User talk:Fpahl
U.S. embargo against Cuba[edit]
You voted for U.S. embargo against Cuba, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.== Welcome == Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.
You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)
Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.
Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.
You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.
If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
- If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
- You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
- If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.
Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 12:22, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Deletion & consensus[edit]
I am sorry that you are angry that I deleted a page that you had worked hard on. The proper place to bring up your complaint, if you believe that I have acted incorrectly in deleting your page is at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion.
Something that you have to bear in mind is that once someone has placed their vote on any page here at wikipedia, they are not obliged to add anything else. They may wish to, but if you ask them a question it is their right to ignore it or not answer it. This does not remove the legitimacy of their vote, neither does it remove their right to take part in the vote.
I wish you the best of luck should you wish to list your page at undeletions.
Graham ☺ | Talk 19:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for your latest comments. When clearing away articles from vfd/old I count the votes because the page is, after all, votes for deletion. It is your right to challenge as much as you like, but if, after five days, there is clear consensus among the votes to delete, the page will be deleted. I didn't ignore your comments, because the whole point of that page is for people to place votes, the discussion comes secondary to that. It is also your right, of course, to bring this up on Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, which I wholly encourage you to do.
- You are dismissing all the votes of everyone who voted against your point of view and I have to say I find this a very arrogant attitude. It's a shame because I feel that the subject of soldiers being killed by people supposedly on their own side is a very important and very encyclopedic subject.
- As to my actions on deletion of pages, if a page is a candidate for speedy deletion then you are correct, I don't believe in wasting time in removing it from wikipedia post haste. With regard to listings on votes for deletion however, I occasionally visit that page and clear off old debates: I certainly don't do it on a regular basis, I don't have time. However if an article has expired its five days listing, it can be deleted at any time (read the header at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old).
- I only write 'deleted per consensus' in the edit summary for pages deleted via votes for deletion: these are never speedy deletes, they are normally more than five days old, so I don't understand your comment about 'deleting things rather quickly then writing deleted per consensus in the edit summary' (paraphrasing).
- With regard to the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/There is no spoon I count 10 votes to delete (User:Chessphoon, User:Kbh3rd, User:Yath, User:Geogre, User:Pgunn, User:Lacrimosus, User:Andrewa, User:Lysol, User:Cymydog Naakka, User:Neutrality) against 5 to redirect (User:Slowking Man, User:Netoholic, User:Aranel, User:Cyrius, User:Chmod007). This is consensus to delete.
- I am aware of the rule, when in doubt, don't delete and if you do a full study of my edit history you will note that I stick to that quite well.
- I am going away for a long weekend as of tomorrow to comfort a friend who has just lost her husband. I will not be online again until Monday so if you leave a reply for me please be aware that I will not be around to respond to it.
Hamdi[edit]
Hi, I deleted the Hamdi from the COTW nominations, as you suggested. The article grew exponentially almost overnight. Maurreen 03:22, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Barnstar[edit]
Wow! My first barnstar! I'm honored.
"Post-Libertarian" was, I figured, the best way to describe my political views. I'm not an ex-Libertarian really – I come from a Libertarian background, and I've started with that basic Libertarian philosophy and built upon it. Now I support a lot of things most libertarians don't (universal healthcare, UN participation, and corporate restrictions), but my foundation is libertarian, even if I've grown (or strayed, depending on your viewpoint) from there quite a bit.
I say "Quadell am" mostly to be weird. After all, pronouns are supposed to replace nouns, right? So "I am a programmer" should, theoretically, be short for "Quadell am a programmer" I suppose.
Happy editing! – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 13:22, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)
Deletion[edit]
We both find problems with vfd. I would like work on a proposal with you for a change of policy. Many people have kneejerkvotes without reason. Many articles newly created diamond-in-the-rough when listed on VFD; I would not blame anyone for voting to delete them the first day listed. By the fifth day 2/3 of votes are to delete, but the article is very well polished by then. I have in mind something like this:
- Week One:
- People debate without being allowed to vote, while the authors improve the article.
- Week Two:
- People can vote on the current polished article as it currently stands, but they must explain their votes with at least a paragraph.
- Week Three:
- Votecounting --votecounting is so contentious that we need to devote a week to it.
- Week Four:
- Deletion, if that is the consensus. The delay will give interested parties a chance to fork the article, if they believe that it is worth saving.
Please give your feedback. I truly want to coauthor a proposal with you.
Ŭalabio 01:27, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
Star Trek and split infinitives[edit]
Hey. Sorry, I seem to have hit "return" before I finished typing in my edit summary on that one. :(
Anyway, my point was that the original quote comes from ST:TOS, not The Next Generation, and that is the form in which it is most widely known. Since the article is one on split infinitives, I figured that the most widely known version (and, obviously, the original one to be cited AS an example of a split infinitive) would be more approptiate than the revised version. While we're at it, I seem to recall Star Trek linking to the overall Star Trek page and not to the ST:TOS page... which it probably ought to.
But that's just my opinion, we can discuss it further if you like. Didn't mean to revert without explanation. :( --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:55, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
Graft has restored our discussion[edit]
It was silly of him to remove it any way, it takes up just as much disk space in the history and making it inaccessible like that is wasteful (unless histories are eventually purged?). Archiving was the correct solution.
Policing the Talk pages too strictly destroys community. While talk page discussions should be initiated on topic, being able to make and respond to tangential points creates greater understanding and recognizes the humanity of the participants. Part of a neutral consensus is recognizing that there are defensible views different from one's own.
Yes, I would be interested, in that NY Times article that you referred to. I will email you my account.--Silverback 10:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
U.S. embargo against Cuba[edit]
You voted for U.S. embargo against Cuba, this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article.
Hi[edit]
Just saying hi. Like your work! :) --Christiaan 11:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thin-film image[edit]
Hi, nice work on the thin film image, although of course I can't tell just by looking at it if your calculations are right; I'll believe you though :). How did you do the calculations and make the image out of them; what software are you using? You probably noticed that we could use some cleanup between the article on thin film optics, iridescence, etc. If you have time, hopefully you can help out with that; it's pretty far down on my task list right now. Thanks, keep up the good work! --Chinasaur 04:38, 20 Apr 2005 (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) 22:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)