User talk:StopTheFiling
For my replies to the below please refer to the user page of the person who wrote the comment - thanks.
Howabout1 -- In case you're wondering, I moved your list to my user page. Thanks again for the info! StopTheFiling 18:56, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
I'm puzzled by your change of the gramatically correct "also spelt Tiruchirappalli" to the incorrect "also spelled as Tiruchirappalli". Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Replied on your talk page under spelt vs spelled... -- thanks. StopTheFiling 18:04, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. There's nothing wrong with "spelled" as an alternative to "spelt", though making an edit to change it would be odd — it's the "as". The word for a common canine pet is spelt "d-o-g"; it's not spelt as "d-o-g". I suppose that there might be a U.S./U.K. difference here, but I'd never come across the "as" construction in U.S. English either. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:36, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I imagine that you'll find other examples, such as "burnt", "leant", "learnt", "smelt", etc., similarly surprising? Here, at least, the two forms co-exist.
Actually, I've just checked Fowler, and find that he suggests that there had been a move away from the "-t" forms, but that that was being reversed (this was in the sixties). My guess (but it's only a guess) is that they're about equal now, with perhaps a slight preference for the "-t" forms. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:27, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The t form is predominant in Hiberno-English, widely used in British English and also used in most international versions of English other than American English. So under Wikipedia language rules spelt is perfectly OK to use and certainly would be the version used automatically in many international articles. FearÉIREANN
(talk) 23:23, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
VFD
[edit]Could you please revisit Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Finnish Socialist Workers' Republic? The article has been rewritten and I don't want it deleted unnecessarily. AndyL 4 July 2005 05:34 (UTC)
Dear friend
[edit]Thanks for your coment!
The fact is: Shia and Sunni's agree that the was more than 100 000 Sahaba. That is not a dipute. Has not been. Is not. Will not be. Ever.
The only reason that it is deleted is that the budist User:Zora does not belive that number is accurate. Wikipedia does not care for her POV. Put she is geting away with it anyway, her personal pov is hindering the fact that sunni and shia agree on this fact to be represented on Wikipedia.
This is how what the Budhist User:Zora refuses me to have on the Sahaba article:
- There is broad agreement among Muslims that there were, under this definition, more than 100,000 Sahaba.
NOw, take a close look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sahaba&diff=18336321&oldid=18336234
Did you see who wrote that? it was User:BrandonYusufToropov, a sunni!
I get so damn angry that a Budhist can supres information a shia and a sunni agree on!
did you read his comment?
- style edit -- everyone ok with this? (Also, I believe there is universal agreement on the part of Muslims on precious little)
read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Sahaba&diff=next&oldid=18336321
the Buhdist reverts and writes:
- Dang it, no pious fabrications as fact
--Striver 00:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
And on top of that, they team up on a smear campaign agaist me!
--Striver 00:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
--Striver 00:22, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I must say that im glad that somebody agrees with me, if you look at the history, everybody ganged upp on me. If you feel the line Brandon sugested is NPOV and encyclopedic, i would be greatfull if you inserted it in the article in the appropiat place.
Best regards! --Striver 17:43, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Why would you change "The perioikoi were..." to "The perioikoi was..."? Michael Hardy 21:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
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) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billina until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.