User talk:HalfDome

Welcome!

Hello, HalfDome, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - Mailer Diablo 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : why the delete?

May I know which is the article in question that was deleted? - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 15:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article was nominated for deletion on 28 February 2006, and the result of the debate was delete. (3 delete votes only). This is in accordance to consensus and the deletion policy. Its nomination was on the grounds that the article was not notable. I must admit, though that the criteria for articles on Wikipedia have been much stricter these days. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 15:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not expect the standards to be laxed in the near future. However, I can recover a copy of the article and place it on your user subpage if you wish to for personal uses. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 15:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PhD | Subject

Hello! ---I monitor Education userboxes and found your contribution a little redundant. If you combine User_PhD and Economics as Favourite Subject you contrive the message. Otherwise, we may end up having duplicate degree/subject all over the place, and that's not pleasant. Louie 20:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HalfDome, please single out those ten userboxes which may have subject specification, and put them with the PhD userbox in Generic Degrees. This way we shall know which userboxes for degree/subject may be missing.--- Thank you, Louie 18:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming graph

Sorry about this hasty reply; I've just come home from vacation. I'll look into the graph and your complaints. If there is a valid argument, while this is Wikipedia and we could handle it ourselves, I will recommend taking a a consensus-driven path. I have to go unpack now and will check this out in more detail later. — ßott e siηi ^(talk) 22:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: please stop imposing UK english

Please see my response here. Waggers 11:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: differ from

Well done, I think that's a much better (and geographically neutral) phrasing. Concensus at last! Waggers 11:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic inconsistency

Hi, I guess that this edit was yours? I am just leaving you a message here to point to the guidelines I was following in my subsequent edits, i.e. Wikipedia:Categorization and the various formatting/style guidelines are on or linked to from Wikipedia:Manual of Style. thanks Martin 14:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't look at the IP carefully enough, maybe it wasn't yours. oh well. Martin 14:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"claiming weasel words in addition is just name-calling."

please have a look at Talk:Upskirt. I strongly object to characterise my action as "name calling". there are weasel words. it needs cites, you are right, but the weasel words are there as well. they need to go.-- ExpImp^talkcon 21:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Please do not engage in personal attacks. Dragons flight 05:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 24h William M. Connolley 09:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, and again [1],

[2] William M. Connolley 07:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FairTax

HalfDome, I wanted to appologize for being a bit smug. My wikistress level is pretty high and I'm just worn out by all the trolling and POV pushers (see Raul's first law of Wikipedia). It just seems like it is getting worse around here and I did not properly assume good faith with my responce. I did make some changes to your recent edits but I think you'll be ok with them. Morphh ^(talk) 1:52, 06 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of At What Cost?, Cornell

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is At What Cost?, Cornell. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At What Cost?, Cornell (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of At What Cost?, Cornell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article At What Cost?, Cornell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/At What Cost?, Cornell (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]