User talk:New Thought
Help, please
Thanks for you compliments on the procrastination article. Another editor is trying to build a consensus to remove most of the contents of the article, and I need your help in the discussion to stop him. Please come right away. Go for it! 10:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The danger has subsided for now, but may resurface at anytime. The page is on a certain user's watchlist, and whenever there is a lot of editing activity on the page, he shows up to try to get rid of it. So the best thing you can do is put the procrastination article on your watchlist and monitor it. The article isn't finished yet, and needs some TLC. Several sections need work. Have a look. Go for it! 01:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Notice
The Community Portal was recently reverted to a version that appeared months ago. Therefore, I've called for a vote to restore to the Community Portal the version that had developed there up until that reversion. There are three drafts competing for the privilege, each representing entirely different approaches, including the current revert version. To show your support for which design should be displayed as the Community Portal,
Your "tiny style change" actually substantially altered the meaning of the sentence. Is that not evident? The newly rearranged sentence was incorrect; the old one was correct. Michael Hardy 21:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- When calculating , please explain how could be anything other than 0 or a positive integer. Thanks! --New Thought 07:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
If, for example, k = 3.6, then
i.e., we have
That's explained in the article after my edit, where it says that
is the
to be a sum with no terms, and therefore zero. If j ≥ n, then take
to be zero. Michael Hardy 18:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Wanted to pop in and say that I understand your frustrations with the page. Just wanted to leave a reminder that focusing on the content is usually more productive than focusing on other editors' intentions. Hope you don't take this the wrong way, because I think you've got a point. It's easier for me to support a particular argument when it focuses on content. Phyesalis (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
Hello, New Thought. Voting in the
The
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)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, New Thought. Voting in the
The
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)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, New Thought. Voting in the
The
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)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Live updates
Please do not update match stats (whether a player’s or a club’s or a league table etc.) until the player’s involvement in the match has finished / the match itself has finished. That means (especially, for example, if another goal is scored) that errors can be minimised. Many thanks. GiantSnowman 17:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)