- 1 Micropayment
- 2 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 3 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 4 January 2017
- 5 Great Smog of London
- 6 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 7 Thank you!
- 8 ArbCom 2018 election voter message
- 9 ArbCom 2018 election voter message
- 10 Disambiguation link notification for December 25
- 11 Your edit to Lissajous orbit
- 12 Duverger's law
- 13 1948 United States Senate election in Texas
- 14 給您的星章！
- 15 Re:wikilink and citation templates
Hi, you edited the Micropayment page. I don't want to discourage you from editing, but I do believe the paypal page has a definition of "micropayment". The page says there is a different rate for micropayments, and this rate will be charged to all payments less that $12. Therefore, $12 is the largest amount that qualifies as a micropayment, according to PayPal. Fleetham (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not entirely convinced that that's a definition, e.g., https://micropayments.paypal-labs.com/ says that Paypal considers transactions less than $10 to be micropayments, but I'm okay with it either way.
A deeper issue is that the article implies that this is a new definition which replaces the old, whereas in fact it's specific to Paypal and not used in the industry in general. But I'm not up to trying to convey that today.
I don't know if Paypal's is a new definition that replaces the old... I guess it is because what people meant by "microtransactions" in the 1990s don't exist anymore.
So today you can call $12 a micropayment but in the 1990s $0.12 was more what was meant by the term.
Visa calls any online payment of less than $20 a micropayment, at least in Australia.
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) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in
The paragraph begins, "In considering whether such an event could occur again," but never addresses that question. It then says that research has show relationships between various factors, but not what the relationships are. The final sentence leaves off one of these factors and rephrases the other two, using jargon not understandable without going back to the reference source ("English local authority areas"). When you finally make your way through all this the whole paragraph boils down to "deaths are caused by the pollution", which has already been stated and in no way justifies the effort of reading and rereading the paragraph. Finally, this paragraph doesn't relate to the topic of the section, environmental impact.
Do you believe it says something other than that?
- I agree it should at least be rewritten in layman's terms. I restored your edit. I'll leave a message on [[ ]]'s page who added the info here. Sorry about that. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Thanks so much for updating the Dave Duncan page.
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Feast of the Seven Fishes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Smelt (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Your edit to Lissajous orbit
Thanks. The text of the article says that it started in a halo orbit and then went into a Lissajous orbit, but it's a bit odd. I'll see if I can find a better source. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey- I saw you were doing some detail work on LBJ () and I would like to invite you to take a look at 1948 United States Senate election in Texas. I added it to the category for Election Fraud in the United States (see the talk page there). Please make some edits on that page if interested. I think we should do a day-by-day, step-by-step kind of analysis of this election- from the campaign stops by Stevenson and LBJ to the court proceedings after the runoff. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
- Your timing is really good. I'm reading Caro's The Years of Lyndon Johnson and I'll be caught up with the 1948 election tonight or tomorrow. I'll take a look then. Dan Bloch (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
|Thanks for your work cleaning up the 1948 United States Senate election in Texas page. You made the wording a lot clearer and did really good with adding relevant details. It's looking more like the page I would have hoped Wikipedia would have already had! Thanks!! Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)|
I would like to call attention to the following on Template:Cite book:
- "title: Title of source. Can be wikilinked to an existing Wikipedia article or url may be used to add an external link, but not both. "
- "publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant." - My experience is that it usually is relevant and should be wikilinked anyway.
The documentation does say they can be wikilinked (It specifies certain parameters that should not), and I would strongly prefer that these items are wikilinked here.
Those are indeed the guidelines I had in mind. For title, it says, "can be wikilinked to an existing Wikipedia article or url", and a redlink isn't an existing Wikipedia article. The publisher is open to discussion and I wouldn't have changed it if I hadn't been editing anyway, but since the significance would be the same if the publisher were the University of California Press, or Princeton Press, or Houghton Mifflin, I don't think it's relevant.
- Aha! The link here should have been blue, as the article in quest did and does exist, but under a variation of the title. I will redirect that. If you wish to discuss the use of redlinks of the publisher, maybe a discussion can be opened in the guideline page? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)