![]() | This page 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. |
Deathlaser : Chat 19:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Get me loads of sources on the legalities of Adblocking programs.--Deathlaser : Chat 19:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
You told me writing articles would be fun.......... bur some misunderstanding and that just left me with an epic headache.--Deathlaser : Chat 15:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
((subst:PAGENAME)) is a [[beetle]]
— not that anyone does them like that. --Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 16:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
I made: Chloritization Kaolinization
Are they OK.--Deathlaser : Chat 17:15, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Articles for Creation is backlogged and needs YOUR help!
Articles for Creation is desperately in need of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors and administrators alike, to help us clear a record backlog of pending submissions. There is currently a significant backlog of 2716 submissions waiting to be reviewed. These submissions are generally from new editors who have never edited Wikipedia before. A prompt, constructive review of submissions could significantly editor retention. ![]()
If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog. Click here to review to a random submissionArticle selected by erwin85's random article script on toolserver. We would greatly appreciate your help. Currently, only a small handful of users are reviewing articles. Any help, even if it's just 1 or 2 reviews, would be extremely beneficial. On behalf of the Articles for Creation project, |
JamisonGuestbookUserboxes 15:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Can you get me some obviously notable articles to make, and some good sources to start with.--Deathlaser : Chat 16:58, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Citation Barnstar |
Brillaiant, fantastic, much better then me. Deathlaser : Chat 18:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks, you are quite good at finding sources; just remember to use the correct titles. --Mrmatiko (talk) 06:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Despite those 3 e-mails I got, I won't say who from, I have decided not to cleanstart. It is not worth it just to become an admin. I don't want to work in completely different fields, and for all I care, I just want to keep doing what I do now and I will have to accept the fact I can never be an admin/I don't have the skills to be one.--Deathlaser : Chat 15:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Can you please review me?--Deathlaser : Chat 17:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You're obviously pretty knowledgable on the FC. Around 10 years ago I bought a book on the history of the FC schools. It was pretty boring so I sold it on eBay, but in the last few years I've often thought that a section on the schools would be a useful addition to the FC page. I can't remember the exact title, but it was written by a chap called Geoff Waygood. Could I suggest this as a possible project for you? Rgds Obscurasky (talk) 23:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Helping Hand Barnstar | |
For helping people in IRC. Pine✉ 09:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks for that, much appreciated. --Mrmatiko (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
responded. --Mrmatiko (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I created an article for Norfolk County Council, which is on your 'to do' list. Would you mind if I removed it? Thanks! Thine Antique Pen (talk • contributions) 13:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
I've refounded Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey and I saw you were a member of Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey. I was wondering, as you are a on the Participants List weather on not you would like to help improve more Surrey articles and make Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey and active Wikiproject again.
I hope you will come and help make Wikipedia: Wikiproject Surrey an active Wikiproject again.
Thanks, pbl1998--Pbl1998 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Either reply or Wikipedia:Wikiproject Surrey on my talk page.
Since the mid-April, I have been waiting your decision over the article, Mishari bin Saud. However, today another user (Ism Schism) published this article. It is very strange. If the first article should have been reviewed, how is it possible to publish this article without any review process?
I have realized that he copied the article using the link on my talk page. Is it fair? Can you please help me or give me any link that I can use to tell my anger? Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 17:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
My gratitude for correcting me in my decision. I'll try to stick on to the objective of the project that I am involved in.
Thanks,
tausif(talk) 18:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Let's chat about proposed changes to the "Personal life" section of the Alizée article in the section of its Talk page dedicated to that topic. Thanks for your kind attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.74.194 (talk) 18 June 2012
Hello again. I've tried to address your concerns about proposed changes to the "Personal life" section of the Alizée article. When you have the opportunity, please read the new germane material on the Talk page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.67.3 (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
hello. I appreciate you taking the time to address these concerns on my talk page. I agree basically.
And the problem is that I DID take it to talk, well before. Many of the reverting editors simply have not. And don't care. This specific issue that they're reverting is not necessarily exactly the same as the other, per se. The point is that WP policy and recommendation is simply to NOT revert stuff that one does not like, even if the stuff is accurate, sourced, and good. Editors seem to not care about that, simply for personal tastes or hang-ups, and frankly I'm tired of it. Suppressing elaborations and facts, for weird neurotic reasons, that have nothing to do with fact or accuracy or references, is NOT wise or warranted or recommended. I hope you see my point there. And then a mob mentality, knee-jerk style, happens, where the actual merits are not even really considered, but just "well most people are ganging up on him, so he must be wrong". LOL. Fail... That's stuff I can't stomach either. Nor would I countenance some editor following me around from one article that had nothing even to do with that. I "warn" against that, per my right, to NOT be stalked. If that's what you're referring to.
Trust me, sir, I'm a very good and conscientious editor. With refs, clean-ups, elabs, etc. I don't like my contributions dissed or second-guessed or removed over shallow invalid reasons. Yes, consensus is a WP guideline too, but that only goes so far after a while, especially when you know that the "consensus" is really just based on NON-WP policies, whims, mob psychosis, hastiness, and shallowness. What I put in is valid, accurate, good-faith, true, sourced, and clearer. No good WP reason to remove. It's that simple. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Forestry Commission, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polecats (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.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |