User talk:Tasma3197

Can't understand how you can tell it an Essay. with this number of sources, and a related article in German wikipedia? I see no significant deleting reason -- Tasma3197 (talk) 16:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the article is mainly about the concept, not about the book. Since the book is the only detailled mention of the concept by that name, that makes it a one-source article. The article should concentrate on the book and give only a short summary of what is meant by "hidden champion" while elaborating on the book, its publishing, critical response, influence, etc., if those are significant. And if they are not, then the redirect I made is the most appropriate way to deal with it. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right: The article isn't about the books - its about the concept! It shall be about the concept. In German Wikipedia we had a similar deleting discussion. The result was, not to keep few articles about the books, but one about the concept. The concept isn't a theory of a lonely man. Lot of others refer to it. A few were included in the article. If you look here, you'll find some more. -- Tasma3197 (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. ww2censor (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a mistake in the file. I uploaded a corrected file, and did not forget to selected a license this time. Please delete this one. -- Tasma3197 (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

]

Hidden Champions

My changes to this article were entirely consistent with policy and practice, see

reliable sources. – ukexpat (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

You aske for sources but you delete the ons which are in the article? Funny boy! I really like you guys, just deleting for some formal reasons. Reading and working on expanding the article would be a much better choice.

Second question, what is your opinion about the articles discussion site? Look in your rules to find out.-- Tasma3197 (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot use other Wikipedia articles as references, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. I do not understand your second question and please lose the attitude. – ukexpat (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see: I can. May be I should not. Please tell me how I shall manage the interwiki cross reference. Or better: Manage it yourself. Please answer on Hidden Champions discussion site because then your rules are kept with the article for other authors information -- Tasma3197 (talk) 20:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of

Rhine capitalism

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

Rhine capitalism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhine capitalism until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]