User talk:Mdwh

Hello, Mdwh, and

• If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
• Always sign your posts on talk pages!
  That way, others will know who left which comments.
• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Simplified Ruleset
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Wikipedia Glossary
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the
  Topical index
  .

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Hey - if Deathrocker keeps adding the sentence about "nu emo" to the article, don't be afraid to remove it. The admins are already aware of his history of

• Please put some content in your user page.
  Danny Lilithborne 22:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There was nothing rude in my revert - to be honest, the addition itself looked like vandalism (yet another "some ppl on MySpace do such-and-such). You reverted, and then I took it to the Talk page, explaining my reasons, rather than engaging in an edit war. I don't see the need to justify everything one reverts on a talk page first time round, just as there is no need for everyone to justify every addition on the talk page. Did you explain your revert on the talk page, first time round? No. I've already brought this up on the talk page, before you posted this here, so I don't see what the point of bringing this up here is rather than debating the issue there. Mdwh 02:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I justified my revert in the edit summary. You didn't bother. And you have now removed sourced information without sufficient explanation, except that you don't think it's "notable". You have not "debated it" on the talkpage. You didn't actually "debate it" anywhere. Your response is here, on your talkpage, not on mine, which I am only seeing by chance because I have come to ask why you have removed sourced information. It may not be notable that a large user community has nudity (although Wikipedia, a comparable community, does not have nude photos of its users that I know of), but it's of note that it specifically disallows it, that it still happens, and that it has been noted in the press. Not just that, but it is the stated reason for some schools' action against the site. Now I don't know what your standard of "notability" is, but I ask you to reconsider. Notability is not good grounds for censoring critical elements of a Wikipedia article, particularly when it's easy enough to establish it, as I have.

James James 06:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no requirement to discuss every change on Wikipedia before making it (see

Wikipedia:Be Bold and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

).

Lastly, I'm replying here and not your talk page because you posted on my talk page, and it's awkward to split a discussion across two pages. Mdwh 22:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to listing at

Howdy, the idea behind my edit of the Garbage description was to make it OS and country inclusive. Rather than compare something to one concept why not broaden it to something that a lot more people can relate to? Sure, 95% of people use Windows and 100% of people reading WP are from the USA (lol jokeing) But isn't assuming that your reader knowns only one simile being a bit narrow in your POV? (BTW all the Apples running OSX at my Uni refer to it as the wastebasket and I'm not in the UK)

I'm okay with leaving it as it stands but if you reconsider your stance then ... yay! Cheers, Monotonehell 14:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree the important thing is that AmigaOS called it "trashcan". Mabey we should search to see if there are any more articles like

Recycle Bin

article makes it sound like Win95 invented the concept and all other OSs 'renamed' it to "trash". How misleading.

Of course this would require a load of research and making a little historical "trash through the ages" essay. Sounds like work .. yuck. lol Monotonehell

The originator of the Series put them on stuff we were editing (which was clearly about the Bisexual community). We were surprised, but assumed that it was just someone using "Gay Pride" in the generic sense and they meant what might currently be termed LGBT Pride.

So while finally getting around to some "housekeeping" we added them to relevant some "linked" articles to be polite.

But since you are the second person who has questioned it, I have already gone back to Series originator explained what happened and asked that very question.

We'll wait for answer and then proceed from there. Is that OK? CyntWorkStuff 23:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a nice elimination of those parenthetical words. Well done. I have no idea what they meant, but I'm a bit timid with that particular article just at the moment. It's easy to stir up trouble on it inadvertently. :tape: Metamagician3000 08:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did a whole lot yesterday to polish it back up as much as I could, and I see that you and others have since done a bit of work. I reckon this has now become a good article. How far away from featured article quality do you think it is? I suppose it might need more references to support it, but otherwise it looks like good stuff to me. Metamagician3000 07:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to thank you for the pratical reverts you've done to the page recently. That's all :) --Adrift* 09:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I've been messing considerably with the Amiga article, all in good faith of course. Please let me know what you think of the changes. I want to do some more but I don't want to go too far without knowing that there is consensus behind what I'm doing. Long live the Amiga. - Richardcavell 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Amiga Format magazine (probably the most reliable print source) definitely seems to regard AA and AGA as two different things, though they are similar. Look at my discussion under

Mdwh, sorry, I got it all wrong. Please feel free to undo all the separation of AA/AGA that I've done. (But the technical details are otherwise correct!) - Richardcavell 02:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I note your change to the Amiga article owing to Escom's re-release of the A1200 and A4000. Were these the original technology? Were they PowerPC variants? - Richardcavell 03:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Scuse me butting in, just passing through and I noticed your question :) The A1200 and A4000 were both 680x0 variants. There has never been a dedicated Amiga PPC mobo. Some accelerator cards for the classic Amigas utilized PPC's, and Eyetech's AmigaOne mobo is also PPC, but I believe that is basically just a generic PPC mobo marketed by Eyetech.

So you're interested in both Amiga computers and BDSM! Are you an atheist too? JIP | Talk 09:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm getting in touch as you've done recent work on the self-harm article. I've done a fair bit of study on this subject recently, so reckon I'm in a position to go through and get a good load of citations in there. What I propose, is moving to using the tag to make this easier, and then I'll go through and get citations in, and replace some of the "some people" type areas with referenced viewpoints, trying to get multiple view is where there are opposing views. Obviously this'll involve a bit of rewriting and adding so I wondered if you have any feedback on this before I start. Acidsaturation 07:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - have been working on the psychology section a bit - Realised when I started going through it that it needed quite abit of work - lots of repetition, also I had a few bits I wanted to add.. I'm working on it here : User:Acidsaturation/notebook#Psychology_section_in_progress if you want to have a look - i'd welcome input. Acidsaturation 16:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your user page was originally created by a vandal, and you blanked it. Because I'm an admin, I can delete your user page if you don't want to have anything there. Would this be OK? JIP | Talk 18:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Mdwh. Just to let you know that the reason I removed the qualifier "pre-emptive" and replaced it with "true" under the Amiga OS section is because I thought the "pre-emptive" qualifier was a bit too technical for that part of the article. I figured the average reader would only need to understand that the Amiga was multitasking, which is a major feature which set it apart from its rivals. If one adds the qualifier "pre-emptive", an uninformed reader might wrongly assume that it just had a different form of multitasking to the other machines then available. I haven't reverted your change though.

Really though, the whole OS section needs a rewrite, since it almost exclusively talks about the Amiga's lack of memory protection, which hardly gives an accurate description of the unique features of the OS. I've only written it that way because I started out by making some minor adjustments to someone else's contribution. I don't really have the time to do a rewrite ATM. Regards, Gatoclass 06:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's where it was supposed to go, thanks.Bridesmill 12:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My dear editor friends, we have a dispute to resolve.

It seems that we three only had taken care of this argument AVM. Other people prefer not commenting it.

This page has stated during Voting for Deletion it has not to be deleted but to be merged into 68k article.

It has been removed the Request for Undeletion, because infactAVM article it has been not decided for deletion.

But merging with 68K is a mistake and sure I can't merge this article into 68k. Else I will commit a false, and I don't want to.

Amiga Anywhere and ABOX have nothing in common with 68k code.

Just Amithlon while booting it starts an environment in which 68K code runs natively and ABOX has both built-in 68K code interpreter as long with PPC Amiga WarpUP interpreter (WarpUP is PPC Amiga executable fileformat for the Amiga classic subsystem running on CPU expansion card qith PPC 601 and 603e processor).

It seems to me that: Ljl he said that it could be started Amiga Anywhere article. He said there is no virtual machine that it could be considered Amiga Machine he also said I created a neologism.

I don't understood Mdwh position if he want article deleted at all, or just condsidered AVM as not correct at all and the arguments have to be dropped.

To both of you editors I remember that AVM is NOT a neologism. It is commonly used amongst amigans, but evidenceds I had bringing seems not convince you both.

But sure AVM is no a neologism. It is just a CATEGORY name which groups in a summary some brief informations about various objects with common characteristics.

The three existing Amiga VM (note that I just drop the fourth, Petunia, because has different characteristics which brings it into some sort of emulator like multi-purpose program) it is far more pratical that all three these arguments should have a common article which LISTS all the three virtual environments here in ONE article with AVM name.

It is just necessary because of reasons of logical order and search purposes by users of Wikipedia.

It could be that users searching for any kind of virtual machines want to access that data.

So there they can find just a summary of the three amiga VM. Else ifthey want refine their search only if they want to, by clicking on a single Virtual environment link and seek for its complete article.

(Example: it is just as Music ->Folk Music or Classical or Rock Music, then searching for Rock Music->Hard Rock.

At this point the user could refine the search in Hard Rock or decide other choices.

With AVM article existing the user could make these choices: Computer->Amiga->AVM->Amiga Anywhere or Computer->Virtual Machine->Amiga Virtual Machine, etc.)

This is my point of view. I will send a copy of it to both of you to define this dispute.

If we could find an agreement as Wikipedia advices as a first step of dispute resolving, then it will be fine to me.

If not, then sure we three had had follow all the steps for a friendly resolution and in the end I could start a Request for Comment, as long it has been decided this article could not be undeleted, just because the fact it has never been deleted.

Sincerely,--Raffaele Megabyte 01:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. My main concern is that for a global encyclopedia, there is a large portion of the world's population to whom "Goth" would refer to the Germanic tribes or a style of literature/architecture and not the modern subculture. I will make sure that I have time to change the redirects first if I make any future changes. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, you aren't kidding. So it is, so it shall stay. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 02:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could add some web pages from Finnish BDSM organisations, but they'll mostly be in Finnish, or in the best case badly translated English. I am amazed at how bad English Finnish BDSM organisations have on their webpages.

thanks for your message. I'm not sure you're au fait with what's actually happened here: no article has been re-created, and the AfD result was not relevant here.

As for why "AfD consensus can be ignored" — excuse me if this sounds a little impolite, but ... that's a very silly way of looking at the way we carry out deletion on Wikipedia. An article on "Mall goth" was AfDed, and the content was deleted as a result — that is no impediment to the creation of a new article, or a redirect, by the same name. AfD doesn't say "you cannot have an article by this name", and sometimes it doesn't even say "you cannot have an article about this thing". It just means, "This article, as it currently stands, is not groovy enough for Wikipedia." fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 10:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please refer to talk page Somerset219 01:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strong atheist revert

didn't mean to revert you like that, I was looking at 2 things at once. In other words, there was nothing wrong with your revert. Somerset219 23:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I though It best to save the content while we still could befoe deletion occured.--Lucy-marie 14:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sorry to step on your toes. Your rev looks fine. Atom 11:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi, i've made some big structural changes, and as i see you're involved with both the

Hi. Thank you for your work and I will be even more careful about my edits in the future. At the same time, I'd also like to bring to your attention Wikipedia's revert etiquette.

I noticed you disagreed with the listcruft thing on List of fictional self-harmers. There's a continuing discussion at Talk:List of fictional self-harmers, if you want to get involved. Thanks. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 18:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That bisexuality doesn't require a 50-50 split is precisely what I was saying; the whole point is that there are studies, including one within the past year or two that got a lot of media attention, which do seem predicated on the false assumption that bisexuality has to be perfectly 50-50 and that therefore anybody who isn't right in the middle is "not really bisexual". Bearcat 01:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to come up with an alternate wording. I do think it's worth including something along these lines, though, because it's pretty hard to deny that some people do still think bisexuality requires perfectly equal attraction to both genders, and that anybody who has a distinguishable preference is therefore "lying". Bearcat 01:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you deleted "Conjoinment" from the list of

Bobobovary 13:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here's a collective bargaining agreement on line. I could put that in if it were to satisfy you, but I have a hand in posting it as well, so if I put it in, then THAT becomes a problem for some people. Take a look: http://www.geocities.com/usw_local_6520/cba.html.

Do you want to put it in so you can remove the tag for lack of references?

I see your point in this, but do you also need a reference that the Pope is catholic?Achim 01:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look now and see if you like it please. Achim 00:32, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Not sure how I did that, but it was the exact opposite of what I intended. Fixed now, and thanks for pointing it out :-) --Calair 04:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why did you remove my links and call them spam? The links were to a free program created with open source software, besides being germain to the aritcles. In what universe is that considered spam?

Hi Mdwh. I'm the guy who trimmed the polls data, reasons being: 1. It takes up about 12% of the article length. 2. The public generally have little understanding of the scheme. 3. Public reaction to the scheme (NO2ID aside) has been unremarkable. 3. Polls are inherently inaccurate.

Agree the 80% figure could be misleading. I think the only relevant information from polls is: a) An initially high level of support. b) An ongoing trend of falling support. c) Most recent poll data from reliable pollster.

Mindjuicer 17:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summarising with costs is fine by me. I have no objections to you creating a polls page either. :)

Mindjuicer 23:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mdwh, remember that saying "explicit, positive atheism" is essentially the exact same thing as saying "

You've got your logic wrong - yes, all strong atheists are explicit, but not all explicit atheists are strong. There exist explicit weak atheists (such as myself). Mdwh 02:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When on earth did I ever say anything to the contrary? You're jumping to ridiculous conclusions. -Silence 02:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said "explicit, positive atheism" is essentially the exact same thing as saying "strong atheism". If you're not saying they're the same, then I guess we agree, but I'm not sure what you are saying? Mdwh 11:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's essentially the same because

strong atheism is both explicit and positive. The definition of strong atheism is "positive atheism", and explicit atheism is a necessary (though not sufficient) characteristic of strong atheism. -Silence 13:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

The polls are now a sub-page with a summary. I have done extensive work on the article. Extra pairs of eyes on such a contentious topic are always welcome if you have the time? Ta --

Spartaz 21:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Anyway, I have examined the Dobson sources and determined that they cannot be used as reliable sources in this article, as they do not have peer review for their scientific claims.[1] I invite you to stay involved in the progress of that article; there's only one other active editor there at the moment. — coelacan — 21:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you have a bit of troll on your userpage. :,(Zvyer 05:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mdwh, I notice that while snipping unsourced info from

Thanks for the reply. The pic has been re-added :) Bards 22:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Neo-Gothic" has been recreated as Neo-Gothic art movement, but seems to be the same article. The same editor has recreated a deleted article on one of the artists as well. Since you were the original nom. for "Neo-Gothic", I was wondering if it had significantly changed. I've added a notability tag, as this seems to be NN, with only one POV link as a source. Freshacconci 17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to salvage the article, but I realized that the bulk of it was a long list of people who are openly bisexual and of media portrayals of bisexuality. link. The problem I had with your edit was asserting that the term refers to cultural acceptance of bisexuality. I don't think that's correct. I think it signifies cultural awareness of bisexuality, but that it still dismisses it as a fad rather than accepting it as a legitimate orientation. I used the link you provided as a reference for the remaining sentence of the article.  :) Joie de Vivre 20:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It could be only the LJ thing, I just haven't actually gone thru all their stuff (for one thing my system slowly freezes up when I go there & they claim they have extensive trackback software up and running). So I was just trying to be careful.

It is shocking that they managed to casue so much of a flap though. Someone or several someones in corporate America is obviously scared of them for some reason. And I for one would like to know what it is. Where there is smoke there is fire, as they say. CyntWorkStuff 01:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You removed my link to the kids in trouble help page from the self injury page. While topics such as depression, child abuse and suicide are more prominent topics on the Kids in Trouble Help Page (KITHP) there definately are resources there for self injury (cutting) see the helplinks page, also see a number of the stories. Also the helplinks and the hotlines not to mention the stories are directly and sometimes indirectly helpful to kids and teens who cut. I will also be adding more helplinks and information for kids and teens who self injure. I would appreciate it if you return the link, before I do. I hope this clarifies. Endabusenow 18:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you are one of the people who voted against moving Emo(slang) to Emo(subculture). I voted the other way (although I think "social group" is equally good or better). Now, a source has turned up and I would like for you to take a moment to check it and reconsider. I am sorry if you have seen it before, as I am aware that this message (of which there are three) would otherwise be out of line or at least a waste of your time. The source is an abstract of an unpublished, peer-reviewed talk/paper given at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association 2003. It is called "Capturing the Structure of Musically-Based Youth Subcultures: The Case of ‘Emo’" and the abstract can be found here [[2]].

I personally think this is a very good source, as I think we can trust the American Sociological Association to accept papers that use sociological terms appropriately. I believe ignoring this source because is has not been published would be wrong, as we have the abstract, which is pretty clear on the matter. Despite ones view on the source's usefulness, I think one must at least admit that emo can rightfully be called a subculture and refraining from using this knowledge on wikipedia is kind of contrary to

Dolcett article has been speedy deleted. I wonder why. Hektor 10:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just discovered the move of the

The A4000T made by Commodore:
http://members.chello.hu/varga.gabor8/Amiga/4000T/Commodore_Amiga_4000T.jpg
The Commodore label:
http://members.chello.hu/varga.gabor8/Amiga/4000T/Commodore_Amiga_4000T_label.gif

The A4000T made by Escom:
http://members.chello.hu/varga.gabor8/Amiga/4000T/Escom_Amiga_4000T.jpg
The Escom (Amiga) label:
http://members.chello.hu/varga.gabor8/Amiga/4000T/Escom_Amiga_4000T_lapel.jpg

--Gona.eu 15:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support on the Sophie Lancaster deletion debate. --Machenphile (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a more rational response than i was able to muster ... i kept typing & thinking better. --Lquilter (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zillmann, Dolf: "Effects of Prolonged Consumption of Pornography", [4] is not simply a single study, but a review of the results from several controlled studies. Since the review was included in the Report of the Surgeon General's Workshop on Pornography and Public Health, it is highly probable that the review's description of the studies is accurate -- though, of course, the applicability of laboratory results to real-world phenomena is the subject of significant controversy. John254 07:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the Zillman study reviews several prior studies, all of which provide data and analysis supporting the claim that viewing of pornography produces supposedly undesirable sociological effects, I believe that it's reasonable to claim that "Some medical researchers assert that extensive viewing of pornographic material produces many sociological effects which they characterize as unfavorable...", citing Zillman as the source. John254 03:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to share it here. Thanks

I'm not going to object to you taking out polyamory from the BDSM article - it is a kind of borderline inclusion that I tossed in there because of the last paragraph of the introduction mentioning partners (plural) - but I am curious by what criteria you decide something is, or is not, part of BDSM? As near as I can tell, there is no central defining characteristic - I know, I looked hard when re-writing the intro a few weeks ago -- 70.54.22.62 (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey - fetishism is about the eroticization of things not normally eroticized. While this typically refers to objects (or body parts), the extension and its use is covered in the article. -- 70.54.22.62 (talk) 23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. From my read of the version tagged for speedy deletion, the bulk of the article was focused on criticism of the subject. The version immediately prior to deletion features a controversy section missing from the cached version you reference, which - with other material - means that about 85% of the readible prose in the article disparages the subject. There are sources, true, but there are also elements that bump up against

No objections from me - speedies can be recreated, so long as they don't duplicate the problems that caused them to be speedy deleted in the first place. Let me know if I can be of any other assistance, though. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added numerous external links to this article, which I believe speak to the notability brought into question. I think you will find that this band has a large international following. Beyond mere popularity (which, as detailed in WP:NOTE, is not synonymous with notability), I would challenge you to find a better example of this band's genre, which is described as being a fusion of classical and dark alternative genres.

If further notability questions exist, let me know and I will address them. I think at this point I have probably exceeded the justification requirements for the inclusion of this article, especially considering the fact that the article in question is only a stub.

SantaBarbarian (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful way you edited this article and the corollary at Royal Society. If I'd been in your position, I would have done several things at once and offered only a cursory summary; but in explaining step-by-step, you made it easy for me to understand in each instance why your edit choice was informed by a broader perspective than mine. In some cases, you addressed questions I'd asked myself without having a better alternative, e.g., that introductory phrase using the word "furor," and the deliberately redundant correspondence between the two "controversy" subsections in articles which didn't need to be congruent. In other instances, your edits focused on aspects of this story which required more caution and sensitivity than I'd been able to bring to the task, e.g., the introduction to the Roberts letter.

I do appreciate it when edits like yours help me to see how I can improve my writing. Again, thanks. --

I was just wondering why MyPolonia.com was removed from Social Network List? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Calisun (talk • contribs) 02:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In view of your edits to BDSM, please consider contributing at Strappado bondage DRV. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 12:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I won't go into detail on wiki about this, as it is hard to be comprehensive without discussing living individuals in a way that is less than flattering, but if you want to email me then I can give you the back-story as to why this is blacklisted. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mdwh, I removed the two links on the basis of the

• http://www.angusm.demon.co.uk/ is a self-published source (Angus Manwaring's personal homepage)
• Aminet allows anyone to upload a file [6] with no indication of editorial oversight.

I won't revert but if you're still not conviced, I'll ask at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to get another opinion. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Mdwh, thanks for replying. Sources used for notability use the same standards of reliability that references do. AGD is effectively a

WP:V#SELF

discusses the case of sources being used to provide information on articles about themselves; i.e. AGD being used to reference the AGD article, so isn't relevant here.)

I removed the image because it is a scan from Retro Gamer (from the same issue I cite in the article), and no acceptable fair-use rationale is provided with it (just [7]). In addition, it removes the context in which the review is provided; it's actually just a small box-out in a larger article about the game

Chaos

.

I'll look further into the possibility of Manwaring's site being an acceptable link. Marasmusine (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mdwh, just want to let you know I've queried The Amiga Games Database at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Amiga_Games_Database, thanks. Marasmusine (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you contributed to this article please note that because this is a bio of a living person, in order to not inadvertently violate wikipedia's standards it has been decided to thrash out some of the wording of the article on the talk page first. Additionally I have put in a short request for any expert assistance there might be out there on to the LGBT studies page. If interested, please take a look and add your thoughts. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought you implied Dawkins to a theist (typical mistake though ;-). Anyway, if you like to do so, feel free to remove my comment at atheism talk and keep your repaired original remark, as not to clutter the discussion with typo remarks. Arnoutf (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to some IP's comment at my talk page we're friends? Funny, as I don't think we've encountered one another... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is accomplished by marking the majority of sentences in a section with individual "[fix this]" type tags. If an article section is worthless, it should be deleted; if it has overall issues, a tag should be added up at the top of the section (as you also did)]; and if there are one or two problematic assertions, they should be tagged at the sentence-level -- but pockmarking a whole section with a numerous sentence-level tags is visually quite ugly, and does rather little to usefully spur article improvement, as far as I can tell... AnonMoos (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I assume it was an EC - but I didn't get the warning page. I was fixing it and go tan EC with your fix of my EC... Cheers, Verbal chat 23:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate. I've got no objection to using the term 'sex worker' if that's a more accurate term supported by the sources available. I am familiar with the media's tendency to inaccuracy and exageration, so I'm perfectly prepared to believe that the frequently used 'five prostitutes' claim is incorrect. The problem I've got is that none of the sources I have access to use that term and allof them use 'prostitute' -

Thanks for that. I can see the distinction they're drawing now. I agree that if we know (i.e. we have a reliable source) that the people involved objected to the term, then it's right to try and find a more suitable one (although I really want to avoid going into the details of the event in question in the article!). Cheers 4u1e (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mdwh. Per the stipulations at

I was asked to participate in the AfD of "Home and family blog". I looked up the relevant guidelines, and have posted them at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog for your consideration. The Transhumanist 21:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mdwh -- I removed the notability tag for MC Hawking that you added -- see Talk:MC_Hawking#removed_notability_tag -- I hope you agree? Joriki (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide a reason when editing instead of just "rv". This is not the proper way to edit an article. I've reverted a recent edit of your which had no reason. Dwigs (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reasons when making edits. Your edit has been undone. Dwigs (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not falsely accusing. Reasons were not given for the edit, so the change has been reverted. My friend has undone the change on another article using his account. Dwigs (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking these over, do you think there would be objections to this split? I'm not a deletionist so I don't have a problem but having experience with the atmosphere, I think some might consider them overly specific? One thing of importance is that if these are going to be divided by region that they receive equal treatment. Tyciol (talk) 06:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Some time in the past few months, you've contributed to a discussion about whether Sagan should be included in the List of nontheists. I'm taking a straw poll to see where people are at currently with regard to this issue. Your input on the matter would be very helpful. Please see the discussion here to contribute your viewpoint. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall reverting your removal of census data. I would also like to note that attributing census data to 'let's have a laugh at the religion question' is speculative. Other religions don't have their census phenomenon (basically, the media speculating about some results), and the major ones are completely bonkers!Ren ✉ 11:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia is not

").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to

sign your comments

with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

articles for deletion

template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a

talk) 01:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

State Atheism article is complete rubbish and propaganda

And I called out an editor on that article who has a clear COI, many of the "reliable" sources for that article have clear COI (they are anything but reliable or unbiased). The problem is I originally and mistakenly used your name instead of the editor who has the COI, I think I cleaned all that up on the talk page but I wanted to give you a head's up that I somehow confused his username with yours, at least when I was typing. My bad and my apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eyetech

Doesnt quote "it would have been far cheaper for us to have given all current board owners $500 each not to buy a board and walked away from the whole Amiga scene" state Eyetech made heavy losses there? Xorxos (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC) Edit: as I see it does not disagree with AmigaOne#Current_status -- MAI Logic went bankrupt and in addition Redhouse claims AmigaOne business was not profitable. Even worse this AmigaOne#Current_status is completely unreferenced. In fact, Eyetech Group Ltd stopped the sales of the MicroA1 due to the naturally ensuing lack of bridge chips and supply issues of processors from IBM is original research. Xorxos (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from

welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Ian Tomlinson

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Death of Ian Tomlinson, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Elvellian (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New additions in Comparison of tablet PCs

There are multiple issues with the new entries you added in Comparison of tablet PCs:

• Entries are added in alphabetical order
• Exact model number should be mentioned in the model column. In case of Samsung slate it's "700T".
• References should be added using the following "cite web" template:

<ref>{{cite web|url=http://blog.dawnofthegeeks.com/?p=534 |title=A-Star Path Finding |publisher=dawnofthegeeks.com |date=2009-05-15 |accessdate=2011-12-09}}</ref>

• Official samsung slate spec page says wifi is a/b/g/n not b/g/n
• If the official spec page doesn't mention GPS, we assume it does not have GPS
• Did you get 6.1h battery life from the verge reviewer stating "over 6 hours" battery? Laptopmag.com only got 5.82h (5:49) during their test. I think it's the more accurate number and it should be used.
• Official spec page states 0.86kg weight for the Samsung slate
• Archos 5 HDD and flash models should have separate entries as they differ a lot
• If you tried sorting "Older" table using "Display resolution" column, you would see that the entry you added doesn't sort correctly. We use <p style="display: none;">0</p> to fix that.
• Os version should be mentioned in the "Operating system" column. So it's Android 1.6 instead of just Android
• if you haven't noticed, battery life is measured during video playback. So only 7h battery life for Archos 5, instead of 22

Please fix all the issues I mentioned here ASAP!
Hakimio (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the entries for you this time. I hope next time you will keep in mind things I mentioned above. Hakimio (talk) 18:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited R18 certificate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bondage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

cchallag

Hi Can you please also write about the technology of PureView as it is the imaging technology and there are lot of people like me would like to know about it. I wrote one here, but it was deleted. You can find my deleted article with PureView Pro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cchallag (talk • contribs) 11:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Coutts: proposed renaming

Four years ago you briefly discussed whether the

Talk:Graham Coutts for details.--A bit iffy (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hello, Mdwh. 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]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mdwh. 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mdwh. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]