User talk:Sharavanabhava
 | If you leave a comment for me here, I will respond here and will let you know on your talk page using the {{Talkback}} template unless you are likely to be watching this page. If I have left a comment for you on your talk page, expect that I will be watching your page and you should reply there (if you wish) rather than here. This way, conversations are kept in their proper context. However, if your talk page policy is different than mine, I may follow your preferred style of conversation. I reserve the right to delete or archive (but will not otherwise modify) any comments left here. |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
ANI on DanaUllman
As you have participated at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Choices, this is to notify you that I've added 2 more choices. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for informing me. —Whig (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Moving pages
Hi. Just so you know for the future, you can move a page over an existing redirect, providing the redirect has only one line in its edit history (in other words the page was either previously moved from the redirect's title, or someone created a redirect pointing to the current article and no one else has touched it). It's only when the redirect has been edited since its creation (i.e., more than one line in its edit history), that you need to get an admin involved. In those cases, you can either go to WP:RM or put a {{db-move}} tag on the redirect with your reason if it's uncontroversial. Station1 (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information. I guess I should have just tried moving the article first. :) —Whig (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: WP Cannabis collaboration
Yes, I thought there would be more substance behind the US Marijuana Party. Was hoping it would make for an interesting read, but it turns out there isn't too much out there to research. Since the project is so new, I am picking collaborations from a variety of fields to determine which ones might actually generate interest and encourage other members to participate. So far, no luck, as I don't think anyone has helped with any of the collaborations. Hopefully, over time, members will see the potential of a collaboration and come together to improve articles. While no one else has voted in the poll, I suggested that we have 2 collaborations per month, where any member can update the collaboration page on the appropriate day and pick a new collaboration. You are more than welcome to do that on September 1. I am trying to get other members involved, so be my guest! :) --Another Believer (Talk) 16:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think we should be focusing our collaboration on the most important articles, and making them the best they can be. There isn't going to be a lot of interest in collaborating on articles that don't have a lot of intrinsic interest to readers and editors. But it looks like Cannabis and Medical cannabis are the two articles currently nominated for collaboration which are high importance. I don't mean to discourage you just explaining why I think the US Marijuana Party didn't get a lot of participation. Btw, I just added the Guns and Dope Party to WP:420 as well. —Whig (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom GA review
A review to see if Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria has started, and has been put on hold. Suggestions for improvement are at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/GA2, and are mainly to do with coverage and neutrality, and building the lead section. Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom is one of our most high profile and popular articles, attracting an average of over 11,000 readers every day. You have made more than 20 edits to the article, and so you might be interested in helping to make the improvements needed to get it listed as a Good Article. SilkTork *YES! 12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice
A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 15:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello Whig
Its About The Very Old Controversial homeopathy Page
- i saw your talks in the long archives and a big credit goes to you for that. So, i would again like you to join the recent discussions on talks page to give a proper guide, if you feel its okay.
- im new to wikipedia and would really like to have your view point on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy#.27Quackery.27_in_lead.27