- 1 Welcome to the Wikipedia
- 2 Disambiguation link notification for April 9
- 3 Disambiguation link notification for June 10
- 4 Discussion removed by User:Til Eulenspiegel
- 5 File source problem with File:Fiat Panda, first generation (141).jpg
- 6 Invitation
- 7 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 8 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:
For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.
Hi. When you recently edited Philistines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom of Israel (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. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Speed Niggs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spex (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.
Discussion removed by User:Til Eulenspiegel
The following discussion was started by me on User:Til Eulenspiegel's userpage, but later that user removed the whole discussion from his userpage. So I'm reproducing it here:
The phrase "known to scientists" is uninformative for several reasons. First, everything presented in an encyclopedia is supposed to be known be science; if it is not known by science, then we should not be inserting it into Wikipedia! As such, all sentences in Wikipedia could be followed by "known to scientists", making this a completely unnecessary sentence. Also, by the way, nothing is just "known to scientists": What is known to scientists is always also known to everyone else, since scientists publish they findings! What is more, the phrase "known to scientists" smells of unscientific content: People use it to justify any claim they want by mentioning, without citing, scientists. If there is a source for any claim on Wikipedia, then it should by cited, not alluded to by the phrase "known to scientists". In conclusion, I will re-remove the phrase "known to scientists" from the article Ethiopia; it has no place in an encyclopedia! –Jérôme (talk) 15:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC) (BTW, feel free to remove the whole sentence if you think it's wrong, or better yet – find a reference, but not by inserting the phrase "known to scientists"). Thanks!
- Nonsense, encyclopedias cover all kinds of areas that are not "known to science" (especially this one), where do you get these pompous ideas? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:27, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, it seems you like to use the 'revert' function a lot, so I won't try to have a edit war with you. Anyway, just to explain to you what I mean, in case my explanation was not enough: Science is the general term for the methodology we use to derive knowledge, including knowledge in Wikipedia. While we don't do science ourself here on Wikipedia ("no original research"), we use the results of science everywhere. Yes, information about the history of humanity in current Ethiopia is researched by science, and the information about it that we present on Wikipedia is known to us by science. So, is it correct to add the phrase "known to scientists" after any sentence in Wikipedia? Yes, otherwise we shouldn't be citing the information. Should we use that sentence? No, since, by the rules of Wikipedia, it is redundant. Now, I don't know whether you revert things just by principle, be it manually or by some tool, or whether the article 'Ethiopia' is dear to you personally. Maybe that phrase is one you wrote personally and want to see intact? Please explain what information we should be including in Wikipedia that are not 'known to science'. I think the best thing you can do is trying to be productive on Wikipedia – add things, make things better, and don't spend your time in reverting blindly – I know that's what I'm doing. Cheers –Jérôme (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
File source problem with File:Fiat Panda, first generation (141).jpg
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The Editing team is asking for your help with VisualEditor. I am contacting you because you were one of the very first testers of VisualEditor, back in 2012 or early 2013. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work better for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too.
More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.
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) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)