User talk:Dodger67/Archives/2011/March
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dodger67. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Nigella Lawson
Don't revert other user's edits if you don't know why your was reverted. First ask them about your reversion on their talk page, because there may be chances that you're just fighting for wrong. Bill william comptonTalk 14:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
- I was attempting to revert the deletion by an IP of details about her studying at Oxford. It seems my revertion clashed with someone else's. Roger (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
European Wheelchair Basketball Championship
Thank you very much. I'm working on a woman's section now. I saw your request/comment on a project for disability sport, great idea, cause that could absolutely be a useful addition. Bib (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey
So I know that I am always on here apologizing for not being on it that much, but I just wanted to write you and let you know that my school just had Spring Break and I was away from my computer most of the time. I just wanted to let you know that I am going to be starting back up with the page and wanted you to keep an eye on it when you can. Thanks!! Jones3sg (talk) 05:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I've declined your speedy because it doesn't fit. This is the sort of list that 'business consultants' come up with when they are demonstrating how to remove money from a business by legal and fashionable means. I've come up against crap like this on a few courses in various areas (not all in business). It doesn't fit the nonsense tag because it is comprehensible. There's possibly other ways of getting it. Even AfD if prod doesn't work. Peridon (talk) 13:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps Speedy's criteria for what is and isn't nonsense needs to be expanded a bit. It's material such as this that gives WP such a bad reputation in the "real world". Roger (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think there's room for expansion of the speedy categories. Once I've got settled in properly I'll try to get some recommendations together. Peridon (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
AAC
I think you're way out of line dismissing AAC, and dismissing my defence of it, the way that you did. It was really very offensive. I have joined the project (since you implied that this is essential) and made an argument about the status of AAC. -- Evertype·✆ 13:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted your recent edits to the above article. You "hid" them behind seemingly innocuous edit summaries but in fact reinstated the article as it was prior to my (valid and useful) edits of a few minutes earlier. Please can you explain (a) why you mis-used the summaries and (b) why you reverted the content. Among other things, the reversion caused plagiarism to reappear. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- A thought: were you somehow using an old version of the page? - Sitush (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea. Edit conflicts can be very confusing. The page has been on my watchlist for a long time - it popped up a while ago so I took a look at the changes. Saw that a whole lot more needs to be done. Particularly the references are all misformatted. I'll stop editing now, let you get on with your edits then I'll come back to it in a few hours to see what you've done and if anything still needs to be done. Are you familiar with the correct citation methods? Roger (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weird. I'd finished editing 14 minutes before you started. Not to worry - looks like something has gone wrong with caching etc at your end. Take a look now and, of course, feel free to make any changes that you think fit - there is room for improvement. I think you'll find that I understand the various citation methods <g> - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nicely done! I just have one question; is it really necessary to completely remove the descriptions of the exhibition items? I thought that was pretty much the "core" of the article. Roger (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. The removal was necessary because it was a copyvio. However, something about them does need to go in. I don't have the time or (if I am honest, inclination) as I am trying to complete a massive revamp of Paravar. If you have both of those attributes, then go for it! And, BTW, I'm not too sure that all of the items in the See Also section are necessary but I'll leave that to you or others. since I know that you are watching it & know what you are doing, I'll probably take it off my list soon. - Sitush (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Nicely done! I just have one question; is it really necessary to completely remove the descriptions of the exhibition items? I thought that was pretty much the "core" of the article. Roger (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Weird. I'd finished editing 14 minutes before you started. Not to worry - looks like something has gone wrong with caching etc at your end. Take a look now and, of course, feel free to make any changes that you think fit - there is room for improvement. I think you'll find that I understand the various citation methods <g> - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have no idea. Edit conflicts can be very confusing. The page has been on my watchlist for a long time - it popped up a while ago so I took a look at the changes. Saw that a whole lot more needs to be done. Particularly the references are all misformatted. I'll stop editing now, let you get on with your edits then I'll come back to it in a few hours to see what you've done and if anything still needs to be done. Are you familiar with the correct citation methods? Roger (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
A request for you at WT:MOS
Hi Roger. I have left a request for you here. And I mean it. Best wishes to you! –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 22:14, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well done Roger. Thanks for fixing that. –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 08:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)