User talk:Edison: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
→‎Shane P. Davis: if the explanation made sense, I'd just shrug and keep on keeping on
→‎Thank You: new section
Line 119: Line 119:
This is a ''sui generis'' situation, where the original editor admits that it's a complete hoax. Given that peculiar fact, I felt it best to [[:WP:IAR|forgo the usual procedures]] in the interests of keeping total hoaxes off Wikipedia. I feel rather strongly that permitting a confessed hoax to stand undeleted while we painstakingly plod through a lengthy procedure with a foregone conclusion is destructive to our credibility (such as it is). I'm sorry if you feel I was discourteous to you as a fellow editor in so doing; but I've never encountered a case like this. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] &#x007C; [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 14:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a ''sui generis'' situation, where the original editor admits that it's a complete hoax. Given that peculiar fact, I felt it best to [[:WP:IAR|forgo the usual procedures]] in the interests of keeping total hoaxes off Wikipedia. I feel rather strongly that permitting a confessed hoax to stand undeleted while we painstakingly plod through a lengthy procedure with a foregone conclusion is destructive to our credibility (such as it is). I'm sorry if you feel I was discourteous to you as a fellow editor in so doing; but I've never encountered a case like this. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] &#x007C; [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 14:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
:My nose doesn't disjoint easily :) In fact, I would usually ask for an explanation from the other editor; but if the explanation made sense, I'd just shrug and keep on keeping on. I certainly didn't mean to offend you in any way. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] &#x007C; [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 17:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
:My nose doesn't disjoint easily :) In fact, I would usually ask for an explanation from the other editor; but if the explanation made sense, I'd just shrug and keep on keeping on. I certainly didn't mean to offend you in any way. --[[User:Orangemike|<font color="darkorange">Orange Mike</font>]] &#x007C; [[User talk:Orangemike|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 17:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

== Thank You ==

Thank you for inventing the light bulb. We all very much appreciate it.

Revision as of 21:01, 12 December 2008

Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.

Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery



Volume 4, Issue 42 8 November 2008 About the Signpost

From the editor 
News and notes: The Price is Right, milestones Dispatches: Halloween Main Page contest generates new article content 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 43 10 November 2008 About the Signpost

Fundraiser opens: Over $500,000 raised in first week ArbCom elections: Nominations open 
Book review: How Wikipedia Works MediaWiki search engine improved 
Four Board resolutions, including financials, approved News and notes: Vietnamese Wiki Day 
Dispatches: Historic election proves groundbreaking on the Main Page Features and admins 
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation 

Volume 4, Issue 44 17 November 2008 About the Signpost

Lawsuit briefly shuts down Wikipedia.de GFDL 1.3 released, will allow Wikimedia migration to Creative Commons license 
Wikimedia Events Roundup News and notes: Fundraiser, List Summary Service, milestones 
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News 
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gunny

Thanks for your work on the article about I.C Gunsalus, a fine scientist and estimable person. BBRC had an article devoted to him, which could add to the article. He was said to have been in the running for the Nobel Prize. How could that be checked? Edison (talk) 05:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will research further. What I've created is a very big stub and any additional information will only help flesh out the biography. I'd appreciate if you could point to any other biographies or obituaries that would have more deatil. While I guess he's out of the running now, I will look for Nobel details. Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

After much prodding and pushing, people have finally started citing sources. Please revisit the discussion and read and evaluate the sources. Show the single-purpose accounts and novice editors how established Wikipedia editors will have a proper AFD discussion, focussed upon looking for, citing, reading, and evaluating sources. You'll have to navigate a lot of irrelevant chatter to find the citations, and the actual discussions thereof, but I've tried to make them prominent. Uncle G (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 29 in rail transport

I just want to let you know that the July 29 in rail transport ended in a no consensus. I am currently disputing that decision atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. If you wish to speak your opinion of the result of the AfD, please do so at the Deletion Review. Thanks for your opinion in the discussion. Tavix (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Danite123 (talk) 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Hi there, I’m researching an article about Wikipedia, and its editors. I wonder if you I could talk to you about Wikipedia, and how you use it, for a magazine about not-for-profit organisations. If you could spare some time and wouldn’t mind answering some questions by email or phone, please contact me on Bennett.d@hotmail.co.uk, or leave a message here or on my talk page. Many thanks,[reply]

Daniel

This is a sui generis situation, where the original editor admits that it's a complete hoax. Given that peculiar fact, I felt it best to forgo the usual procedures in the interests of keeping total hoaxes off Wikipedia. I feel rather strongly that permitting a confessed hoax to stand undeleted while we painstakingly plod through a lengthy procedure with a foregone conclusion is destructive to our credibility (such as it is). I'm sorry if you feel I was discourteous to you as a fellow editor in so doing; but I've never encountered a case like this. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My nose doesn't disjoint easily :) In fact, I would usually ask for an explanation from the other editor; but if the explanation made sense, I'd just shrug and keep on keeping on. I certainly didn't mean to offend you in any way. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank you for inventing the light bulb. We all very much appreciate it.