Find out more about this exiting new user right now at [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers|'''''New Page Reviewers''''']] and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Find out more about this exiting new user right now at [[Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Reviewers|'''''New Page Reviewers''''']] and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. [[User:MediaWiki message delivery|MediaWiki message delivery]] ([[User talk:MediaWiki message delivery|talk]]) 04:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Kudpung@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Mailing2&oldid=749223519 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Kudpung@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Reviewers/Mailing2&oldid=749223519 -->
== [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest|Women in Red World Contest]] ==
Hi. We're into the last five days of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/The World Contest|Women in Red World Contest]]. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
<!-- Message sent by User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=WiR_list_2&oldid=812113507 -->
Revision as of 03:10, 26 November 2017
Vanished user 909146283013 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia once RL work and wikipolitics settle down and he feels like editing articles instead of policies. He will still check here for messages at least once a week.
Welcome!
Hello, Vanished user 909146283013, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Also welcome to the mathematics wikiproject. You will probably want to add Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to your watchlist which is where most discussion happen.
Fastest doggone mouse in the West! Thanks for the chuckle!
Lucky 6.9 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!
Municipal elections
I thought of this possibility a while ago, but I think it's better to have them as separate articles (most of the time, at least). The 1995 Winnipeg article could be expanded quite extensively, for instance. CJCurrie05:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sif license
what should be fixed in order this page to be suitable? after all this is my license agreement and as such it has some value i think:) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ctalkep (talk • contribs) 05:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Actually, I'm on self-imposed hiatus since I seem to be doing more new page patrolling and less editing which means more people whose articles I delete get to scream at me. :) - Lucky 6.923:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your third opinion on the issue. I'm not entirely sure what you were recommending for the article, but if you'd be in favor of deleting the business about later elections on the grounds that it's OR and focusing more on the controversy itself than the abortion issue, then I think that's a fine resolution. However, I'm not entirely sure if the other editor and I are likely to reach a compromise as such. That said, he hasn't addressed the changes either way, except the one about whether abortion was mentioned vs. debated at the convention, so maybe he's OK with what you suggested and just didn't say so. In any case, I suspect that more discussion/help is needed. Croctotheface18:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hectagon. I see a large majority for Delete, redirect, or merge; there is no consensus for any one of these courses; but there is general agreement that we don't need this stub.
The discussion at Talk:Tricosagon involved one other editor, and ended with my proposal to replace the redirect, so I see no reason to believe anyone but Nardman1 is interested in saving that stub as a separate article either.
In addition, hectagon is a nonce-word, badly formed and rarely used, and when it is used it's a misspelling of hexagon or heptagon.
Therefore:
The articles should stay redirects. Whether they should exist as stubs has already been discussed at the AfD.
They were stubs, when not redirects; containing a dictionary definition, a diagram, and in one case, a factoid about Michelob.
I don't care whether the diagrams go into Polygon; I'm not going to do it, because I don't think they add much; polygons of this number of sides look like circles.
I dispute the defintions; I will dispute them if I see them anywhere on Wikipedia.
The Michelob can is actually a prism; and the factoid is in Prism (geometry). It can stay there.
I dispute, quite strongly, that hectagon is a real word; and I dispute that it means a 100-sided polygon; hect- exists only as an obsolete metric prefix, the Greek is hekaton. We should avoid it under WP:NEO. I dispute that tricontagon and its siblings are correctly spelled; it should be tricosagon, like icosagon. But as long as they are redirects (which is what I support) none of this matters. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson05:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing of the mathematics or the linguistics of it. I specialize in Wikipedia deletions. I respect Pmanderson's scholarship...in fact she's probably right...the hectagon article is misnamed. But I disagree about the redirects. There was no strong consensus at afd for merge or redirect. I also think tricosagon should remain a separate article, as at least one other editor wants the article to remain separate [1]. Nardman123:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence for this. Georgia guy's position was that if kept separate, it should be elsewhere; which may be right, but is not the same thing. Nor has he objected to the redirection. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson06:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a process wonk myself; but the AfD's raw count, by my figures, is 21 delete, merge or redirect to 8 keeps + Coricus's keep or merge. That's 73%. This is as large a discussion on the subject as we are ever likely to have, and it is fairly good support for suppressing the articles. Since Nardman1 does not profess to evaluate the arguments behind the !votes, I do not see the grounds for taking out the redirects.
I see two actual keep arguments:
Surely this can grow, which AfD has never received well; especially when (as here) without evidence.
Let's save the pictures, because they look so much like circles.
As you may appreciate from reading my talk page and the relevant discussion page, I had considerable conflict from many opposing the introduction of basic concepts (argued by respected physicists) regarding the flagrant inapplicability of "geometric series" to solve Zeno's Paradoxes.
I concluded that Wikipedia was not of sufficient quality or merit to warrant more of my interest.
Unfortunately, it has been my advice to friends, colleagues and professional academics (subsequent to my -- what became an -- inert mediation request) that Wikipedia is a "rubbish site" -- it has proved deficient in intellectual rigour and is, in my opinion, unsuitable for professional interest or involvement.
However ... I'll consider what you have to say ... perhaps I was wrong in my judgement and did not allow sufficient time for the relevant editing processes (your mediation) to work.
I e-mailed Steaphen and left talk page messages, but got no response. Only one person has commented on the mediation page, and that was a week ago. There are clearly some issues on the article talk page, and the article failed a Good Article review and was demoted. {{fact}} flags have sprouted all over the article lead. In short, nothing is getting resolved. I'm not going to force mediation down anyone's throat, so, if nothing happens by Sunday evening, I'm going to re-close the case for lack of interest, which is a shame because this article has issues that are totally resolvable if everyone would just listen to each other and be open to compromise. --JaimeLesMaths(talk!edits)19:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jaime, thank you for offering to mediate. I did not receive your notification (the email address I assigned to Wikipedia was getting a lot of Spam, so I discontinued the account).
I reviewed the mediation page and noted the comment that I "sprout" ... ideas in QM which have nothing to do with an engineer's world? (Try telling Intel engineers that "fact"). Once again, many engineers may indeed use classical mathematical models to work solutions, but they are not able to be validated on quantum scales. Such models clearly cannot be used to resolve Zeno's Paradoxes. In time, this will become increasingly obvious. Geometric series are simply not able to explain the movement of an arrow as it traverses the finer (quantum) scales of movement.
As a result of the irrational intransigence over this topic, I have lost any further interest in dialogue at this site. I've returned here, as a courtesy to you, and to thank you for your efforts. I will say this: I will use the material at Wikipedia as a case study in fear and avoidance. As a writer I expect I'll be showing the parallels between religious fear and ignorance in Galileo's time and current fear regarding Zeno's Paradoxes. They are remarkable examples of how people can become embedded in dogmatic systems of belief, even though there is glaringly obvious experimental evidence to show the current belief system is invalid. I think the lesson I have learned is that without providing a new congruent system of belief, people --despite the clear irrationality of doing so-- will hold on to what deep world-view beliefs they have, and, if history is a guide, will fight to the death to hold those beliefs (or will kill others who might undermine those beliefs if they do so without offering a more congruent world-view).
ps. Rest in peace, Galileo. Who can blame you for recanting after seeing what they did to Giordano.
Community enforceable mediation has gone into experimental rollout. Thanks for volunteering as a mediator trainee. We'll be in touch as this develops. DurovaCharge!04:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315
Commodore Sloat and Armon have begun mediation. For training purposes we'll be discussing the case by e-mail. I have a gmail account where we can chat as needed (if you have gmail too). Should you wish to comment directly to the participants, community input is welcome at this page. Best regards, DurovaCharge!09:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot06:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematics CotW
Hey Jaime, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm14422:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm Ral315, editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost. It appears that you have not edited in at least a few months. To avoid spamming your talk page any further, should you be on leave, your name has been removed from the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to continue receiving the Signpost on your talk page, please leave a note on my talk page to that effect, and I will restore your name, and keep you on the list indefinitely. Ral315 (talk) 07:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed from Signpost spamlist
Hi! I'm Ral315, editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost. It appears that you have not edited in at least a few months. To avoid spamming your talk page any further, should you be on leave, your name has been removed from the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to continue receiving the Signpost on your talk page, please leave a note on my talk page to that effect, and I will restore your name, and keep you on the list indefinitely. Ral315 (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
New Page Patrol survey
New page patrol – Survey Invitation
Hello Vanished user 909146283013! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.
Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
