Hello, welcome to Wikipedia, Vinsci.

You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

• If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - Lady Tenar 00:28, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Aloha, thanks for your email. I appreciate your thoughtful response on this matter, but I think it would be helpful if we discuss it on Talk:Gary_Webb. --Viriditas | Talk 10:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Vinsci. I ran across your stub for Smith diagram. Just so you know in the future, the accepted way to request an article is through Wikipedia:Requested articles. Just add an entry on the appropriate subpage (for the Smith diagram, I believe that would be Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences). A stub should ideally contain at least a basic definition; otherwise editors who come along might have no idea where to start improving the article.

The other thing to look for are synonymous terms which may already have an article. In this case, I've created a redirect under Smith diagram which now points to Smith chart. This way, content doesn't have to be duplicated and updated in several locations.

Happy editing. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 05:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers! I had a feeling there was probably a better way and should have trusted that. Did a search though, in hindsight we probably tried searching for 'Smith graph' which failed of course and we obviously didn't do a full text search for 'Smith diagram'. Ah, well. Thanks for setting me straight! --Vinsci 09:12, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added more information to the Red Squad article you began. I removed two paragraphs and explained why on the talk page. I am writing here because there was a sub-topic on the page with nothing in it. I did a google on the name and it turned up nothing about Red Squads of any kind. Otherwise, I would have expanded that too. Kainaw 20:01, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You claimed here that the patents numbers I put earlier are from 1880s. Can you prove that? Because the links I put there clearly said 2005 and 2006. I will not reverted. But I do have to response to such false claim. Also, please don't label everything as vandalism. Go see WP:Vandalism. Chris! _{my talk} 20:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly never tried to use the links yourself. Simply go here to view your old version of the article and click on the "PDF Version" (the 2nd link) on each patent. Eg. the first patent link in your list is number US251233, "Vehicle-spring", dated Dec 20th 1881. Also, I didn't say it was vandalism, I said: "Hopefully that was unintentional vandalism.", a term that is used on the WP:Vandalism#Warnings page itself. "Unintentional" simply means you made a mistake when editing the article. We all do mistakes and I'm sure you will be more careful in the future, so don't worry too much about it. --Vinsci 06:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vinsci, since you and I clearly disagree on what deserves to be covered in this article, why don't we wait for the other editors to chime in and not edit-war on the article page. Cheers. Abecedare 19:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed ;-) However, I think progress should be made towards merging the invention sections on their relevant pages as suggested, after that, readers shouldn't have a problem finding the information they are looking for and editors can concentrate on one thing (ie. the inventions, or the person). --Vinsci 19:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside: although we apparently have a different understanding and point of view coming into this topic, I appreciate your civility throughout this whole debate. Cheers. Abecedare 19:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vinsci, you appear to be going substantially over the three-revert rule limit at John Kanzius. For example, on Sept. 15 you made at least the following separate reverts: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. Note that the three-revert policy applies to any three reverts to the same page, not only repeated reverts to the same version. Please be aware of the policy, and avoid revert warring. Thank you. --Reuben 00:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the information, I wasn't aware of the 3RR. It does seem we have left those edits behind for now. --Vinsci 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, happy editing! --Reuben 01:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vinsci. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vinsci. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vinsci. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vinsci. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time right now to look into this, but the short documentary could probably be mentioned on pages such as:

• Transistor
• Vacuum tube
• Lee de Forest (mentioned)

It's available e.g. here: [7] Vinsci (talk) 19:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article La flûte magique has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Film appears to fail WP:NFILM with not enough reviews to pass the guidelines, with none found in a BEFORE.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DonaldD23 talk to me 11:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]