The short answer is that User:GabeMc showed up and demanded large changes to the list. He was the one who pushed for the addition of Golda Meir, among other. If you have problems with his adds, I suggest taking it up with him pbp 17:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Little FYI: the active thread appears to be "Suggested changes" rather than "GabeMc's recent deletions". Just thought you should know pbp 16:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Great work. I'm still mulling over some options, so I've changed a few of your counts. Hope you don't mind. Nice work, you've made some really fantastic suggestions, particularly for additions. Keep in mind that we are currently at least 9 articles short of 1,000, so we can add at least that much more than we remove. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Carl, I think we've reached the point where further changes to the Vital Articles list require item-by-item discussion and !voting. We also need to get more people involved for a wider range of perspectives, including those editors who are listed as current Vital Article project members. The original list included a lot of careful consideration and balance, and this latest round of proposed changes would have a major impact on the structure and content of the list. I would be grateful if you would break out each item as Purplebackpack and Gabe have done for their most recent changes. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 6, No. 1 — 1st Quarter, 2013
Previous issue | Index | Next issue
Project At a Glance
As of Q1 2013, the project has:
|
Content
|
Carl, gentle reminder: the moratorium on adds and deletes is now in effect until 12:01 a.m., May 16, 2013. We can discuss and vote on changes to the VA lists, but should not actually implement any changes until after the 16th because of the article improvement competition. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Carl, would you mind updating the expanded list total? I'm not sure how it happened, but the previous running total apparently got rolled off the page by the auto-archive function.
Also, we need to emphasize deletions until we get the numbers under control. We seem to have a number of good candidates for deletion that have been mentioned in the various threads, but never proposed in the voting/discussion modules. Let's give that some thought, review what has been mentioned, and contemplate some more deletion proposals. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Carl, did I miss something in my year at a British university? I've never heard of bagatelle; is it a big pub or parlor game in the UK? If not, I think we need to add it to the list of proposed removals from the Sports sublist? Thoughts? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Carl, what are your thoughts on the specific examples of well-known bridges? I see you proposed two for deletion . . . What, if any basis, should there be for specific examples? Longest? Longest over water? Longest span? Historical significance? The current list is heavy on American examples. With the big Chinese civil engineering projects of the last 20 years, most of the "longest" are now Asian. Thoughts? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Royal Borough of Greenwich 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.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
|
---|
|
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Do me a favor: find two modern pieces that don’t belong or are redundant, and propose that they be swapped for national anthem and Christmas carol. I’ve proposed removing a number of classical works in favor of Music of ______, the places I have so far are USA, Germany, France, Russia, Latin America and China pbp 22:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Carl, with all of the changes since the moratorium ended on May 15, do we have a current VA/E topic count? Also, how would you feel about keeping a log of all VA/E list changes since January 1, 2013, with all moves, adds, drops and swaps by date? We could set up a subpage of the main VA/E talk page and then link to it from the main page . . . .
BTW, if I haven't said it recently, thank you for all your hard work in scouring the VA/E sublists for opportunities for improvements. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
Hey, Carl. I invited several members of the dance project to comment on the existing VA/E list of 26 dancers, and three of them have left some interesting comments on my talk page. I thought you might want to look them over and ask questions, make comments, etc., as you think appropriate. As we get further and further off the beaten path of knowledgeable generalists, we are going to need to invite more editors with specialized knowledge to participate . . . . When it comes to determining who the 20 most significant dancers of all-time are, personally, I'm just going on name recognition; I lack the knowledge to offer an informed opinion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Two of the discussions you started in the biology and health sciences section of Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded have been open for over 15 days and have 5 supports against no opposes? Since I'm not entirely sure where those additions are supposed to go, would you mind closing them? pbp 15:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Carl, as we pick up new participants, we are getting to 5−1, 5−2, 6−0, 6−1 and 6−2 !vote totals faster than we ever have. May I suggest that we should still adhere to the 15-day discussion minimum? I think it is important from a procedure/process standpoint that we not rush any deletions or additions. Someone thought all existing VA/E list topics were once "vital" enough to include, and any objections deserve reasonable time to be heard. And, just in case I don't say it often enough, please accept my thanks for your diligence and all of the hard work you have to done to help get VA/E out of the weeds. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
How about an update on the number of vital articles, to know how is the process now? I would like to know how many are for now. Another thing: "Remove Kenny Dalglish" is 6-0, "Remove Ryan Giggs" is 5-0 and "Remove Bill Shoemaker (jockey)" is 5-0, you can finish by now. Rauzaruku (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you added Communication to the Vital Articles list, but didn't leave an edit summary. I'd appreciate if you would try to use summaries for such pages, since it makes it easy to keep track of changes by going to the history page. Thanks. Ypnypn (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
FYI, most of them have passed now. Since I'm not sure where the things you want added go, I would ask you to close them pbp 16:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Carl--Could you consider being the fifth support vote to add Duino Elegies, an FA, (at the expense of removing either Kipling's If or Rimbaud's Season in Hell)?--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
There is an unsigned vote on the VA/E-page for Accountancy - it sounds like you wrote it, but I could be wrong? --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
The only reason I started taking an interest in the vital list was because of the fact that the list of folk and country musicians doesn't include a single non-American artist. All of the maneuvers I have tried to add any artist or folk tradition from outside of the US has been opposed by you, mostly without offering rationales - or simply by saying that "there are no other folk traditions represented" (which is not true because American folk is very well represented). Now I want to ask you: Do you really think that it is possible that there isn't a single artist or folk music tradition from outside of the US that is vital? Who would you add if you had to add one or two folk artists from outside of the US? And finally don't you consider it to be the case that non-Western or non-US musical traditions should expect some kind of representation? I simply don't understand why people are opposed to globalizing the music section. Especially not the folk section.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to clog up the vital articles project talk page with arguments, I will save it on my own talk page instead, I am ashamed I am even taking part in arguments we need to stop it all of it including me, and everyone else.
So many things are bothering me I don't even know where to start. We will never all agree, that is the point of discussion and voting. People can give their view but there comes a point when users including me, start to rant like I am right now, start arguing and giving snidey attacking comments, even I've done it and I'm ashamed, others have done it too. We all have different views, Maunus and gabe I just happen to believe people and music is too bloated. I just happen to think that the Dubliners, and Fairpoint Convention are not within the top 180 vital musicians that walked the planet, or within the 2000 most important people that ever lived, or within the 10'000 most vital topics of any kind that should be in an encyclopedia, that's why I voted that, I know there is a disparity with regional fairness, Fairpoint Conv is English - Like me? I can't see how I'm being unfair voting against my own region as it were. One particular thread was for Alla Pugacheva, someone who I have no interest in whom I think is a good non American Musician. Gabe and Maunus voted to remove her I voted to keep her. So we are all of us are against certain non American Musicians but in support of others, there's nothing exclusively nasty in any of us, against certain regions. As Maunus also proposed another Russian performer to add which I can see and supported.
Maunus it is clear you want Irish and British Folk music in. I am trying to review the whole list not just musicians. Not all but many of the musicians you want in are Irish Folk, you yourself may be contributing, or trying, to the regional disparity, maybe get one in like the Dubliners at a stretch but when you start pushing for loads of Irish Folk it would then be too big compared to other areas of similar importance, if we had it your way there would be several Irish Folk Orchestras/musicians, you would be happy, but the area would be too big compared to others. You are trying to add several articles to a topic region that isn't of mega world importance, but one which you think is important, and because there are lots of Americans you think it is justified there are loads of other regions not represented well or at all, Thailand indonesia Ethiopia, and more nations with big population have no musicians, even regions with 100s of millions like Africa as a whole, China and India don't have many musicians either. We don't have the top Gamelan Musician or top Aboriginal rock performer. We have 180 approx musicians including Classical and Modern, There are obvious important musicians Elvis Beatles Mozart Beethoven, then less obvious ones, which can be discussed, and maybe removed removed. I can see that many of the musicians you proposed are important to Irish Folk, but can you, hand on heart tell me you believe they are within the 180 most vital musicians of any genre, region or time period ever to walk the earth. I can understand your frustration, but the musicians are at 180, not many people want it bigger, I try to think of who is within the most important musicians who have ever lived on the planet, and in the grand scheme of things My own opinion I don't think Dubliners or Fairpoint Conv make it, sorry. I think most musicians are not top notch encyclopedia articles, I'm not picking on you or have a vendetta against you. My vote is only one of many, it takes mine and others votes to change anything.
My own opinion I think we should have more "peoples" in the list, articles like Inuit people and Maasai people are articles that could and should be in an encyclopedia, so we agree on some topics but not others, in the future I will push for these ethnic groups and give my rational and votes, propose diplomatic good looking swaps, see if others want them in too, but I will also give honest votes for other things if I honestly believe they should not be in also. My votes are true to my opinion, and I take into account what others say think about it and it may alter my view. I think some of Maunus's add proposals are great like the people but some of, not all, of the musicians are not so good. I have had what I thought were "great" ideas like adding Abrahamic Religions and Professional Wrestling which everyone voted against, and I moved on. I've had some threads where many supported but one or 2 opposed, like Remove Martini. I would never begrudge one nor many people for disagreeing with me, if they reviewed the articles and genuinely did believe what the were voting, and maybe said why, thats why we're here. Some of my views like keeping Tom Cruise, or adding Wrestling about 8 people are against me, it's times like that I start to think maybe my view is the minority, may be I am wrong on this one. This is part of the reason for the voting, in the past I would have adding Pro Wrestling with no discussion and most other people would have hated it, in the past you could have added the Fairpoint convention but most other people would have hated it. There are many border line topics, the voting decides at the moment. It looks like Dubliners may have a tiny shot, but not fairpoint convention.
I will rant more about what's bothering me later I am busy being full time dad and manager, as well as being a slow typer. Carlwev (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I want us to get along after this, we should both be better people than this, sorry for the long post, but it's on my own page and it will be my last, I promise.
We both need to draw a line here under what's gone before, you and me both have probably been inappropriate at times. That one comment did offend me but it doesn't matter, it's been and gone. Although I'm not Christian I'm willing to forgive and forget and leave it all in the past. By the way, Explaining myself, Christmas, if I remember correctly, I was proposing to remove, Mary mother of Jesus, and add Christmas, remove one christian topic and replace it with what I saw as a more important Christian/cultural topic. But i put adds and removals up all separately so it could have easily been missed, and I can understand why you thought it biased, having no other holidays, of all my ideas, that one is not one of my best.
I would really like it if we could all just get along from now. I read your passage, I agree 100% I have a character flaw, in that I cannot write short paragraphs, I will try to remedy that, I kind of noticed already, and I annoy myself with it, that's also why I am continuing and ending it here on my own talk page instead of over there. I wrote as I thought, it became too long, and I have to leave for work or cook dinner or what ever so run out of time to reread it and summarize it, saved it as it was, too long. I will shorten things from now on. This message is already getting long, but I hope it will be the last, so don't bring it up as a "point scorer" in discussions, I agree, I will fix. This will be my last long post, and it's on my own page anyway.
I want too be honest with you, but not to pick a fight just to get things out in the open, I want you to see my POV. I think or hope that we really just have our wires crossed, and that we, just by chance, disagree on what is vital, redundant and diverse. I do just by chance happen to disagree with you on so many of your proposals and votes. I don't want to look like I'm cut and pasting oppose on all your threads, so I try to explain why I oppose on each one then my comments are too big. You are simply trying to cut things I don't think should be trimmed. I really am at the point where I am scared to oppose removal threads of yours that I honestly, honestly think should stay, because I'm afraid of how it looks or afraid you will react. I used to enjoy being here, but now I find it a bit hostile, it needs to get better. I don't oppose all your threads, Virtual globe, Topological map, yes I think they can go, border? no I don't, I think we both have a habit of only remembering the opposes.
I also believed you were opposing things just because I wrote them I don't know if it's true or I'm imagining it? I looked down the talk page and you also support many of my threads too. I don't like to accuse but I will try to explain my thoughts, and make you realize why I think what I think. Whether true or not I sometimes feel you are saying "apples and oranges" only as a reason to oppose me. I know you say you don't like cross swaps but you have supported other peoples cross swaps but opposed some of mine, and also contradicted yourself in voting. You supported to remove Turan Depression. You supported swapping in Reincarnation for a duplicate Neopaganism, in someone else's thread. But my swapping of the 2 Reincarnation for Turan you opposed, although you actually agree with the add and removal in other separate threads though. You opposed swapping in Reincarnation and removing Spearthrower Owl "Apples to Oranges" but you supported both in other threads, Cross swaps... You supported someones "Remove Longchenpa, Add Nirvana" removing a Buddhist person and adding a Buddhist topic, was OK for you, but my removing a dance person for a dance topic (Flamenco), is "Apples to Oranges", my removing a sports person for a sport (Sailing) is "Apples to Oranges" as well. You have also supported some of my cross swaps too so I'm very confused, Monopoly, GDP, Hunger, you supported cross swaps there, but not Spearthrower Owl, Reincation, Turan depression cross swaps, but other threads with them. If you genuinely think Reincarnation doesn't belong OK. If you genuinely think Turan depression does belongs OK. But you don't because you voted differently in other threads. If you genuinely don't want cross swaps, why accept some but not others, why oppose some when you are supporting each article of the swap in other threads? I am really confused.
I believe at least occasionally you vote or comment without reviewing the article. You voted to keep College of Pontiffs, as it's important to Christians. It appears you didn't review the article. You want to remove border as you presume it's covered by country, but it's not at the moment, shows you never reviewed the article.
Anglocentric? We have both voted for and against eastern and western topics all round. You voted to keep Shania Twain, Gene Hackman, Leonardo DiCaprio and Pope Francis and Eminem (some altered later) Where I voted to remove. I voted to have Alla Pugacheva, Korea, Tibet, Reincarnation. I voted to remove numerous American Journalists and Scientists, and actors but to keep Tom Cruise. We have both voted for and against numerous east and west topics.
We just think the list should have different things on it, I think we should have numerous big and small weapons, and foods and furnitures, regardless of who proposes them or not, you don't, you want other things. I feel like if I express my genuine judgment on a topic with votes or comments you'll believe it's because it's your post. If you open around 10 food and furniture threads, my genuine view regardless of who opens the thread is to keep them, but then I'm opposing 20 of your posts at once and it looks bad. I don't think all items furniture is redundant to furniture itself. I think we need slightly more food not less. If I recall a while back you said "Why not just food? Do we really need 14 types of food listed under food?" It's clear to me you don't think food vital, were as I do, I mean everyone eats food, we are going to disagree on almost every one, but it doesn't mean we have to bicker, tripe can probably go. You may want more artists writers or musicians were I may not. I don't hate anyone for having a different opinion to me, but I want the opportunity to say "you know what I don't believe we should trim weapons food or furniture, I believe they are vital topics and not redudant, but I appreciate your efforts to improve the list" comment and vote wait for others to comment and vote, wait for consensus to emerge, and not have a backlash.
We are allowed to disagree, we should agree or disagree after making a genuine judgment of what is vital, to improve the list, not to curry favour or annoy others. My support or oppose of any threads is independent of who posts them. I want to be free to support or oppose what I believe to be vital or not without fear of an argument. I agree with some of your posts too as you agree with some of mine, we are both only remembering the bad
Anyway, I think you have some really good ideas, but I also think you have some bad ones too. I want to be able to express my view without fear, whether it is the same as your view or not. I want to enjoy taking part in the project, and for you too and others to enjoy taking part as well. I promise to try and make all other comments after this post shorter. I want us both to have the opportunity to express our view and votes truthfully, leave it without arguing, wait for others to give their view also, and wait for consensus. If you genuinely don't think an article should be in or out I can accept, but I really am confused as to why you support some cross swaps but not others, and some swaps that you oppose you support both halves of the swap elsewhere.
I'm glad you came back, the more here the better, this project needs dedicated users like me you pbp DL1 Maunus Jusdafax Melody and others. I try to not get to worked up when people vote against Wrestling or Abrahamic religions, but like it when they accept reincarnation we all appear to be passionate about this project, we all have good ideas and bad. We all have threads which get huge support, huge opposition and half and half. If we disagree on loads of topics so what, each of us should vote leave it wait for consensus, move on. There's no reason why we can't get on and have different views, I am grown man, a father and a manager, if I cannot interact well and get along with someone with different views then I am ashamed of myself, and so should others who cannot as well. One of my best friends is Christian I am Atheist we get on fine.
Oh and by the way we all voted off Harry Potter a while back, sorry you missed it you would have loved it. I do disagree with you sometimes so what, lets keep moving forward. I also do agree with you sometimes as well, look at the size of this passage your definitely are 100% right there. But What the Hell this is my talk page, and doesn't clog up the project. We don't need to agree on everything to get along, lets put this behind us for good and move on, and I'll promise to make this my last long rant. Carlwev (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious what your thoughts are on this section of proposals. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Carl, can you please point me to one single thread where you have disagreed with PbP? He has disagreed with several of your proposals, but I can't seem to find one single instance where you !voted in opposition to PbP's !vote. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Hey Carl, looks like PbP has now weighed-in on the removal of military ranks, which means that you are now free to agree with him. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I thought we were past this, Me and pbp have disagreed on Steak, Zapata-Mays, Tom Cruise, sportsmanship, Tim Burton, Wrestling, Swimming, Cuisine of the USA, AK47, Robert Zemeckis, Mel Gibson, Gouda, Parmesan, Millimetre, Microgram. I hadn't noticed pbp and I agree on a lot because I hadn't before just now looked at who supports and opposes each thread, I only look at the articles involved not the users voting on or starting a thread, it is coincidence, we obviously have similar ideas as to what is vital. I am wondering if it coincidence you just happened to have changed you're mind and vote on a large number of posts, again, started by me. Oh dear. What is going on gabe? I really thought we had moved on, I am really not enjoying this, I tried so hard to get along, I thought you could be a better person than this. Carlwev (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Why do I have to?? but OK, steak, cuisine of the USA, Tim Burton, Human Swimming, Robert Zemeckis, Gouda, Parmesan, why are you doing this again? Why does it matter if by coincidence we have similar views, I thought we moved on. Carlwev (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it would work better with anonymous voting, but the wiki system shows all edits in history regardless of signs, and it's open to abuse via multi votes and what not. Carlwev (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Again I might be wrong, and I'll drop it too, but you seem to be using your votes for revenge or making a point, or to get my attention or what ever, although everyone is fully free to vote as they wish and change their mind, you change your mind twice more than everyone else put together. Some of my threads you change your mind multiple times on. You often change from prev support to oppose on many of my threads minutes after I have cast my first vote, as oppose on some of yours threads (or agreed with pbp maybe?). Tell me I'm wrong please. I hope to leave this to bed now Carlwev (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
We'll drop it if you agree to not revenge vote. Consider the following:
If Carlwev and I happen to vote the same way on a lot of threads, it's a combination of coincidence and reasons #1 and #2 above. It's not some cabal, there's no meatpuppetry or anything. pbp 22:14, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Threads where I have voted different to pbp, and after pbp, I found not just 3 but 8, now you're gonna say that still not many anyway and carry on. I also believe DL1 has agreed with me almost 300 times but opposed me only 25ish is he copying me? I doubt it. Carlwev (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with moving forward and I promise I'll try to keep the comments respectful, but everyone would appreciate it if you would weigh-in and !vote on the working proposal to drastically reduce the number of Regions. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
By now, I see you've read User:GabeMc's comments defaming us for not agreeing 1000% with him. Apparently now, not agreeing 1000% with him is obstructionism, and this thread seems to be more about whether he or we control the project, as if anyone controls the project. He has now taken to admonishing me for not voting in threads, when it's always perfectly acceptable to sit a thread out. Furthermore, he has (often almost completely) misconstrued. It's time we took him to ANI to ask for him to be community banned from VA/E. I'm frankly surprised he hasn't whined about us to ANI or some other noticeboard. BTW, could you fwd the email I sent you back to me? I can't seem to find the diffs I gave you pbp 01:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
To all editors displaying the "Vital Articles" template on their User Page.
Hi,
I recently tried to make a change to the list of Level 3 Vital Articles by replacing the entry
[[Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems|Imperial and US customary measurement systems]]
"with a new replacement article
[[Imperial and US customary measurement systems]]
".Although I have advertised the proposed change on Wikipedia talk:Vital articles, I had no response and an anonymous IP editor took it upon himself to undo my changes on grounds that my proposal did not have a "strong consensus".
Will you please look at the discussion Wikipedia talk:Vital articles#Replacement article: Imperial and US customary measurement systems and add your opinion.
Martinvl (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Diwali may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 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.
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been busy for a while, and haven't had much time to edit. Whilst away I had many ideas some I like a lot some a little, but I don't want to annoy users or over crowd the project with over 60 threads all at once so I put them here instead. I want to know which of these articles, users like before posting them, as the talk page is already overcrowded. Presuming I have some good and bad ideas I don't want to unnecessarily flood the project with several threads that just take a nose dive. So fellow users, what ones do you like and hate out of the following list. Carlwev (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
What do people think of some of the following. We could get rid of the A, P and EL section completely, it's an odd mish mash
The list shows my summarized thoughts, my reasons are: This page How are TV shows not in the same vein as movies, they both are filmed acting with a story etc? Is theatre and film not a form entertainment. Are videogames not an artform, they have story like books and film, they have creative aspects, level design, graphic artists, sound/music artists etc. They are a published medium, you can buy a published game like music, film, books. Magazines are vaguely similar to books. There are some topics that are blurred between sport and performing art, Pro wrestling, acrobatics, bullfighting, Rodeo, and figure skating which is a dance form, dance is a performing art. Possibly all sport is watched like a performing art. Putting them on the same page would be good I think. Films, and books which are in arts are published media, entertainment, and an artform but so too are TV shows, Radio shows, videogames and magazines which are in Social sci, Mass media and Everyday life, recreation now. Museum is under art in the 1000. They contain art, and are buildings also, why not put them in arts perhaps between visual arts and works of architecture of which they slightly both. At the moment TV and mass media is with politics and government, social science, Law, Business and economics and war, doesn't seem to fit. At the moment recreation sport and entertainment is with time keeping, days and months etc, language, sexuality, psychology, food, family, ethnology. I think art and entertainment is a better pairing than recreation with those.
We could completely empty the A, P and EL page like we did with measurement, and divide to other areas, it is an odd mish mash. Some to Social Sci as pbp says, some to arts. Timekeeping, could feasibly go with measurement, calendar near year, days of the week near day. Food feasibly in health and biology, since so many plants are foods anyway, and things like vitamin, hunger, nutrition are relevant to both. Only house hold items and clothes I cannot place, although if knife is in technology why isn't fork and spoon, some clothing stuff like button and velcro overlap into tech.
Like the ideas or not?
Carlwev (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Your upload of File:BromleyOrpington.GIF or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
On the level 3 vital article talk page, you wrote Support in the Oppose section. Did you want to support or oppose the proposal? Thanks. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Carl, I'm new to the vital articles project, but I am realizing that a discussion of the horse articles in general is making me think long and hard about which of our 3- or 4000 articles in WikiProject equine would meet a "vital" criteria. Rather than the piecemeal discussion at that talk page, I'd like to brainstorm if there is a way to figure out the most vital articles we have (in terms of need, even if some aren't yet quite up to snuff). The current collection is a mishmash and includes some things not vital (Secretariat) but excludes some things that are (e.g. Domestication of the horse, horse collar, Horses in warfare. There is also the question of what categories each need to go into. I'd like to chat about this and see how WPEQ can better understand the vital articles project and make appropriate recommendations. May I also draw your attention to [1] Montanabw(talk) 03:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Coccinellidae 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) 15:51, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Just noticed the latest change to your user page. Best wishes, Cobblet (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — ((U|Technical 13)) (e • t • c)
04:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Seven Cities of Gold game cover.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).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Make sure you don't forget to tag and de-tag the talk pages of the relevant articles when you're adding or removing them from the list. Cheers, Cobblet (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Mario is Missing! NES cover.PNG. 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).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
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) 16:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)