West London Dweller

Hi. I'm surprised no one has yet welcomed you to Wikipedia. So, welcome! You might want to read this, if you haven't already. Maurreen 17:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

dishwashing

I didn't know about the nor ruling, so I will publish the research on my personal web pages and x-ref from wikipedia. I must admit I was baffled and annoyed at the loss of my changes, but I now understand and apologise for using up your time.

Thanks for the follow-up hints. Speculatrix 17:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Canonical articles

You might be interested in my draft proposal about reviewed articles. It's near the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards. Maurreen 17:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments on my draft proposal. Your idea has merit also. I'm just not sure Wikipedians are ready for it. Maurreen 08:24, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

British/American "bug"

I responded on my talk page. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 16:53, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

---

Thank you for adding the bit/s column to the List of device bandwidths. I wonder what the reaction would be if I added a "symbol rate" column ? --DavidCary 02:19, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Flipping/Flopping

I have never heard the term "flopping an image" before; a Google search for "flip an image" vs. "flop an image" (18,200 vs. 56), among other similar searches seems to confirm this. In fact, "flip an image horizontally" has more hits (187) than "flop an image". Stev0 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for cleaning up my Wiki article entitled "AAL5." AAL5 was my first Wikipedia article, and I was surprised how quickly it was found by someone else.

Thanks again!

British/American beer drinkers

The reason for the difference in the number of beers is that the Brits are piss artists and the Yanks are sensible :-)

Tagged articles

Great and simple idea. It could also be used to filter for stubs, POV tags, clean-up tags,... But there are a lot of...ownership issues with many things around, it seems. I accidentally went behind the curtain last November, from my normal editing pastime, and what a turbulent and territorial place it is. I now feel like a maniac, with my usually against-the-tide comments and votes in various areas. Every once in a while, someone tries to pat me on the head and go, yes, I know, it can be frustrating, but you'll get over it. Really! (Sorry, I'm not trying to commiserate with you or anything. Just recognizing your fine tagging proposal, and also the fact that you're trying to get it noticed. This is not (meant to be) a pat on the head. :) --Tsavage 00:52, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Vanco

I noticed the page on Vanco. Very cool. Are you an employee? Rarelibra 04:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

No - I just happen to live in the vicinity of their head office in Isleworth. When I looked up who they were on the Internet, I noticed there wasn't a Wikipedia entry, so created one. It's not very detailed, I'm afraid. WLD 07:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Pocahontas

That was a very good edit adding lots of understandable information about how the leaders and family members were viewed and respected by others. Mark in Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 18:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you very much! WLD 19:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hassling & Harassing, or Vandals, Inc.

Thank you so much for your mediation, WLD. Some judgment was called for and, luckily, many people out there can still use their sense. Thanks again, JackLumber 12:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Still foolin' around. Darn it, this spat is way time- & energy-consuming. This morning I was supposed to do much more than bickering with Mark the Aussie---we're quite a duo, huh? If you followed our wrangle (and if you did, that would mean you were not that busy :-)... well, don't tell me you forgot to laugh. Back to more serious topics, if you've got the time, check out the Talk:List of words mainly used in Commonwealth English, (Yet Another) Requested Move and Requested move redux, and put in your $0.02... um, £0.02. Thanks as usual, JackLumber 21:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You Must Be Putting Me On

! I hope (FOR YOUR SAKE!) that you were just kidding!! (maybe you were just drowsy!) The problem is, forget about nations different from the U.S. or the UK for a moment. Let's face the facts---we can't put Canadian English, Australian English, etc. on the same level as British and American. (Let alone non-native English speakers.) If you didn't yet, please read the sense of the move proposal. --JackLumber 13:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Oh yea, just try to tell Ben Arnold that New Zealand speaks British English...

Cable landing point

Noticed your interest in "Cable landing points". I wonder if you come across the site at Scad Head on Hoy in the Orkneys? Five cables come ashore to a small hut near an old WWII gun battery. I asked around after visiting the site for any information on the site but did not get any satisfactory answers . There was relatively modern BT equipment in the hut though I suspect no longer operational.

What puzzled me is that

It is not the most convenient point to link Hoy to the main island.

It is an awkward site for access with no road just a quarter mile(?) walk down the old cableway route.

Other points with easy road access and short cable route to the main island

My theory is that the gun batteries were interconnected by submarine cables and the GPO reused some after WWII for telephone communications between the islands.

You might be interested in a friend's website on Indicator Loops if you are interested in submarine cables --jmb 11:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello Jmb - no I hadn't come across Scad Head. I'm confining my interest to international submarine communications cables and associated cable landing points. I have no knowledge of the particular site in question, but it may be worth pointing out that landing points are usually determined by the submarine topology, rather than ease of access at the land-side. If, for example, the shortest distance between Hoy and the main island is terminated by sheer sea-cliffs, those would not be the easiest place to land a cable - on the other hand, if Scad Head has a gently shelving beach, it could be perfect. If there is a path from sea-level to the main part of the land, it's usually possible to bury a cable in that path - at worst, you send in people with pick-axes and shovels if you can't get heavy equipment there. You are quite right, though - it could simply be a case of re-use of exisitng facilities being the easist thing of all. Regards. WLD 12:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, more or less same thoughts as I had. I asked around in telecom newsgroup at the time just in case there was someone with local experience. There are more accessible beaches suitable to bring a cable ashore on shorter routes. I must put the pictures on my website. The cable comes up the beach encased in steel jackets bolted on to it, short sections about a foot or so long to allow a bit of movement. Not sure if these are standard or just used on military cables.

Would like to get to see the old TAT-1 repeater station at Oban but it is in a private estate unfortunately. --jmb 13:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No comment

Check this out. JackLumber. 22:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Flipping/Flopping

I have never heard the term "flopping an image" before; a Google search for "flip an image" vs. "flop an image" (18,200 vs. 56), among other similar searches seems to confirm this. In fact, "flip an image horizontally" has more hits (187) than "flop an image". Stev0 18:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Flopping can be regarded as a basic image transform, along with flipping (a mirror image across a horizontal axis) and cropping, all of which can easily be done physically with a photographic negative in a darkroom. More sophisticated transforms are usually achieved via digital image manipulation. (Quoted from article) - see this page here [1] for an example where both terms are used, and the ref in the article here [2]

"A flop is a picture that mirror reverses the original scene. Some flops are reversed copies. For instance, mirror reversal is systematic with technologies that require contact between a template and an imprint surface. Other flops are just pictures that have undergone the operation of flopping. For example, a slide that is inserted backwards into a projector is a flop."

The other reference [3] also uses the term 'flop' extensively. It's certainly used as jargon in image manipulation and advertising - see the glossary here [4] as an example.

"Flop:Reversing the direction. For example, if a photo or piece of artwork has an arrow which is pointing in a particular direction and you turn that piece of paper over so it is facing the other direction, it has been flopped."

Hope that helps! WLD 18:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you (I wasn't trying to contradict you, I was just trying to learn where the terminology came from. Now I know). Stev0 20:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry if I came across as defensive. Victim of too many edit wars already. I probably need to do some major work on image transfoms anyway - there really ought to be an article on each of flip (image), flop (image), and crop (image) as basic transforms, and the reasons why they are used. Flopping is used a great deal more than flipping, for obvious reasons - but there are still many photographers that prefer to work with flipped images for composition purposes so that they are less likely to be affected by the content of images they are working with - looking at an upside-down image means you are more concerned about the overall composition of the picture than what the subject looks like. WLD 21:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Slang glossaries

I've started over from scratch and have posted a new proposal at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries. I've placed the following neutral language announcement and statement of the issue at the talk page of all the slang glossaries I could find:

Attention: Slang Glossary policy discussion underway

Slang glossaries violate the following policy:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a usage or jargon guide. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Dictionary definitions. Because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, please do not create an entry merely to define a term. An article should usually begin with a good definition; if you come across an article that is nothing more than a definition, see if there is information you can add that would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. An exception to this rule is for articles about the cultural meanings of individual numbers.
2. Lists of such definitions. There are, however, disambiguation pages consisting of pointers to other pages; these are used to clarify differing meanings of a word. Wikipedia also includes glossary pages for various specialized fields.
3. A usage guide or slang and idiom guide. Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc. should be used. We aren't teaching people how to talk like a Cockney chimney-sweep. However, it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

---

Due to the many AfDs which are initiated to enforce this policy and due to the resistance to such deletion by defenders of the glossaries, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Slang glossaries to rewrite the policy in order to solve this problem and to readdress this question: should slang glossaries by allowed on Wikipedia? --List Expert 23:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Vanco

Cheers! Hey - good point, I will edit the Vanco list to include only those places where we have offices/subsidiaries. That cool with you? :) Rarelibra 13:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey - thanks for the kudos on my maps. As far as the sub cable maps - consider it done, in between my military training (this weekend) and studying for my MBA (ongoing). I can probably get something up in the next two weeks. :) Rarelibra 14:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I fleshed out the company history and added the logo. Let me know if you see any discrepancies! Rarelibra 15:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Foote and the Great Panjandrum

Good day! I'm working a bit of cleanup of Samuel Foote's article. I noticed that you added the section on the Great Panjandrum. Can you provide a source for this? Thanks! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 17:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Try the following:

• http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/panjandrum?view=uk
• http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2004/11/23.html
• http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-pan2.htm
• http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/208.html
• http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/18417

-please note - it is Grand Panjandrum, not Great Panjandrum. WLD 20:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response! I'll add the citation. You've been most helpful! Take care! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 20:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that my edition of the Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives the phrase as "Grand Panjandrum", but allows "Great Panjandrum" as also used. I've not found definitively which word Foote used, and I'm not sure there is an original text anyone can go back to - they will all be reports of the Macklin event where the nonsense prose was extemporised. As the Oxford Dictionaries record usage, and are not prescriptive, I hazard that Grand is the more usual usage. WLD 23:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, "Great" in the heading here was just due to my lack of paying attention. I'm glad you pointed it out. Indeed, it's nice to know someone who has the OED (even the Shorter) at hand. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 01:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

RE:Timeline of telescope technology

Hi, are you aware that there is already an article called Timeline of telescopes, observatories, and observing technology? I have dropped a MERGE tag at the top of your article. Very good information in your article and it looks like it should just be merged into to the other article but will leave that up to others to decide. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 17:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I wan't aware at the time when I first put the article together, but became aware later. I would argue against merging, otherwise, I'd have done so myself, but I'll try and find time to put together a cogent argument why on the article's discussion page. WLD 18:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Navy Prototype Optical Interferometer Gregorian telescope Joint Astronomy Centre Natural capital Spectrum-X-Gamma Box camera CHARA array Pork MOXE Grand Interferometre a 2 Telescopes Ryle Telescope Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute Cygnus X-1 Infrared Optical Telescope Array Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes Paolo Lucio Anafesto First light Hippolyte Fizeau Small telescope

Cleanup Hardpan Astrology and astronomy Unemployment benefit Merge Liquid mirror Geodesy Optical interferometry Add Sources Callisto (moon) Eltham ordinances Historical geography Wikify Aberration in optical systems Bokeh Contra bass Expand Congo River Demographic history of the United States Open economy

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hard Water

Hi,

the bot edited Hard Water recently, and put in the incorrect unicode symbol for indicating a chemical equilibrium. It should be ⇌ which is: {{unicode|⇌}}. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Style guidelines Other Topics - Special Symbols - Arrows. - WLD 10:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, thanks for the note. You had me worried that my UTF8 processing had a bug in it, but it turns out though that all I did was turn the HTML entity for that symbol into the UTF8 for symbol. The incorrect symbol was already being used by the editor who added it in the first place. Cheers, CmdrObot 21:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

2007 National Express coach crash

"Without wishing to be insensitive, I really don't think that two people dying in a road accident constitute a disaster."

About 40 people were injured. If everyone on the cach had died, it would have been worse than the London Bombings -- Arriva436 21:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

They didn't die, and in any case 40 people dying is not a disaster, except for the relatives and friends of the people concerned. Take a look at the article on Disaster. Note that it can be a disaster if nobody is killed. I do not consider the London bombings to be a disaster - they were a deliberate, premeditated set of events which were not disastrous in their effect - other than perhaps on people's civil liberties in the UK. If you feel the change I made was wrong, feel free to put it back in - I won't revert you. In my view, using terms stronger than is justified debases the language. Your view could, of course, be different - and it's a good thing that we have a diversity of views. Regards, WLD^talk|edits 09:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

English language variant in Common Era

I have opened a discussion about whether the "Common Era" article should use US or UK spelling. --Gerry Ashton 20:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"List of idioms" subpages deleted

Hi, I closed up the MFDs and speedied the now-transwikied subpages you had for the lists of English language idioms. Thanks for doing all that work! Since your subpages were not the original text with the original attribution, they have been safely deleted. I wasn't sure what you wanted to do with the other subpages at User:West London Dweller/Idioms, etc, but if you want those deleted too, the quick way is to place the {{db-owner}} template on them. Happy editing! -- nae'blis 23:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank-you for deleting those pages. I deliberately didn't use the {{db-owner}} template, as here (Wikipedia:User_page#Removal), it says:

Pages which have formerly been in a different namespace and moved to a subpage of the user namespace may not be deleted in this way. These must be listed either at Articles for deletion, or if they were not found originally in the article namespace, at Miscellany for deletion. On the other hand, if you'd just like them to be moved back, then by all means ask at Wikipedia:Requested moves.

So I was trying to follow the rules. I'm more than happy to put {{db-owner}} on what remains - I haven't quite finished with them yet, as they act as a reminder to do some work in Wiktionary. Thanks again. WLD^talk|edits 11:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you didn't have the original pages with the full GFDL page history in your userspace, db-owner would still apply to your temporary copies. Wiktionary should have a copy of the original contribution list per transwiki guidelines, I believe. -- nae'blis 15:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK - sorry - me not understanding. The transwiki was a bit of a rush when the pages were originally ProDed/AfDed. I wasn't familiar with the arcana of Userspace, main page space, transwiki-ing and so forth, so it was a steep learning curve. I'm sure I still don't understand most of it. WLD^talk|edits 16:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not my specialty either, but from what I understand taking a capture of the edit history log and posting it on the talk page of the transwikied page seems to satisfy attribution requirements. For an example, see wikt:Talk:chuffed. -- nae'blis 17:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

working on "Conflict of Interest" guidelines

Dear WLD, Doc0tis, hAl, Gazpacho and BCube --

I've been following (and partially contributing) to the discussion of the whole "Microsoft edits" issue on Talk:OpenDocument. My own experience with editors who have "conflicts of interest" (on very different topics: FIRE and John Templeton Foundation) is that while such folks can be tedious at times and definitely need to be "educated" on things like WP:NPOV and WP:CITE, that they are capable of valid, good faith edits and that it would be a net detriment to wikipedia if such editors were banned from editing and forced to simply post suggestions on a talk page.

(In the case of Microsoft vs. Open Source pages I think the problem is particularly acute because by definition "one side" of the story is unpaid and thus does not fall under the COI guidelines -- if we were to ban employees, say, from editing pages, we would end up with a net POV slanted towards open source.)

I went to the WP:COI page (a guideline I'd never noticed before in years of editing) and tried to make some edits to make this clear. These were quickly reverted, but there is now at least a discussion of sorts on the talk page. The basic problem is that the editors on that page believe pretty much that such editors should be banned, should be forced to seek permission from other editors, or something of the sort.

My sense from your contributions to the Open Documents discussion is that you have similar feelings to mine. I think it would be a good idea for you to contribute your views at the WP:COI page if you have the time. I don't usually like to "recruit" people, but the essential problem is that the editors currently feel that "consensus" is on their side.

Yours, Sdedeo (tips) 00:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Cable systems

Hi there, I noticed you moved some articles, for example SEA-ME-WE 4 to SEA-ME-WE 4 (cable system) a while back, referring to the standard naming for cable systems. I can't find anything on Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and I'm not sure why a specific convention would be required in the first place. I was going to move them back, since there is nothing else called SEA-ME-WE 4 that the cable system would get mixed up with, but thought I would check with you first. Regards, -- Chuq 05:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for querying - some cable systems share abbreviations or names with other things: for example, Tangerine, Apollo, and Pangea, so some way of making the cable system's article name unique was required. If you look at the category in which the cable systems are entered, it then becomes very messy, so in the interests of readability of the category, every cable system was suffixed with "(cable system)", with redirects. SEA-ME-WE 4 has (or should have) redirects from SMW4, SMW-4, SEA-ME-WE 4, SEA-ME-WE4. Where possible, the article should be titled with the official name of the cable system (where that can be determined), suffixed with (cable system). It also makes life easier when searching for a cable system using the Wikipedia search function. Hope that helps. WLD^talk|edits 10:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Would it be simpler if the cables which need disambiguation, have disambiguation, and the ones which don't need it, don't have it? Wikipedia disambiguation conventions are standard across the whole project - there have been cases in the past where individual WikiProject have unsuccessfully tried to create their own. -- Chuq 08:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't be simpler - the category listing becomes extremely messy that way. It is not simply a disambiguation issue - it is also about having consistent article names - and consistency in use is an extremely important feature of any reference work. Redirects from non-canonical names to a standard canonical format is the usual convention, and standard canonical formats are chosen to be unambiguous; otherwise reference works do not work at all. The best example of this I can think of at present is the IUPAC method of naming organic chemicals: there are strict rules laid down about how to unambiguously name organic molecules, which lead to quite unwieldy canonical names, however, they are agreed and unambiguous. (See: International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry nomenclature and IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry) Non-IUPAC formulae can be used (and often are) but reference works are always based on the IUPAC names, with separate index entries (redirects) for non-IUPAC names. Similarly, Wikipedia benefits from having standard and consistent naming conventions. A good example here is the naming convention in use for London Underground stations, whereby the article name is the offical name of the station, suffixed by "tube station", which effectively differentiates the station from the area in which it is found or other ambiguous uses of the name. See List of London Underground stations. I don't understand why you would not wish to use such a method. WLD^talk|edits 09:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The argument about "category listing becomes extremely messy" doesn't really work - should all of these articles be renamed to end in "(footballer)"? I understand the IUPAC naming system but Wikipedia already has a set of agreed upon naming conventions which state to use the simplest or most common unambiguous name. Would a name like SEA-ME-WE 4 cable system be appropriate? -- Chuq 10:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

"should all of these articles be renamed to end in '(footballer)'?" - Yes. Or probably "(association football player)" to indicate the difference with American Football players. The policy you reference also says "Following consistent conventions in both naming and linking makes it more likely that links will lead to the right place.", and having some article titles suffixed and others not is not consistent. Redirects are cheap, so having an article name without the suffix as a redirect to the canonical name is a clear solution. Regards, WLD^talk|edits 11:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

UK postcodes

Apologies - thank you for the instant rebuttal. I didn't notice that! Just getting used to AWB. Kbthompson 16:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem - glad I could help. WLD^talk|edits 17:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Self-identification as a minor

Hello, I thank you for you concern that I am a minor and that I am sharing this, but I do not particularly mind giving some personal information. I have my reasons, but I do not really feel like telling them, as it would take too long and you can easily disagree. Please respect my choice to share this. Thank you. Reywas92^Talk 22:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Your choice, and I'm not going to impose on you. Other people are more assertive in trying to prevent minors self-identifying. WLD^talk|edits 23:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sutherland Springs, Texas

Hello,user:West London Dweller I changed your copyright violation to a speedy delete. This was a blatant word for word plagiarism. Just a heads-up. Shoessss 22:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I've been trying to educate the original author in Attribution and no Original reasearch , but making no headway, so I'm reviewing their entire history. I'm not even interested in Texas history! Unfortunately, there's lots of articles to review and try and salvage. Regards, WLD^talk|edits 23:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

♦LOL I hear ya....Good luck...and ahve a great day. Shoessss 00:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Vince's Bridge - references

I've converted the references in Vince's Bridge to Wikipedia's inline reference format - I see you've put references in some other articles, and it would be good if you could use the format as in Vince's Bridge - it should make things easier! For more infoormation on the referencing method, see here: Template talk:Ref and here: Wikipedia:Footnotes. Hope that helps. WLD^talk|edits 16:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok I'm still learning and just didn't know how to do it but now I see206.254.146.2 17:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out Young Perry Alsbury, did I do the references right?206.254.146.2 17:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Compact Fluorescent Lamp

Back to you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MSTCrow#Compact_Fluorescent_Lamp. - MSTCrow 20:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Again. - MSTCrow 23:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Again. - MSTCrow 23:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

DAB Intro

Hi. I'm not having a go at you, because you don't have an axe to grind here, and you've been fair up to now, but I have to say that I disagree with some of the changes you've made in the DAB page intro. Firstly, I think it's wrong to say that DAB only sounds worse than FM on a hi-fi system, because DAB sounds worse than FM in general, and you can hear the difference on portable radios. I also don't see why you've removed the link to the page about worldwide DAB, because the direct link you've provided doesn't provide a breakdown of the bit rates used around the world, whereas the page linked to on my website does. You've also removed the comment about music stations being transmitted in mono, and in my experience people think is a very serious issue. And I disagree with what you say about there being a trade-off due to FM's reception quality at high speed, because that doesn't take into account people listening at home.

If you're annoyed with me because I reverted something of yours last week, the reason I reverted it was because you had changed that Norwegian nutter's intro, and his intro is nonsense, so I felt that it was better to revert the whole lot. It was nothing against what you'd put, but his intro is ridiculously biased. Digitalradiotech 14:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right that I have no particular axe to grind. However, I see many reverts in the DAB article, which are not really improving the quality, so I'm trying to break out of that cycle. I disagree strongly with the use of weasel words, so I'm happy with declarative statements, so long as they are adequately and verifiably backed up. The Wikipedia attribution guidelines mean that referring to your own web-site as a source is not really on, even if it has (in your opinion) good information in it. Sorry, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. If you can refer to a good source that is not controlled by you, that would be best.

Referring to your own website is either allowed or it is not, and if it is not then provide a reference to where it says so, otherwise the reference to the page I'm referring to should stay, because the reference was to back up the claim that the vast majority of stations in the countries mentioned are using insufficient bit rate levels, which is exactly the information provided on the page on my website. Digitalradiotech 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Policy is at Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself; guidelines at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing oneself - note that in the latter "make sure ... that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia". Reliable source policy is here: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources (online and paper) which makes it clear that self-published sources are not acceptable. To make clear - if you have published in a recognised, peer reviewed academic journal (say), you can cite yourself in that, but not a self-published leaflet, website, or blog. I hope that makes things clear for you. WLD^talk|edits 17:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

All I did was go through the Wohnort DAB website and count up the number of stations at different bit rate levels in each country and tabulate the results. The reference is merely backing up the claim that "the vast majority of stations" are using low bit rate levels. You don't need expert knowledge for this. Digitalradiotech 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say to put the table into the article, document your method (as above), and give the references (already done). Still classifiable as original research, but would require a particularly obsessive admin/editor to remove that. WLD^talk|edits 18:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The as for what sounds better or worse - that is a matter of opinion, and should be described as such. The article should describe the differences between FM and DAB (and the effect of common degradations), and allow the reader to make up their own mind, or possibly read the results of valid tests. Referring people to the article on psychoacoustics may help.

No, if there's good reception on both DAB and FM, FM sounds better. Digitalradiotech 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion - define 'better'. Someone with 'cloth ears' may well not perceive a difference. If you can define 'better' in measurable terms, then link to a verifiable source that shows the measured difference between FM and DAB, that's how it should be in the article. 'Better' is point-of-view biased, and another Wikipedia policy is Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Personally, I think you are probably correct - but that is my opinion, and I can't back it up from verifiable sources. WLD^talk|edits 17:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

References 2 and 3 refer to the difference in sound quality between DAB and FM, and they're from expert sources. Digitalradiotech 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So it's differences in sound quality. Rather than the bald 'better', why not say "better, as described in the study documented in comments submitted to OFCOM by Dr David J M Robinson, Department of Electronic Systems Engineering, University of Essex,on 9th July 2002. A bit OTT, but stops people like me saying better is point-of-view when it's actually on a scale of much better, better, similar, worse. In point of fact, reading the reference, we'd do better to refer to the papers referenced by Dr. Robinson - specifically "Soulodre, G. A.; Grusec, T.; Lavoie, M.; and Thibault, L. (1998).; Subjective Evaluation of State-of-the-Art Two-Channel Audio Codecs.; Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, vol. 46, no. 3, Mar., pp. 164-177.", and maybe using the quality scale described as " 1. Imperceptible 2. Not annoying 3. Slightly annoying 4. Annoying 5. Very Annoying" (having read the paper, you'll know what I mean) WLD^talk|edits 18:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about removing the point about mono - that wasn't intentional.

It's also best not to refer to other editors as 'nutters' - there is a policy of assuming good faith - we really ought to be able to work together to produce a neutral article (detailing differences of opion as necessary). If the Reverend Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness can cooperate in Northern Ireland, we ought to be able to do the same on the DAB article.WLD^talk|edits 16:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I made a large concession by changing something to a version that I thought was untrue (i.e. moved the version towards what he wanted) just to stop the reversion war, and that nutter just changed it to his preferred version yet again. So I'm afraid he burnt his bridges, and I'm having absolutely nothing to do with him since that. Digitalradiotech 16:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is your prerogative. Working with people (and educating them) is, in my opinion, preferable. You do not need to accept demonstrably untrue assertions in the article. The trick is showing they are (verifiably, from good (perhaps unimpeachable) sources) that the assertion is untrue, and not descend into point-of-view based argumentation. You may well be quite correct in your opinions on DAB, but think of writing the article as an exercise in convincing a nit-picky sceptic who is unbiased, but will examine the minutiae of your argument and sources. It is no fun at all to have your carefully crafted text and deeply held opinions modified and attacked, but that's what you agree to when submitting - below every edit box is the text "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.". I get irritated by it at times, but normally just take a break and come back later. After all, I won't care in 500 years time. Regards, WLD^talk|edits 17:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've tried educating him, but he doesn't understand the technology, so there's absolutely no getting through to him. Digitalradiotech 18:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, patience is a virtue. If you can demonstrate to admins that the other editor is being stubborn to the point of unreasonableness, blocks are possible. The main thing is to keep your cool. Violating the three-revert rule doesn't go down well. I'm sure the article can be improved with consensus, even if it does take a while. WLD^talk|edits 18:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Normative reference

It seem pretty clear the references Kenya mentiones are not normative references for OOXML. Also it seem fairly clear that Kenya has not written the objections reponse but IBM has.

It is not worth putting particular mentioning of this repsonse in the licensing section. all objections is already referencend in the critism section. Lifting out a pretty udbieus one like this seems not called for. there is absolutly not a single shred of other independant (as in non-IBM related)material supporting that you require licensing of other formats for OOXML.

I have not heard a single OO vendor or other office builder say that related format licensing does not allow them to use OOXML.

There seems some valid critisism on OOXML (like using bitmask or somthing) but this issue seems just a non-issue. hAl 08:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not "pretty clear" (see, I can assert things as well)

How is it "fairly clear" that IBM wrote the Kenyan response? That is a strong accusation that needs good backup. Author names in metadata are not fairly clear evidence of this. Suggestive of sloppy document handling procedures, certainly, but not clear evidence of authorship. I myself have used old documents as templates for new ones without clearing the metadata. Not good practice, but I'm only human.

Can you see a good reason why a Kenyan official would have the names of a German IBM employee who opposed OOXML in the German DIN iso national body and a Malaysian anti-OOXML opensource blogger in it's reponse on OOXML? documents which were not publicly publishedon the internet. Come on, Seriously ????? Either IBM wrote the Keynyan reponse directly or they mayby they send prefabricated reponses to sevral multiple national bodies even... hAl 09:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are seeing conspiracy where it could easily be explained by incompetence. It is not unreasonable for national body members to solicit input from people far and wide, and such input need not be public. It would be good if it were, but we can't have everything. It would be unreasonable to expect members of a national body to work in a sealed box, with no input from outside. There is no doubt lobbying from many interested parties, so if someone decides to use input, fine. It's obviously preferable for it all to be open and above board, and I wish it were. WLD^talk|edits 09:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is worth mentioning. Whether it is an issue or not remains to be seen as the ISO standard review goes on. WLD^talk|edits 08:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)\

All responses are already mentioned and referenced together in the critisism. Why seems this more important to you ???? This one seems disputable and it's source is very dubious. It isn't verifiable in an independant source like a vendor wh o has problems implemting OOXML because of these references or an indepent laywer. Also for instance the Japanese reponse also deals with licensing but is not mentioned. hAl 09:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

But the normative/non-normative issue is not mentioned in the criticism section. It is not disputable that Kenya have raised such an objection. The basis of the objection may be arguable - but that is a different point. And yes, the Japanese point should be raised in the article. WLD^talk|edits 09:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The critisism about the wmf and clipboard format used to be amongst the critisims in the critisism section however when a cleanup was made in the list to keep more or less serieus issues as a less relevant issues I think it was removed as there wasn't any serieus party stating you require those formats for implementing OOOXML let alone need a license for it. hAl 13:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

So saying "All responses are already mentioned and referenced together in the critisism." was slightly misleading - as the late Kurt Vonnegut would say, "So, it goes". The point is that whether or not Kenya are correct, the objection was made, which is noteworthy, and referenceable to unimpeachable sources. The same applies to Japan. It would be best if you added the objections in - that way you are liable to get text that is not biased towards an ODF-supporters view of the world. You may see that I've been trying to get it recognised that Sun's OpenDocument Patent Statement is not as clear-cut as people assume, but making little headway, apart from Webmink agreeing that the issue was raised earlier, but with no citation as to the correct interpretation - see Talk:OpenDocument#Sun's Patent Pledge. The point of that little aside is to make the point I am not blind to ODF's faults. Preferably, faults, errors, omissions, and so on in both ODF and OOXML can be identified and remedied. WLD^talk|edits 13:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You say "All responses are already mentioned and referenced together in the critisism, was slightly misleading". No it wasn't. I was just wrong about the location of the mentioning of the raised objections and the reference link. It is in the standardization section. So now there are objectiones to OOXML mentioned in the standardization section, the licensing section and the critisism section. It is ridiculous to see for an encyclopedic article. hAl 16:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The article mentions the responses of the national bodies and has a link to reference all those responses.

hAl - just linking to the national bodies replies is not sufficient to bring out the salient points of their submissions - it is reasonable to add important summary points in the article, of which the Kenyan objection is one such point. Your opinion is that their objection is incorrect, I reserve my position. However, the existence of the objection is verifiable, and as I have already pointed out in an edit comment, Wikipedia runs on verifiability, not truth. If you can reference a reliable source that contends Kenya is wrong, then do so in the article - then your position will be adequately documented in a neutral point of view manner. I presume/assume that the Kenyan and Japanese national bodies are experts in reading and contributing to ISO standards, so they really ought to know if something is normative or not. I agree with you that the article is a bit of a dog's breakfast at present, but that doesn't mean parts should simply be excised - a rewrite, preserving all the verified facts could/should be undertaken, but doing it in a manner that does not bring accusations of bias would be difficult. Once OOXML is accepted or rejected as an ISO standard, I'm sure the article will improve radically. WLD^talk|edits 18:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

ANSI comments page

I saw you linked to the ANSI comments page.

When searching for comments pages like that it show that those pages are only linked to from blogs of strong anti-ooxml sites like IBM's Rob Weirs blog, Grokdoc, noooxml.org and the Opendocumentfellowship who just want their readers to put in objections to ooxml. [5]

It seems those sites are only used by the anti ooxml lobby to influence ISO standardisation rather than being a place for objective commenting on the standard.

I do not think that such pages and the way they are abused by anti ooxml activists making them a promotional weapon for them should have place on wikipedia article. hAl 13:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi hAl - "It seems those sites are only used by the anti ooxml lobby to influence ISO standardisation" - I don't think that is correct - the ANSI site seems to be receiving rather a lot of form letters in support of OOXML, and I have deliberately not commented on that, despite the fact that some of the blogs seem to do just that. Ideally, I'd have links to all the national bodies methods of soliciting input on this topic (maybe even as a sub-article) - unfortunately, I don't have that. Just linking to it in the article without comment strikes me to be neutral. WLD^talk|edits 15:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the sites which reference those links as you can see in the google example. It seems a bit of a strategy of the anti OOXML lobby to get their readers to massivly go after the ISO committees as they did during the 30 days contradictions period (even publisihing the mailadresen of the ISO members. I'll leave the link in but I do have a lot of doubts about the commments that come in trought these sites (also the pro-ooxml comments as I expect those to be influenced by MS a lot..) hAl 19:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC) .

The BSI site is open for public reading, not writing, and makes instructive reading. I think they are working towards making constructive suggestions about OOXML. I agree that the comments submitted to ANSI appear somewhat partisan - but perhaps the low quality of the majority of submissions may spur others to make better quality comments/submissions. I hope we can find similar insights into the workings of the other national committees. WLD^talk|edits 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the BSI link a whole lot more, allthough when I saw that the first two issues it raised are about changing the name of the format and rewriting the whole spec based on the ODF spec which was like reading grokdoc I was not to impressed by it. But it also does raise a good number of content issues. hAl 04:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

A long time ago...

...you started this article. I'm trying to get List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford to Featured List status at present, and Lord McIntosh is proving a bit of a problem for me, as I can't find out (a) when he graduated (I assume 1954, after matriculation in 1951, but I need a reference) (b) what his degree subject was! Who's Who doesn't help me and nothing shows up on Google of any use. Do you happen to know of a source with these details? Bit of a long shot, I know... Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, no idea. Apologies for the delay in replying - for some reason I missed seeing your message to me. WLD^talk|edits 09:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

List of device bandwidths

So do you know in what instances there are 10 bits in a byte? I think I might have incorrectly changed a couple of the entries, because I'm not entirely sure if there are start/stop bits used for internal computer peripheral communications like SAS and SATA. It doesn't make sense that SAS would be different than SATA and they originally were posted as being different (SATA was 8 and SAS was 10). Also what about PCI buses? Should PCI Expess really be 10?

Sorry for the delay in replying - I've been somewhat busy in real life.

There are usually eight bits in a byte, but the low speed modems, where the bit rate and the baud are the same use a scheme where each byte has to have its start and end 'flagged' - the so-called start- and stop- bits, and sometimes add a parity bit as well - so to transport an eight bit byte over a low speed modem, you may have to send one (or even two) start bits, a parity bit, the eight bits of the byte, and the stop bit. Usually, the scheme is one start, one stop and no parity, giving 10 buts. Other buses use a different encoding scheme such as 4B5B or 8B10B or even 64B/66B encoding. So, it is not always correct to simply divied the 'raw' bandwidth by eight. Hope that helps. WLD^talk|edits 06:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad Telco Links

Hey there WLD! Been a while since we chatted. Yeah - I didn't know there was a way to do that, and didn't want the bad links to be out there for people (like me) to click on and not be able to use. I guess if I can see an example of how to label them, I will do so (to label them as formerly good/currently bad)? Rarelibra 16:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind at all... in fact, I will go back and see how you did so to ensure I do the same in the future! :) Rarelibra 17:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I'm making a lot of progress on sub cable maps :) Rarelibra 16:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that with a few of his maps versus the actual carrier/provider detail. I go with what the carrier/provider says. When I get a lot of this put in place, you'll have to let me know an email or such to contact you, if you are interested in the data. Put together from public sources, it is non-restrictive. Rarelibra 18:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

List of domestic submarine communications cables

Followed your advice, if you can add more please do so! :) Rarelibra 16:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Great work with helping flesh out the article - within a day the list is HUGE! :) Rarelibra 21:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I updated the map on the right - shows the world view now! :) Rarelibra 23:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Original Barnstar For your huge help with updating the international submarine cable list and populating the domestic submarine cable list Thank you! Rarelibra 19:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Raised Pavement Marker

Your revert is well intentioned as well. However, some of your edits in this article do not follow conventions of Wikipedia. For example, the external link titled "The first company in the world to produce reflective road markers." should be labeled as the company to which it points. The statement that it is the first company seems to be significant, so it really should be more detailed in the body of the article.

Also, in the section "Pedestrian Crossing Studs," it is not clean to include links to a URL except as a citation. The link should be footnoted as a reference, not included as a "see: http..." 12.126.133.22 19:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. When I get a decent hunk of time to review, I'll try and get the pieces you mention to conform more closely to guidelines. WLD^talk|edits 18:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Province of Bolzano-Bozen (BZ)

If you could please put in your opinion at the talk page; we would like to have as many native-English speakers participate as possible. A certain user wants to revert back to a particular national POV. Icsunonove 00:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Three revert warning

I am sorry, but I feel that the same warning should be applied to you. As far as I see, some people have been deleting that link, and as I see these external links sections, I would refer to WP:NOT#REPOSITORY ánd WP:SOAPBOX. Both part of policy. For you both, discuss on talkpage in stead of keeping on reverting. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you'll find that User talk:69.73.191.92 had already reverted the inclusion of the NoOOXML link three times when I gave the warning. I am very well aware of the 3RR policy, and will not revert the article again today. I am always happy to discuss issues on the talk page. Best regards, WLD^talk|edits 17:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not counting (per WP:3RR), but I moved both sections to the talkpage, and added my view. I hope for discussion there first. IMHO, both sections should completely go. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm adding my tupp'orth to the discussion. I sincerely hope 69.73.191.92 does as well. I must admit I'm heartily tired of the edit warring that goes on around OOXML and ODF, and I'm looking forward to when the standardisation process is over (whatever the outcome). WLD^talk|edits 18:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The user User talk:69.73.191.92 comes from an anonymous proxy called greyproxy.com. Is there any policy on Wikipedia regarding people connecting from an anonymous proxy? Simosx 13:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a proposed policy of Wikipedia:No open proxies, motivated in part by the the problem of vandalism coming from TOR users. Not sure if anything is actually in place, though. WLD^talk|edits 07:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sub stuff

Hey WLD! I honestly didn't know that it was microwave... I saw that TBL went from Albania to Italy and assumed it followed the cable that exists between those two. Do you have a source that explains the microwave capacity? I would be most interested... and we can remove from the sub cable list. I appreciate you and I helping each other, by the way! :) Rarelibra 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

ACK! I was working on TBL when trying to discuss the other one. Yes, I believe it is a mistake! Bullocks! :) Rarelibra 15:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Common Era

Thanks for the three revert warning on my talk page, but I do not think it applies because:

• I had clearly declared on the talk page that I intended to restore JimWae's edits gradually, but that such could not be done starting from his version because of the numerous broken paragraphs having made comparing versions from the article history impossible. Hence my first 'revert' was only a temporary situation. Thereafter I had started to make some improvements, and as I wanted to save the already modified lead, I found JimWae's version had appeared for the third time, causing an edit conflict. Given the choice of throwing away my proper edits or copying my version in the 'top' window that appears upon an edit conflict, the choice was simple (one can always revert to something that was saved, can't one; whereas I try to improve articles by looking for sources before reinstating some statement or by adding something new thus I do not like to risk losing it and it deserves to become saved so that others can see it). That still makes 0 reverts at that time.
• JimWae's version handles the fanatic Christians' many viewpoints comprehensively and inappropriately from the first part of the lead onwards, while pro-BCE viewpoints are largely destroyed. That violates the WP NPOV policy that should outweigh the 3-revert rule. But usually admins are not paying enough attention to a well-camouflaged POV turning of an article and only count 'reverts', I know. On his talk page, JimwWae had declared to rather prefer the BCE-CE notation, but his edits show he does much more than editing from the devil's advocate's viewpoint.
• It can be proven that Jimwae very intendedly used a technical process of eliminating proper and very notable sources and the statements these had corroborated in a well camouflaged manner, as I partially demonstrated on the article's talk page. That intend makes those edits vandalism, regardless his idea of what belongs in the article or not. Whether such intend would by the average admin-at-the-job be recognized as blatant vandalism, allowing more than three reverts, might be another matter.

Kind regards, — SomeHuman 13 Sep2007 23:28 (UTC)

Anti-gravity

Michael Busch has requested a straw poll of Anti-gravity. You may want to add your comments. Tcisco 00:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Franz Josef Strauß

Might I ask you to take a look at the new discussion going on at Franz Josef Strauß? Yes, it is an ancient topic (the use of ß on en-wiki), but this is one of the most prominent articles in which this issue is of significance. Given your experience, your input would be very much appreciated. Unschool (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

GA sweeps: Mummy

Hello, as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force, I have conducted a Good Article reassessment of Mummy, to which you have been a major contributor. I have a few concerns that should be addressed if the article is to remain listed as a GA. If you are able to help out, the reassessment can be found here. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello West London Dweller! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 103 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. David Stoddart, Baron Stoddart of Swindon - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Move

The page "Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Candidate lists to be migrated to Wiktionary" has been moved to "User:West London Dweller/What Wikipedia is not-Candidate lists to be migrated to Wiktionary" -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Floating breech for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Floating breech, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floating breech until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sadads (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

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) 18:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, RIOJA-2, has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "RIOJA-2" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 22:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Vanco

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Vanco requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from https://www.linkedin.com/pub/pavlina-tomasova/3a/191/a92. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Mdann52talk to me! 18:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Bell 212A

The article Bell 212A has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (software) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:53, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of FARLAND

The article FARLAND has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication this passes WP:NCORP/WP:GNG. WP:BEFORE shows few mentions in passing/press-releases/routine business-as-usual. WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES.

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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)