I am the creator of the Kenneth Chiacchia page. I am creating a series on Pittsburgh Writers of a particular genre which have achieved notoreity by a minimum of 10-15 publications. the style is well-documented. Some of the new articles will be stubs. Botendaddy (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

[1]

The facts are sourced. Can you read in Spanish?. Thank you for your attention. Randroide (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I avoided the use of ref tags because the article is a composite from three different sources, so it would be an herculean task to reference which source states which fact. Therefore, I choose the "shotgun" referencing style of referencing "in toto". CU!. Randroide (talk) 09:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi.. sorry about that. I have no idea why the notification shows up on your page. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 09:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

No prob. Does it automatically go out to all editors of that page? That would hit me for the notice I left on him

I suppose it must have done.. odd. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 10:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Happy to help. --Dweller (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Robert B. Stephan is a senior official at the United States Department of Homeland Security. Why was the article tagged for deletion? Thanks. Patrick burns1 (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

PLEASE LEAVE IT, IT IS ABOUT A VERY FAMOUS DIET

I added a suspected sock, from yesterday. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to contest the speedy deletion of Israela Oron. She is quite notable- she reached the highest rank a woman can reach in the Israel Defense Forces and served for 27 years, serves on several boards, etc. *myl2000* (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)— &my12000* (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Reply

I declined the speedy; the article is basically ganked from the 1890 edition of the DNB, and there was internal evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I created the Citay article and you flagged it for cleanup needed. Can you give me a hint as to what it needs? Thanks Pocopoquito (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your help. I updated it and think it looks good. I'm assuming someone else will remove the "needs cleanup" tag but let me know if I should do that (assuming it's all good now). Pocopoquito (talk) 21:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It seems you have tagged the article "AssociazioneVolontari Italiani Sangue" for speedy deletion on the grounds of non notability. The article clearly mentioned that the association brings together "over a million volunteers" and that it was a major non-lucrative organization in Italy. Do you think a million people is not notable? Bottom line: please don't be hasty in deleting what you don't know. Stefano (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please can you explain why you have elected to delete the Northern Exposure Rescue page?

The club is an extremely popular club invovled in many notable events on the River Thames in the United Kingdom. Please make arrangements to re-instate the page immediately.

It should be made clear to you that deleting pages in a rush that you don't think are important or notable is a recipe for disaster. Your opinon of what is important will differ dramtically from others. Tollerance is very important to Wikipedia.

I look forward to you re-instating the page as soon as possible.

Thanks

Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clowe01 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot for your message and link (math jargon)! Please do talk in the future, if time permits.

Math jargon is different from physics in many ways: (i) it is rather "educational" (learned and developed while teaching), (ii) has solid literature support, and is (iii) largerly lacking abbreviations and acronyms. (i) is the big problem with physical sciences - those terms I described are not taught in universities and physicists mostly don't bother describing them in separate articles. Having said that, I shall try to scrap references (dig out original papers where usually the term history is described, for the first and usually last time) and keep the page of blowing off (by knocking of medical and computer sciences). If those sciences will push too hard, we better rename "scientific" into more physics related. At the moment, right word doesn't come to me which covers physics related sciences (+materials +chemistry +nanotechnology, etc.; the problem is that most techniques there are used by wide range of sciences).

Regarding duplicating Wikipedia acronyms and abbreviations from other pages, the situation in my field is rather gloomy - for many terms I listed I had to write the main article, "redirect" or definition on wikipedia. In other words, I'm trying to look relevant wikipedia pages and fix them, thus joined the physics project ;-) hoping to help .. NIMSoffice (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

A few more notable and credible references have been added including a quote from the New York Daily News. Additionally, in an effort to further establish credibility and noteworthiness, an additional award with a credible reference link has been added. Thanks again for your feedback.Jaiesi (talk) 20:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I didn't so much agree with what you said as with the way you said it at User talk:NIMSoffice#Scientific jargon -- not that I'm wanting to disagree. No. I'm just wanting to emphasize style over substance in this unique instance.

I'm really quite pleased with your approach to constructive criticism. I like it that you try to explain a problem and then you also refer to an article which can be used as a comparative standard. The tone of language is just right, finely balanced. I intend to come back to this posting again in the future; and I definitely plan to plagiarize the following sentences:

"The original research and and unreferenced tags go hand-in-hand. There are some external links but no indication of where each particular fact in the is coming from."

On several occasions, I've tried to explain the same thing, but never with so few words. In such circumstances -- regrettably, my unsuccessful prose has inspired only cursory dismissal, rejection or perhaps WP:TL;DR.

Your modest words suggest a better way for me to get my point across. Thanks. --Tenmei (talk) 14:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You asked that Dallas Defenders Football Team be taken out of Wikipedia. You stated it was a stretch to be called "semi pro". The NPSFL (National Public Safety Football League) falls under the AFA (American Football Association). There are teams from the NAFL which fall under AFA and they are listed in Wikipedia. What would your criteria be for actually being considered a "semi pro" team? I play in the NPSFL as a football player. I have played against Division I and Division II college players as well as a few ex NFL players in this league. This is far more competition that I have faced while playing in another "semi pro" league. I never got paid for playing in the other "semi pro" league, nor do I get paid in the NPSFL. I actually raise money for charity to play. If you are looking for websites for credibility then just go to NPSFL.com or americanfootballassn.com or Dallasdefendersfootball.org

Dallas Defenders have played an exhibition game last year and has begun their season with a win this past weekend. So the argument they haven't played a game yet is no longer acurate.

70.129.128.174 (talk)RoMac —Preceding undated comment added 05:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC).Reply

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello TheMolecularMan! 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. Global message delivery 13:34, 26 October 2011 (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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi TheMolecularMan,

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.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply