User talk:Teknic
Deleted comment[edit]
Hi there! No problem, I've struck out my own comment now. If you are concerned about redirects from mispelings, I'd suggest you comment on that at either the Village Pump, or WP:RFD. Yours, Radiant_* 11:40, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Daisy Berkowitz[edit]
--Midwinter 07:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Revision Three[edit]
The article has been revised again and will probably be revised another couple of times over the next few weeks. Thanks for the comments: I think I understand what you mean RE: the biography issue. I definitely appreciate your taking time to look at my article. Thanks again. --Midwinter 19:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
The GB[edit]
No problem, man. Gotta look out for each other, right? --Girolamo Savonarola 15:16, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
wiki-thanks[edit]
Hi, Thanks for fixing my vandalized user page. A strange bit of work it was, too. — Davenbelle 09:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Petrol[edit]
Thanks for letting me know about the edit conflict. Once again, I'm sorry for striking out your comment. I'm not a seasoned Wikipedia editor so I sometimes make mistakes. It's good that you removed all the strikes - that puts everyone on an even keel. Hopefully we can have a more friendly debate in the future :) — Yama 02:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I wondered where your post went :)
But seriously, all is good. The debate has become quite heated so it can be difficult to stay calm. I had to take a break from the debate so that I wouldn't accidentally post something I didn't really intend. I came back and found that the discussion had exploded and the article had been moved. Oh well :) — Yama 08:10, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your words on my talk page; the vfd tag came about when I had been cleaning up and putting stub tags on any number of pointless stubs about rap songs, and the guy making them was starting to annoy me. I've had a good night's sleep now, and I'm feeling a little more charitable. Thanks. Deltabeignet 19:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
It seemed like a good idea at the time... ℬastique▼talk 23:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Did you read my most recent replies to you, dated 01:34, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)? You responded to only one. —Lifeisunfair 04:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- No, I haven't read them yet as I don't usually wiki on weekends, but before I read them I want to apologize for contributing to the animosity on Talk:Petrol. I'm saying this now just incase your new replies cause me to feel, shall we say , "less apologetic" :) If so, however, I understand your motivation. That page seems to bring out the aggressive side of me because I've already had to apologize recently to another editor (Yama). I have a strong belief in the doctrine of "encyclopedia first, community second" which puts me at odds with the original author "policy" (which is actually just a suggestion). I understand it's potential benefits for the community; that being the prevention of drawn-out debates over such minimally important things like spelling, however it is my belief (and many others) that it also has the potential to compromise the quality of the encyclopedia. While the original author of Gasoline happened to choose the best name for the article, the original author of Check didn't, which you know because you voted to move it to Cheque. There wasn't any opposition to that particular move, however anybody could have easily rounded up enough die-hard pure AE supporters to keep it at the "original" page no matter how well anyone proved the appropriateness of "Cheque". ...Wow, I didn't plan to write this much and now my apology seems like a soapbox, so once more; I'm sorry for possibly promoting hostility between us. —TeknicT-M-C 08:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Ok, I've read everything and am pleased to say that all is well. I respect your rebuttals and have replied to most of them (apologies included when necessary). Sorry about the "unfair" analogies; they were pretty juvenile. —TeknicT-M-C 10:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Apologies accepted; please see my new replies. —Lifeisunfair 05:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please, please, please come by and put in a proper vote. You did lure me into this discussion after all. Your "friend" is unbelievably relentless in his point-picking. ℬastique▼talk 21:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Very nice. I wish I knew how to do that.. ;-) hydnjo talk 01:18, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Well, thank you. I have disabled your border code (for now) as I found it a bit distracting however I will do some funning around with it. Also, the links you provided will be inspirational to at least getting my HTML feet wet. hydnjo talk 16:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I've copied your HTML border markup to my sandbox (for fooling around purposes). Also, I've relocated it on my Talkpage to enclose your edit. Question: Can you show me what needs to be done so that the border doesn't extend down into the next subject? Thanks again, hydnjo talk 19:54, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I need friends[edit]
- Please please please don't let Yama bait me anymore. If you see something I haven't responded to, could you type something like, "Bastique, leave it alone. Just don't repond." You warned me from the beginning. And sure enough, Yama is just the type of arrogant sod that brings out the absolute worst in me. I appreciate the time you took to read this. ℬastique▼talk 02:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
re:pictures[edit]
normally I'd agree, however removing an image to enforce copyright in itself not to mention the fact that I would have ended up being criticized if I changed things around by deleting the entire image tags since that means I would have had to rework a couple of userboxes which means I would have redirected page designs which I refuse to do withotu the user's permission. The issue with not notifying them is partially more the fact that it honestly would have taken much much more time to notify every single person so I took the hasty approach which in retrospect may have been a mistake. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 08:35, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Proposal on Notability[edit]
Because you're a member of the Association of Inclusionist Wikipedians, I'm notifying you that the inclusionist proposa Wikipedia:Non-notabilityl is in progress to define the role of notability in articles. Please help us make this successful! Also note the proposal Wikipedia:Importance is a deletionist proposla that seeks to officially introduce notabiltiy for the first time. --Ephilei 04:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of Demo (computer programming)[edit]
The article Demo (computer programming) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- An article based on original research and a few unreliable sources.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Λeternus (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2014 (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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)