This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
I've been contributing to this article for years. A lot of the old editors work have been taken down, with valid references. Someone seems to be trolling this article, putting in dead links and references that have no relevance what so ever and do not back up their assertions. Also you state that I used improper formatting somewhere in the article. Please don't revert because it is also reverting more of my edits at the same time. Let me know where the formatting is that needs work and I will fix it. Also however I'm working on the different lineages of Puerto Ricans with official links, that verify my assertions, Someone keeps reverting this with dead links or irrelevant links that do not back their assertions.... Thanks so much....Tierraman (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
I have mentioned you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey#Standardization of New Jersey city/town articles. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I've accepted to mediate this case and we are ready to begin. Please join on the case talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/United States. Sunray (talk) 23:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Woodie is the primary topic on YouTube, Google, AllMusic and other sources. Please see the discussion at Talk:Woodie.. 24.179.184.46 (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Galleria may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I was peaking at who started the article on "The Peppermint King" and it was you back in 2005. I thought you might want to see how the piece looks today. Keep up the good work, it's nice to see a content person still going strong after all these years... —Tim Davenport, Corvallis, OR /// Carrite (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at WP:MR to which you may be associated with. The thread can be found here. Thanks. -- Calidum 03:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello – is the above a convoluted way of (not) saying that you reverted the edit..?
You don't think it's encyclopedic to mention that "anon" also exists as a word with an unrelated meaning..?
Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Dear User:Bkonrad. Why TOC right? Why piping? Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Um, how exactly is the S.S. Kresge company "not primary" for Kresge (disambiguation)? Most of the other items on that page, such as Kresge building and Kresge foundation, are clearly derivative with Kresge department store the only obvious main entry now that Kresge (surname) has been split out to its own disambig page. K7L (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I was in the process of closing the merge dicussion. It seems that the best move would be Peacham moves to Peacham (disambiguation) and then Peacham redirects to Peacham, Vermont. --Aidan721 (talk) 02:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
We could make a disambiguation page named Henry Peacham, that would consist of the two men named Henry Peacham. A see also section linking to Peacham, Vermont could be added. Let me know your thoughts on either suggestion. --Aidan721 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Bkonrad: thanks for your recent helpful intervention which certainly improved matters but doesn't solve the main issue of Ven. or Most Ven. qv: Boven etc... why, if the Order must be prefixed Venerable, should it not be properly styled Most Venerable? Unfortunately it would appear to be leading to much copy-cat misnaming on the internet - what do you think? M Mabelina (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I've seen your revision in the disambiguation page for the term "NSL". The term is used on some of the engineering literature to describe Newton's Second Law, see for example GILLESPIE, T.D. Fundamentals of Vehicle Dynamics, page 250, as in the link below:
ftp://ftp.demec.ufpr.br/disciplinas/TM024/Prof.Jorge_Erthal/referencia/GILLESPIE%20Fundamentals%20of%20Vehicle%20Dynamics.pdf (page 160 of the pdf document)
The article Newton's Laws of Motion is not editable, hence mention of the abbreviation is not possible. Please allow the meaning "Newton's second law" to be included in the fore mentioned page. Thank you.
Best regards,
bob.rb1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob.rb1 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)