User talk:Edison
|
● Archive 1: 8 May 2006-31 Dec 2006
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Kindly Advise
tb
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Signpost: 28 March 2011
- News and notes: Berlin conference highlights relation between chapters and Foundation; annual report; brief news
- In the news: Sue Gardner interviewed; Imperial College student society launched; Indian languages; brief news
- WikiProject report: Linking with WikiProject Wikify
- Features and admins: Featured list milestone
- Arbitration report: New case opens; Monty Hall problem case closes – what does the decision tell us?
March 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2N3055. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Assertions about my "mindset" and "lamentable unwillingness" are completely unnecessary. If you disagree with my points, fine. But ridiculing me simply because we disagree is a personal attack and should stop. Msnicki (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- Your templated warning is inappropriate and very ironic, considering your lack of civility in the AFD in question. My comment at the AFD was in fact an effort to get you to read and respond to several references which I had cited early in the debate. You were hung up on there only being "one reference from IEEE." Another editor in the AFD had already pointed out your Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Refusal to "get the point" in as an example of "Lala--can't hear you," with the same argument repeated over and over, and another had complained of your mocking tone. Please come to the realization that an AFD is not a contest between you and the "bad guys" which you have to "win" by ridiculing others and repeating the same incorrect argument over and over. Edison (talk) 17:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Cameron Earl
I saw your question at MilborneOne's talk page. Are you in the UK? If you have a library card, you should be able to access The Times Digital Archive through your library's website free of charge. Otherwise, it is a subscription site. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
The Signpost: 4 April 2011
- News and notes: 1 April activities; RIAA takedown notice; brief news
- Editor retention: Fighting the decline by restricting article creation?
- WikiProject report: Out of this world — WikiProject Solar System
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: AUSC appointments, new case, proposed decision for Coanda case, and motion regarding CU/OS
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
regarding your comments on proposed deletion of Dwight Eisenhower's Rolex Watch
Regarding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dwight_Eisenhower%27s_Rolex_Watch
How much independent attestation (other than the collector himself) is needed to inherit notability? (if such an inheritance is actually possible. Don't certain items have an inherent notability, at least to some degree?) Additionally, as items age do they not gain notoriety? The watch was unique in that it is the only one with Eisenhower's initials on it, and five stars as well (to signify his status as a five-star general). I'm really frustrated, because I can't understand HOW this doesn't meet the notability requirements? In the interests of time and the time I'm spending on research, could you at least tell me what KINDS of things would give this item notability, were that already the case? Raw4815 (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raw4815 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)