Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the
Article Wizard
.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon }}
to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Supertouch (talk ) 11:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
In general I am finding your interventions on pages I am editing amusing at worst, useful at best. Its always good to have another set of eyes looking at articles. You do need to be careful though. Aside from some silly repetition of dubious points after they have been answered, you are bordering on
WP:HOUND which you might want to read. Following editors to other articles is one established way of expanding your watch list on fields of interest. eg. I generally keep an eye on NLP pages for example, so your edit there brought me the NLP association page. However following an individual editor onto a range of pages just for the sake of it, in particular if you always take a position in respect of that editor is frowned on and can lead to blocks etc. You've done good work on some articles, don't spoil that by pushing the limits on accepted community behaviour. --
Snowded TALK 12:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
So, when you follow me around that's OK? Not so long ago you incorrectly accused me of only editing NLP pages. Then, when I see what I can learn from watching your famous "expertise" in action, you can't cope. Don't treat other people in ways that you don't want to be treated yourself. You've conveniently forgotten that I took your part on talk) 14:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
See comment "useful at best" above, if you had taken up a nonsense position at Richard Llewellyn I think I would have given up on you. If anyone edits an NLP page in a partisan way then I check to see if there are other NLP articles being spawned that I don't have on watch. Thats normal. Following an editor around to multiple pages making the same points again and agin even when they have been answered is not the same thing. Its good for you to diversify your edits but try and focus on the content. I'm coping fine by the way, just giving you a hint before something gets serious. Your call if you take any notice or not but don't say I didn't try and help and make you aware of policy. --Snowded TALK 19:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
You're not trying to help, you're trying to be right. You clearly believe that your opinion is of the greatest importance and seem to think that I should share that belief. talk) 00:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
Hmm. Long time ago, but my recollection is that I learned this from a BBC Wales documentary about him. It must have been after the publication of "Who's Who in Welsh History" (1997) by...er...me, because I have him listed there just as Richard Llewellyn Lloyd. Deb (talk ) 17:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
I don't remember, but I'm thinking it was probably part of a series, such as "The Slate", because they don't usually do one-off documentaries. I'm not 100% sure it was even BBC, now I come to think of it (though it's more likely). Deb (talk ) 22:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
Hi. Have a look at my recent changes to the BI article. I think that I managed to maintain the Angevin aspect while retaining the overall and more recognizable "Norman" aspect too. Wotapalaver (talk ) 18:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
I was too slow. When I submitted my reply to Mastcell, you had already applied your update. I put in my reply to Mastcell, followed by your posting, and then replied to your posting too. Oldspammer (talk ) 00:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
The Royal Rife article was the subject of a deletion debate (probably twice).
The ONLY reason that the Royal Rife article was kept the prior (and this) time was that it was able to demonstrate that Rife was a famous medical quack / science fraud that pushed fake / fraud science to cure diseases. If the article begins to show that Rife is accepted, or was good, or things of that nature, the the article will likely be up for "deletion vote" again by the allopathic medical interest group here on wikipedia. If you want to know why, then I can comment further. Oldspammer (talk ) 06:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[ reply ]
The draft with BBC & Independent citations now appears under Demographics. However the citn for pp. 20 ff of the census guidance was a technical problem so I hope it can be added by another editor. The Launcells survey & Hosking's article are worth a brief mention though the discussion shows more opposition to them.--Felix folio secundus 11:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
What error did you get? talk) 11:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
The pdf file gives an option to download or save but when saved Adobe reported the file was damaged. I needed the whole filename to include in the citation but could only see part of it.--Felix folio secundus 11:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Check the source of my link . talk) 12:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
Thank you; it will have to wait until later today as I have other matters for attention now.--Felix folio secundus 13:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the
Off2riorob (
talk ) 23:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
[ reply ]
Thanks for uploading
, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions . Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk ) 22:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[ reply ]
Nlp
Apologies for the vandalism tag the iPad is little sensitive
I meant to revert and advise you to take your odd interpretation of OR to the relevant forum
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
]
Hello, AJRG. 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
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 ]
Hello, AJRG. Voting in the
2017 Arbitration Committee elections
is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page . MediaWiki message delivery (talk ) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[ reply ]