Some thing

sorry but i fail to see how you are any less self-righteous. you propose that what your doing is getting people "to get out of your chairs and into a library". your fake article took no more offline effort or research to create than it took for people stuck in their chairs to move to delete it. i agree that we need more solid research in wikipedia but its a long process. it takes refinement, dialog, and research within peoples valued leisure time all for the sake of truth. if you continue this crusade with more subtlety then you move into nothing more than ineffective misinformation, and i dont think disinformation is the way to accomplish a truthful open info world, it will only bring others frustration. consider the yes men. there is a significant differences between yalls techniques and goals.Some thing 22:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the good job at Yule! But just for the sake of curiosity, what do yo mean by "Yuh HUH" here [[1]]? --Profero 01:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

sarcasm, faining an outrageous and childish rebuttal to the subject "yule is not a solstice holiday". it was my humour at the moment. + i didnt think many folks bothered to read talk page edit summaries. if i changed it, i might have added an "!". Some thing 22:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Well that's cleared then. I was a little ambiguous, and also dubious about continuing the discussion under that headline. Lets leave it and set up a new one when we have more to add. "Yule is definitely a solstice holiday". --Profero 22:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

On 13 March 2007, you added the category "Islamic Holy days" to the article Mid-Sha'ban. Mid-Sha'ban was already categorized under "Islamic festivals" which is a subcategory of "Islamic Holy days", see Category:Islamic Holy days. An article should not be categorized under both the general and the specific, i.e. under both "Islamic festivals" and "Islamic Holy days", or subcategorization does not work. It may be the case that "Islamic festivals" is an improper subcategory, in which case that is what should be fixed. What do you think? --Bejnar 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

i think the festivals subcategory is aptly placed under islamic holy days, but agreed, most of those particular articles that are marked as both festivals and holy days should be just holy days, IMO. thanks for the notice, i'll rectify the problem.Some thing 08:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hii - I see you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, regarding your concerns, I first created the account in summer 2006 when I first began to edit Wikipedia. However, as I became more familiar with Wikipedia policies, I did not want the account name to be confused with the Michael Corleone character, so I created my present User: Count de Chagny account in January 2007. After understanding Wikipedia's sockpuppetry policies, I integrated the page with my Count de Chagny account as a navigation page, and thus, changed the name to User:Count de Chagny/Navigation to prevent allegations that I was purposely editing with two accounts. I was not aware that your friend had a similarly named account, as accounts with identical names are impossible to create on wikipedia. I would be more than happy to delete the account, if possible, but I am presently satisfied with its name change. Please contact me if you have more concerns. Count de Chagny 05:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

thanks Some thing 19:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Public holidays of Switzerland, by FJM, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Public holidays of Switzerland has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Public holidays of Switzerland, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. This bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Category:Public holidays of Switzerland itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. Thanks. --Android Mouse Bot 2 10:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi!

I made a minor and partial reversal of your recent edit; cf. Talk:Midsummer#Reference to John. Yours, JoergenB 14:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thanks for explaining your use of nowiki for that situation. Basically, that website was blacklisted under strong suspicion of lacking copyright on many of its articles and images. The approach has been to replace the cais-soas citation with a citation of the real source (usually Encyclopedia Iranica). If the document in question is native to cais-soas it shouldn't be used anyway (WP:FRINGE, WP:RS). Anyway, I just went through Wikipedia yesterday and removed all links from the articles and deactivated links elsewhere (aside from archives), replacing with 'citation needed' where necessary.

While the issue was discussed on a number of pages, including the blacklist-related pages (where requests for unlisting were rejected), perhaps the most complete post for more information on the problems with that website is here: [2]

Thanks again and sorry for the confusion. The Behnam 21:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

thank you very much for the thorough explanation. i had been perplexed over the blacklist for a while.Some thing 22:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

I looked up that Yalda article a bit. Here is the real article as posted to iranian.com [3]. If you compare it to the cais-soas version (http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Celebrations/yalda.htm) you will notice a few 'embellishments' by cais-soas, such as claiming that Yalda celebrates Mithra's birthday and has been celebrated for over 5000 years. Feel free to use a real version of the article as a source for that section. The Behnam 23:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also see Talk:Yalda#Plagiarism note. Feel free to resolve the problem if you want. I will do it eventually if nobody else does but I'm not doing it now because, well, I just don't feel like it. Cheers. The Behnam 23:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your citation additions. In the future, please put your citation additions in the <ref>(citation)</ref> format.--Sefringle^Talk 04:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Norman T. Kingsley, by Stormbay (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Norman T. Kingsley seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Norman T. Kingsley, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 23:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Havidol, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havidol. Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Despite WBEW's carriage of Vocalo.org, it is still primarily an affiliate of Chicago Public Radio; I've reverted the template back to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mhking (talk • contribs) 03:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

How interesting to make seasonal cuisine categories. Badagnani (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Usually one has to search through specific holiday meal categories. Hopefully this will allow one to see traditional cuisine similarities throughout multiple cultures. I'm glad your adding to them, as your additions have been interesting.Some thing (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The "delete page regulars" don't appear to actually be reading the articles contained in the categories straight through, many or most of which give evidence that those foods are associated intimately with those seasons. If they have their way, the only way to find winter dishes, for example, would be to do a Wikipedia search for some combination of search terms like "Winter food is" or something similar, and wading through hundreds of results to find the actual food articles--something a category would do much more easily and elegantly. Those "regulars" can be quite a drawback of Wikipedia due to their failure to actually have or seek knowledge about an issue they're voting on before they vote. Badagnani (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

yes. frustrating. However there is some merit to the argument that the categories (at face value) are vague. perhaps a category that specifies "Traditional, Seasonal, Cuisine" and contains both meal categories by season and festivity. so as to appease the concerns over the northern southern hemisphere holiday issue. though labeled "traditional", maybe foods like Summer melon, being so specified, would still be accepted in such a category. this might also deserve discussion/mention in food related wikiprojects before attempting to start any new categories. that may seem like wikipolitics, but it may at least bring some other immediate contributers to the categories. such is my current impression of a possible resolve. that or i throw my hands in the air. Some thing (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

In fact, dishes such as Dongchimi are consumed primarily in winter--in Korea. If someone in Korea or elsewhere wants to eat it at some other time of the year, or because it's colder in July in New Zealand and someone wants to eat it there, none of that negates that dongchimi is a food intimately associated with winter--and, in fact, "dong" (冬) means "winter." The same goes for most of the other dishes. Badagnani (talk) 01:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think these strong arguments you mention here are worth mentioning in the AFD page. Some thing (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've been working on improving the Posthumanism article. Your comments would be appreciated on its talk page. --Loremaster (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I think we should use Andy Miah's essay Posthumanism: A Critical History as our main source for the Posthumanism article. --Loremaster (talk) 02:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

in reference to:

the criticism section is the longest section in the article which is likely, in part, due to refutations of the criticisms made within the criticism section. i agree this is an example of a poor article. your comment on this talk page is also quite long. maybe in the future, be bold and edit the article instead? Some thing (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for bothering to read my lenghty opinion. I suppose I have the dubious gift of loquacity, which I hope in the future to put to better use than to clog talk pages. The reason I declined to edit the article itself was that I am new here, and also I didn't want to remove what there was without first being able to provide valid criticism of recycling. I am now in the process of investigating, (against my natural inclination, since my bias is pro-recycling) but have no access to other sources than the internet (my location is rather remote) Anyway, you look like an experienced editor. On my page I am inviting people to indicate areas where I might be useful, I would appreciate your opinion. regards, Thamus (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

i will respond on your talk page then.Some thing (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'm sure I'm glad you are here! That was what I call a useful answer, and it somehow felt NICE. :) I will leave recycling to Splette for the moment (who seems to be most capable) and check it out afterwards, perhaps send him/her/them what I have on criticism, or just do it myself as you suggest. I want to concentrate for a while on the Portuguese Wikipedia, the strategic planning proposal process, and learning a few basics, like the ins and outs of translating and how to personalise my signature and user page, and work with wiki markup - stuff like that. But I will DEFINITELY go back to recycling. And I see you and i also have at least one interest in common - the universe. I am bound to bother you again, that much is certain. But you gave me enough to chew on for a while, and I am eager to start. Thanks a bunch, "see" you later, Thamus (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi there again. I hope this won't be imposing on you too much, but I am bewildered about the reactions I am getting on http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Divide_Wikipedia and wondered if you could give your views on wether it is I who can't express myself or people just don't read. Should I change the title? Can the main ideas be understood, or do I need to rewrite the wole thing? Or just complete it? Or...? Saludos, -- Thamus ^joyfulnoise 07:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Some thing. It took me several months to discover your message on the discussion page of concrete. Hereafter, you will find my answer. I have a background in chemistry and this original section was quite surprising for me. So, I did my best to put the things in their context and to clarify what was for me simply an erroneous interpretation of CO₂ absorption by portlandite present in the concrete. I do not know your background. If you are a specialist working for the Biosphere 2 project building, I would be pleased to have more information on the question and to know your opinion. If you are not a specialist (and it is not a criticism), I would suggest you to gather more information on the question and to be sure to understand yourself the mechanisms at work before to publish them on Wikipedia. The important is that such information is verifiable and can be understood by a normal reader. It was not the case in the original section. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The section "CO2 uptake by concrete in the Biosphere 2 project building" was originally about oxygen but someone deleted any mention of oxygen absorption and made it about CO2 absorption. Some thing (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

This diff shows User:Shinkolobwe made the change you're complaining about; the comment was "(→Oxygen depletion: Rename: the title of this section is misleading: per se, concrete does not absorb oxygen, nor deplete the atmosphere in O2)". Have a chat with them and find out why the change was made. Josh Parris 01:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I modified this section simply because the content was likely wrong. Chemically, concrete aging cannot absorb molecular oxygen. At the contrary, portlandite, Ca(OH)₂, present in cement can easily undergo carbonation with CO₂ present in the air to produce CaCO₃. As a consequence, it affects the mass balance calculations of the photosynthesis / respiration processess taken into account in the biosphere project. The only physical process able to trap O₂ could be the physical adsorption of oxygen gas onto the CSH minerals present in the concrete, or O₂ dissolved in the cement porewater. In my opinion, these two last processes are minor and could be omitted without problem in the model simplification. Anyway, if any, the exact process possibly responsible for the observed artefact in the biosphere project should be clearly mentioned and documented in a verifiable and understandable way. Moreover, I think that this information should be best given and discussed in the biosphere project itself where it is relevant to the context than in the page on concrete where it appears very anecdotic and misleading. The more misleading point is that by reading this original section a "non-scientifically educated" normal reader could easily imagine that oxygen in a close and confined space could be simply depleted by its interaction with the concrete to hypoxic conditions and presents a safety risk. If I missed a an important point, I would be pleased to understand the real processes at work for a direct oxygen capture into concrete. Best regards, Shinkolobwe (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

 Template:WikiProject Southern United States has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.

"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Holidays for a Signpost article to be published at the end of November. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

--Kumioko (talk) 03:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

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 in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2011 (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) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for creating Winter solstice, Some thing!

Wikipedia editor Kvng just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

revert

To reply, leave a comment on Kvng's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

~Kvng (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Category:Religious holidays, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Donald E. Davis Arboretum, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dionaea and Conservation. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The file File:HolidayCatagories3.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused diagram as part of a proposal for a WikiProject

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 18:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)Reply