- 1 Welcome to Wikipedia - some useful links for you
- 2 January 2008
- 3 AfD nomination of Stoozing
- 4 Multiculturalism
- 5 The Tipping Point
- 6 Disambiguation link notification for March 12
- 7 Hotels.com
- 8 Inquiry
- 9 Your input is requested for consensus
- 10 Disambiguation link notification for July 15
- 11 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 12 Orphaned non-free image File:Hotels.com Logo red.jpg
- 13 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 14 References
- 15 December 2016
Hi, the Talk:LBi has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Cometstyles 14:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)you made to
AfD nomination of Stoozing
An editor has nominated Stoozing, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoozing (2nd nomination) and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Was it you who redirected culturism to multiculturalism? I think this very unfair. You only allow one side of a discourse representation.Culturism is the alternative to multiculturalism. We should know about both.
For disclosure I am the author of a book entitled "culturism." However the word goes back to the early 19th century. Furthermore, a google search will show quite a lot of interest in the term.
If you have any information about how this redirect can be reconsidered, please contact me. You can do so at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Thank you, John Press www.pressjohn.com 05:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- No, it was not me. I proposed that it might be redirected if the two subjects appeared sufficiently related because there was debate about that. If you do not think they it should be redirected, then feel free to argue the case and remove the redirection yourself. --Gilgongo (talk) 12:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Gil, nice job. I think that you really improved this article; it needed a criticism section. Kudos to you for finding the sources. I think your section can be expanded even further, based upon your great references; I may do that at one point. Wouldn't it be cool if this article could get to FA? I hope you don't mind that I went ahead and changed the references' format to better parallel the rest of the article.--Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome, glad to be of help. This page helps me a lot. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Warburton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Conservative Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi, I tried to use this image for non english wiki pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hotels.com_Logo_red.jpg but it doesn't work. Is there any copyright thing which explains why we can't use it ? Thanks Ramsesteam (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I've tried to upload it on the French page and it doesn't work. I think it's because of the copyright. Maybe, as you're the owner, if you try it will work. Thanks Ramsesteam (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
You recently contributed to an AfD discussion which is not yet closed, but my comment has nothing to do with the specific instance. If it did, I would post the comment on the discussion board.
Through my own error and being thrown into the AfD process, my interest in and understanding of Wikipedia has evolved. Every editor has to start somewhere and I had been looking forward to contributing to the Wikipedia community in a way other than financial support. Until the AfD discussion occurred, I did not know to what I could lend my expertise and contribute in meaningful ways. When the AfD discussion board was posted, I experienced a deep immersion, explored forums I did not know existed, and saw where I could contribute. Soon thereafter, however, the discussion board received posts from established editors that were critical of newcomers, indeed their very presence on the board rendered them per se suspect. As simple as the process may seem to established editors, 90% of new editors make the same mistakes on the discussion boards. If an editor takes hiself/herself back to the early days, he/she may be more patient and forgiving of neophyte mistakes.
Following some light "biting of newcomers", I looked through other AfD discussions to get a handle on propriety and get a sense of an average discussion board. In looking through other AfD discussions, certain editors appear time and again, such as yourself. Irrespective of the decision you rendered, you offer a sound rationale to support the decision and helpful suggestions. As a Wikipedia neophyte myself, your thoughtful approach gave me hope that there are editors who merely want the best for Wikipedia and endeavor to achieve the best through fair consideration. If the article survives the process, I will heed your suggestions to improve its quality. I always think it is nice to know when our actions impact others in a positive way, so I just wanted to communicate that to you!
- Thanks - there is always a difficult balance to be struck between encouraging new editors and maintaining quality. Sometimes I get that balance wrong, and I think it's true to say that becoming a Wikipedia editor is not an easy process. But that, I believe is a necessary part of the "culture" here. The effect is somewhat like "boot camp" in the army: it can be harsh in order to weed out those who do not have the strength or the ability to become fully-fledged. I am glad that you have demonstrated that strength, and hope that you will contribute more and better things than I have over time. --gilgongo (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Boot camp is right, a test of the will! While I have you, I would like to ask a question about establishing notability for a subject whose expertise is a hybrid of sorts. In response to the AfD debate, editors have contributed to establishing the notability of the subject by including quotes from verifiable, independent, third-party resources which speak to the subject's unique contributions to his field(s). In my opinion, there is a fine balance to be struck between establishing notability and boasting. When I created the article, I erred on the side of caution and included only objectively verifiable truths. For anyone in the field, the subject is a legend but it is hardly appropriate to express that without support. The result is that everything on my page was verifiable, but I failed to adequately communicate the subject's academic reputation and unique contributions to the field.
With that in mind, I wonder if there are any Wikipedia entries for academics with a niche field that you might suggest I look at for inspiration. Or, perhaps, a Wikipedia resource where they list top honors for quality articles in particular fields. If the article survives scrutiny, I want to be as true to Wikipedia's desired form as possible and adequately express his notability. Even though I have read the various Wikipedia guidelines, real examples offer the best guidance to me. If nothing comes to mind, then no worries. But, if you come across an excellent entry in the future, please do forward it to me. Thank you for your encouragement and contributions! CAcarissima (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- The notability criteria are hard to pin down, and for better or worse, are subject to the opinions and bias of editors no matter what you do. However, and particularly if the subject is an a very narrow field, editors will look for whether the subject has citations in secondary sources of sufficient strength (eg a mainstream academic journal, a national newspaper) and number (at least three of these). Fundamentally also (although I'm not sure this is explicitly in the guidelines) they need to describe something the subject has done or achieved that others in their position could not have reasonably achieved - that is, it's not enough just to have "done your job" as a doctor, scientist, etc. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, it seeks to document notable knowledge and personal achievements, not just a who's who of any particular field. I shall look out for examples you ask for and show them to you if I see them. --gilgongo (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Your input is requested for consensus
Please comment over at Draft talk:Abby Martin#Requested move 04 March 2014. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mail Online, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lifestyle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
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) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Hotels.com Logo red.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Hotels.com Logo red.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Michael Leidig, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 22:53, 30 December 2016 (UTC)