...wiped clean July 31st 2006...
- 1 Captions
- 2 Not like that, no.
- 3 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Assessment#Non-member ratings
- 4 Re: Last names
- 5 Golubac fortress/Golubački grad
- 6 Commons Picture of the Year 2006
- 7 Cornell & athletic scholarships
- 8 Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
- 9 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 10 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
You know what, I must've been tired last night, I just reread your question and I answered something entirely different. As for Wikilinking words, names, dates, etc., in an article, the general rule of thumb seems to be first appearance in text and first appearance within any tables. Let me know if this answers your question. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Not like that, no.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Assessment#Non-member ratings
I just saw your message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/Assessment#Non-member ratings.
Although most of the information that I've read on article assessment suggests that it is the WikiProject members that are supposed to do the assessments, here is my (very unofficial) opinion: There are millions of articles in the English-language Wikipedia that need assessments. If just the WikiProject members do the assessments IT WILL NEVER GET DONE! Anyone doing good faith assessments should be applauded for helping.
<sound of clapping>
Re: Last names
Definitely trivia. Your method of inserting the information was unclear and potentially harmful, ths the revert. Also, if you do add it properly, take care with your wording. Asserting that the name similarity was intentional might constitue original research. I'd got for something like "many of the many character have surnames similar to scientists.
As for reverting, I tend to do that whenever an edit is clearly not helpful. Leaving a message is usually something I don't do unless the issue is vandalism or persistant. I really don't get why users feel that talk page notices are so important. "If you care, watchlist" to quote myself. Sorry you once dealt with a moody/illogical user. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 09:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! I just noticed the existence of both as well, but I'm not sure in this case whether it should be merged to the original page or not. I added merger tags in the hopes of getting a bit more traffic, and an explanation on the talk pages for my confusion. Any opinions? -Bbik 00:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Commons Picture of the Year 2006
Cornell & athletic scholarships
Actually, Cornell did not give athletic scholarships even before the creation of the Ivy League. As Morris Bishop stated in A History of Cornell, "athletic scholarships, if they existed at all, did so under disguises so effective that they might as well not have existed." While regulation and oversight was certainly not what it is today, it's highly unlikely that Williams received any sort of official or unofficial athletic scholarship. However, he certainly could have been recruited because of his athletic ability. Cornell2010 (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was
true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to
false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.
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) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)