV element from the article. Thanks a lot again for your initiative. --[[User:Ragib|Ragib]] 05:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
||
The moment I agreed to discuss first and insert later, there is no discussion taking place. Now that the article is open, people don't care to continue discussion on the opening section. [[User:SamTr014|SamTr014]] 06:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:39, 19 June 2005
Welcome to the Wikipedia! If you need help editing pages, check out How to edit a page .
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
You can sign your name on Talk pages by typing "~~~~".
TPK 03:43, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)
TV Schedules
Of course I was going to continue having the note about PBS there. It would have been incomplete if I had omitted it. I'm going to be in chat later. I hope to see you there. Mike H 23:50, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
There was nothing there. A repeat of the title and one sentence. RickK 06:18, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
Just to let you know, the sentence was "Overall intermodal approach to highway and transit funding with collaborative planning requirements" RickK 06:23, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)
Node
Your participation and opinion on the inclusion of foreign and different languages in article headers would be appreciated. See: Talk:Mesa, Arizona Thanks --Buster 00:21, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
Knots
Yes, I'm still interested in knots. I don't claim to know much nor have much time right now. How can I help? Samw 00:02, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Tucson
Thanks, but I'm done with the "discussion". We'll have to keep an eye on the article to make sure node doesn't go ahead and vandalize it. RickK`
Hi there, welcome to Wikipedia!
I've been on vacation from the 'pedia for a while, just for a change of pace. In response to your questions on Sesame Street Live!...
- The exclaimation mark is puzzling me too... maybe a newspaper put an exclaimation mark in the title, and I just assumed it was right. I've moved it now.
- The dancers that have pages are just ones mentioned in newspaper articles, thus, I had the information and wanted to do something with it. Really, encourage any of the dancers or crew with multiple credits to create an article on themselves. As long as they seem noteworthy enough, Wiki is not paper.
In the future, as the rules of Wikipedia go, be bold. Don't be afraid to change anything I or any other Wikipedian writes, even if they're a sysops like me. We're all equal here, and seeing that you're much more of an authority on the topic than me...
-- user:zanimum
Support
Long time, eh? I promise I will email you in the near future. I imagine that you'd be busy with Sesame Street Live so I don't expect a reply right away. Thanks for your support on my admin nomination. Mike H 04:29, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
The Humungous Image Tagging Project
Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)
Tucson, Arizona
The talk pages or other sources indicate you have in the past participated in discussions regarding whether to put a Native American name translation in the introductory sentence of articles on Arizona cities. We are currently having a vote on this issue at Talk:Tucson, Arizona#VOTE HERE. Please come by and weigh in. Thanks. --Gary D 00:34, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
Apology
Hi Kmccoy,
I'm very sorry for wrongfully labelling your presumably good-faith edits as vandalism. I hope you'll forgive me. Best. --Node 20:57, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Dot-maps, perl...
Thanks for the lead; It doesn't look like it'll be usable for Wikipedia because of copyright issues, but it certainly is neat. -- Seth Ilys 19:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Lewis Hine
Hi,
It won't let me move it because there is already a page called Lewis Hine as you can see. That's why I have to do it the "wrong" way. --User:Hottentot
- Exactly! Isn't "moving the page manually" doing what I just did?
- Thanks for the page, I'll use it in the future. --Hottentot
Thank you for your support
Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 15:10, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Unwelcome
This is for the anniversary of your being welcomed, coming in 11 days! Template:Unweclome
Varian vandal
Moved to User:Kmccoy/Delfino
User:Humanbot update 13 June 2005
The spelling2 project (to work on secondary namespaces) was opened and finished. Progress charts will be available soon.
Version six-three tracks who made the edits, and rankings are available. Much of the work was done while I was asleep, explaining my low place ;).
The next project, which may even be released today, will probably fix incorrectly capitalised headings, particularly "See Also" and "External Links".
The mailing list has grown to 24 people and while that is very nice for my ego, it is rather difficult to send out updates. This is why I did not send out a notice that the spelling2 project had opened. From now on, then, you must watch User:Humanbot/announce for updates. r3m0t talk 12:03, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
Please incorporate any info you want into Clothespin article!
Hi Kmccoy,
Please incorporate whatever you like. I have a feeling there will be some changes to my article as far as the history behind C47.
I'm glad you have the interest. I'm actually really surprised other people haven't contributed this article before me. it's kind of a popular subject.
I took your picture from clothespin for the c47 article. hope that's ok. I kinda figured it would be encouraged!
(Added by User:Michaelbuddy)
noted gaffer tape and scrim images source
I updated the source of the scrim and gaffer tape images. they are proprietary, but are very descriptive, and because they existed in a websites product directory, I didn't trust the link's staying power, so I copied and uploaded it.
(Added by User:Michaelbuddy)
Scrim
I removed the stub notice because this page is not particularly lacking. It covers the subject fairly well, if in only a few sentences. It also does not meet the definition of a stub found at Wikipedia:Stub that states stubs are "one paragraph or less." - SimonP 22:12, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
I and several other editors have been discussing issues regarding Kurds/PKK with Coolcat for months now, and about these most recent reverts, I think that FrancisTyers has already made it quite clear on the articles talkpage, why Coolcats revert to his old and already discussed PoV version of the article is unacceptable. Another thing that I might mention is that I find it quite difficult to argue with someone who tell me and other editors, that our edits are not welcome and that we can just SHUT UP and GO SCREW yourselves. [1]
Anyway, about the specific edit that you mention, it is mostly the last part that I find POV and unacceptable: making it difficult for government troops to respond in a timely fashion to any ambush. To use a PKK 'attack'/'ambush' as an exampel is clearly POV, and unacceptable. Just like the opposite: making it difficult for the Turkish governments troops to hunt down and kill retreating PKK members would be POV also. If you could reprease the specific edit in a PoV manner, then I won't object if you restore it though.
These things being said, I am happy that you have become interested in the PKK article. It is in my opinion an article that really needs some attention from good-faith editors. -- Stereotek 20:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks again for your efforts. I'll take a look at your edits tomorrow. -- Stereotek 21:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I do follow Coolcat's edits and for good reasons I think. You might want to take a look at User:Davenbelle/Evidence re User:Coolcat for a small fraction of the edits that make me and other editors interested in this user, who call me and Davenbelle "idiots" on other users talkpages and among other things claim that he has invented the internet. [2]. By the way, you mention that you have noticed what has happend at the abortion article. Can I ask you, what do you actually think about Cc's idea about replacing the prose in several of the sections with bullets?
Anyway, regarding your edits, I didn't directly respond to them today because I've been quite busy this afternoon, preparing for my holidays. However I actually did (somehow) respond to some of the concerns that you have now raised on the talkpage by editing (among other things) the grammar in Cc's most recent contributions. (The edit by 62.242.0.66 is also by me --I logged out by accident when using a public computer--). However, to respond to edits now: I'm not going to object to any of your edits and I think that they benefit the article, both as cleanup and NPoV work. About the section regarding the lives lost in the conflict that you have raised concerns about, I have previously requested on the talk page that sources should be added or the content removed, but several other editors was against this suggestion. I also agree about the picture. It's PoV purpose is obvious, and we already have one much more suitable picture of a PKK demonstation in the article, so again I won't object if you remove it. (However, I suspect that Coolcat might do it). -- Stereotek 19:45, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
C47 updated back again
Kmccoy, I updated the C47 articles and reverted them to disambiguation pages again. It was an accident on my part. I am a bit torn between keeping articles consolidated and making sure the term gets enough exposure. I'm satisfied for now. We can submit C47_Clothespin for deletion right? Michaelbuddy 16:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the proposal you have put there. I am really growing tired of the whole matter, and I would request you to see the whole discussion (previous two sections) in Talk:Pakistan. I think I have definitely said from the beginning that the issue here is not wheter Pakistan has or has not any link with Taliban or 9/11 terrorists, but whether these comments can be or "must be" included at the top paragraph, which User:SamTr014 continuously assert. From the very beginning, I am all for having the article conform to the guidelines placed in Wikipedia:Wikiproject countries. I also maintained that I have no affiliation or connection with Pakistan other than maintaining NPOV in the article, which you can check out from my previous edits on the article. I completely support the notion of removing unnecessary remarks, judgements or disputable facts from the first paragraph of country level articles. However, User:SamTr014 is adamant on the notion of adding those two sentences there. I just hope you understand my position in the debate, and I hope some other users, possibly admins would have the article on their watchlists and relieve me of being the scapegoat everytime I remove some possibly POV element from the article. Thanks a lot again for your initiative. --Ragib 05:10, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The moment I agreed to discuss first and insert later, there is no discussion taking place. Now that the article is open, people don't care to continue discussion on the opening section. SamTr014 06:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)