User talk:Fountains of Bryn Mawr: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:05, 31 July 2008

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fountains_of_Bryn_Mawr.

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

DYK: Giovanni Faber

On 9 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Giovanni Faber, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ShamanDhia page

Thank you for your input regarding my page. If it still reads like a working artists resume, I think I have time to edit, still. The narrative is the weakest part because I have been struggling with the code/references this week. (Its way better than it was a week ago.) I am notable because I am a published, exhibiting, first generation conceptual digital media artist, (DigiratiXR) and the reference to the psychic stuff is an important element in my artwork. My work on the internet deals with metaphysics and telematic communications. I'll try another re-write - you're seeing it now for the first time, but its come a long way in 5 days, and I want to keep trying to make it better/ok until it gets accepted or deleted. I'm just getting to know how to navigate the system now...sort of addicting. Thanks again,161.38.223.246 (talk) 20:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia Try reading again today, and comment on edits/improvements - ppl are coaching me to try to keep the article - using AfD to improve the quality of the articlethe Hitochi Princess (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)ShamanDhia[reply]

Article importance scale for WikiProject Equine

Hello. WikiProject Equine is discussing an article importance scale here. Your POV would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 17:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATN

Hi. So, show me the place in this article where you have seen an advertisiment. Have you read it? There is no adver. at all! I with Jimfbleak discussed this article and removed all the unnecessary.
About the photos. All the sites with night vision optics (different manufactuters, not only ATN optics) have the same photos! These photos were taken from russian site. You can see link to it in the bottom of the article.
Please reconsider your decision. Thanks. --YGelfman (talk) 08:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: InternetHero

Hi. The main thing is to try and get the other editor involved in discussion. I can see that you are trying that, and I hope that it works. Asking for sources is key and the more that you can keep the discussion focused on them the better. Aside from that, the best advice can really be found at WP:DISPUTE. I would suggest that you read that and hopefully it will give you a good framework to proceed. Even though it can tak some time, it is best to stick to this process. Hope that is of some help. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but please remember that there are lots of avenues open to you even when dealing with an editor who refuses to discuss or compromise. It is not simply that you, on your own, have to get another editor to agree. If, as you say, the other editor is getting blocked, then the community is acting and the processes are working. It would be great if you could continue working within the processes rather than getting involved in edit warring yourself. If you continue to follow the processes described in WP:DISPUTE you really will get this resolved, even though it may seem to take some time. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, my "refusal" to discuss has somehow led me to the discussion page I provided references (from the NY Times I might add), and very well thought-out arguements relating to why Al-Haytham should be mentioned. All I wasnted to do was share information... It seems I can't do that without an administrator though... Even they agree with me indicating tht I think they don't like Muslims. I made a mention to why the Europeans don't know people like Al-Haytham but it was redirected at me for "being POV". They have no clue what I am talking about half the time. They just like screwing around with me. Don't worry, the admins seems to side with me anyway. InternetHero (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Honest Grammar changes

Dude, I worked a lot on that. I made a few mistake like "lenses that use mirrors", but I didn't change any positions at all: this was merely a grammar edit (that actually took some 2 hours). I hope you will reconsider. InternetHero (talk) 23:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 Hi. The main thing is to try and get the other editor involved in discussion. I can see that you are trying that, and I hope that it works. Asking for sources is key and the more that you can keep the discussion focused on them the better. Aside from that, the best advice can really be found at [[WP:DISPUTE]]. I would suggest that you read that and hopefully it will give you a good framework to proceed. Even though it can tak some time, it is best to stick to this process. Hope that is of some help. Cheers [[User:TigerShark|TigerShark]] ([[User talk:TigerShark|talk]]) 20:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 :I understand, but please remember that there are lots of avenues open to you even when dealing with an editor who refuses to discuss or compromise. It is not simply that you, on your own, have to get another editor to agree. If, as you say, the other editor is getting blocked, then the community is acting and the processes are working. It would be great if you could continue working within the processes rather than getting involved in edit warring yourself. If you continue to follow the processes described in [[WP:DISPUTE]] you really will get this resolved, even though it may seem to take some time. Cheers [[User:TigerShark|TigerShark]] ([[User talk:TigerShark|talk]]) 17:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
+By the way, my "refusal" to discuss has somehow led me to the discussion page I provided references (from the [[NY Times]] I might add), and very well thought-out arguements relating to why [[Al-Haytham]] should be mentioned. All I wasnted to do was share information... It seems I can't do that without an administrator though... Even they agree with me indicating tht I think they don't like Muslims. I made a mention to why the Europeans don't know people like [[Al-Haytham]] but it was redirected at me for "being POV". They have no clue what I am talking about half the time. They just like screwing around with me. Don't worry, the admins seems to side with me anyway. [[User:InternetHero|InternetHero]] ([[User talk:InternetHero|talk]]) 23:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
+==Honest Grammar changes==
+Dude, I worked a lot on that. I made a few mistake like "lenses that use mirrors", but I didn't change any positions at all: this was merely a grammar edit (that actually took some 2 hours). I hope you will reconsider. [[User:InternetHero|InternetHero]] ([[User talk:InternetHero|talk]]) 23:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)