User talk:Jagun
Hello, and welcome to my talk page! Leave me a message and I should get back to you fairly soon, extraordinary circumstances exempted.
Kip Winger
[edit]sorry about the Kip Winger edits my friend did that. he just really hates Kip Winger. have to remember to log off!
Reliefappearance (talk) 01:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
What's the point of this whole argument?
[edit]Why did the IAU even HAVE to reclassify what a planet is in the first place? shouldn't we (meaning the IAU, and the populace at large) be able to work with the way a planet has been defined before? I think "Spherical objects that orbit the Sun" works just fine. (Unless,of course, the IAU's planet classification binder was running out of space. --Jagun (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't really the place to discuss this; its primary purpose is to report, not to debate. However, I think you've slightly misunderstood the article. Until 2006, there had never been a single, fixed definition of "planet". Even dictionaries tended to define planet in a rather circular way, saying things like, "a planet is larger than an asteroid or comet" and then defining "asteroid"/"comet" as "smaller than a planet." There is no definition that cannot be picked apart for various reasons; even mandating that a planet orbit a star is a bit controversial, since it gives planetary status to boring rocks like Mercury but denies it to fascinating worlds like Titan. It also denies planethood to any potential rogue planets. The most all-inclusive definition, which is favoured by astronomers like Mark Buie, is that a planet is anything big enough to be round but not big enough to fuse hydrogen. This would basically mean that any object discovered in the universe from about a fifth the mass of our Moon to about 13 times the size of Jupiter is a planet. It would mean that kids would have to give up learning the planets in our Solar System, since the number would go from eight to about 50. And that is the main issue. The word "planet" is not a scientific term; it's a term tied to myth, history and religion. It's "special". Is it right that tiny bits of ice at the end of the Solar System should be so "honoured", or should the term "planet" be selectively bestowed only on those that "deserve it"? This isn't a scientific issue, but then "planet" has never been a scientific word. Serendipodous 07:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's actually a pretty good definition, but I think you should add (or at least state more explicitly) that planets have to orbit the sun directly (i.e., a planet is not a satellite). This is not about how "interesting" something is. Britney Spears is "interesting", but she does not fit the definition I have made for "music that I like to listen to". Another good addition, I believe, would be to mention that planets must be "unique", that is, there should not be an abundance of like objects (think: Kupier belt) in the immediate vicinity. And finally, if the definition of a planet is not a scientific issue, then the IAU (a scientific organization) should leave the definition to people in linguistics, like the Oxford English Dictionary. Jagun (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your definition is basically the one the IAU chose to adopt. As for why they did it in the first place, they didn't have a choice. They kept under the rug for as long as they could; then Eris turned up and everything went crazy. Believe me, they didn't want to do it; Eris forced their hand. Serendipodous 16:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, but I think the IAU should have worded the definition differently. "Cleared the neighborhood" is a little ambiguous. One of the articles dealing with this controversy mentions that Earth, Jupiter, etc. have not cleared their neighborhoods either, but the phrase actually refers to the original creation process. "Unique", in my opinion, is a bit less ambiguous/open for interpretation. Jagun (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm moving this here, since it really doesn't belong on the article's talk page. "Unique" isn't really any less ambiguous than "clearing the neighborhood". No planet is truly unique; each shares its orbit with dust particles, micrometeoroids, the occasional comet and many other things. If you read the clearing the neighborhood article, you'll see that Steven Soter has developed a perfectly acceptable mathematical definition for clearing the neighborhood that creates a sharp division between the large and small objects in the Solar System. Serendipodous 07:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I meant. The "mathematical" definition is less easily definable in layman's terms than "unique" as in "no objects resembling it in the immediate vicinity". Jagun (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Resembling it how? Serendipodous 20:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- In size, shape, and composition. For instance Pluto resembles Kupier belt objects, but Earth does not resemble Venus. And what I meant when I said that the IAU should have worded their definition differently was that to someone who had not heard of the mathematical formula or read the article, "Clearing the neighborhood" could have referred to the present, or the time of formation. Jagun (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Earth and Venus resemble each other rather closely. It's only in atmospheric composition and tectonic activity that they differ. Yes, clearing the neighborhood" was a vague term, but the conference was not long enough for the IAU to establish a fixed mathematical value for the planet-dwarf planet dividing line. Hopefully the next conference, held in Rio in 2009, will go some way to address this issue. Serendipodous 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- But you're still mentioning a "mathematical value" which I believe is the flaw in your (and many other astronomers') definition. In my opinion, the simplest definition is usually the best one. For instance, you can define a prime number as "Any number divisible only by one and itself" or Formula for primes#Formula based on a system of Diophantine equations. A definition that is clear, concise, and easy to explain would be the optimal definition. And (unrelatedly) if you are feeling a little lighthearted, visit User:Rursus/Pluto Dont Care Dwarf Planet Not.
- Earth and Venus resemble each other rather closely. It's only in atmospheric composition and tectonic activity that they differ. Yes, clearing the neighborhood" was a vague term, but the conference was not long enough for the IAU to establish a fixed mathematical value for the planet-dwarf planet dividing line. Hopefully the next conference, held in Rio in 2009, will go some way to address this issue. Serendipodous 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- In size, shape, and composition. For instance Pluto resembles Kupier belt objects, but Earth does not resemble Venus. And what I meant when I said that the IAU should have worded their definition differently was that to someone who had not heard of the mathematical formula or read the article, "Clearing the neighborhood" could have referred to the present, or the time of formation. Jagun (talk) 21:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- Resembling it how? Serendipodous 20:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I meant. The "mathematical" definition is less easily definable in layman's terms than "unique" as in "no objects resembling it in the immediate vicinity". Jagun (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm moving this here, since it really doesn't belong on the article's talk page. "Unique" isn't really any less ambiguous than "clearing the neighborhood". No planet is truly unique; each shares its orbit with dust particles, micrometeoroids, the occasional comet and many other things. If you read the clearing the neighborhood article, you'll see that Steven Soter has developed a perfectly acceptable mathematical definition for clearing the neighborhood that creates a sharp division between the large and small objects in the Solar System. Serendipodous 07:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, but I think the IAU should have worded the definition differently. "Cleared the neighborhood" is a little ambiguous. One of the articles dealing with this controversy mentions that Earth, Jupiter, etc. have not cleared their neighborhoods either, but the phrase actually refers to the original creation process. "Unique", in my opinion, is a bit less ambiguous/open for interpretation. Jagun (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- Your definition is basically the one the IAU chose to adopt. As for why they did it in the first place, they didn't have a choice. They kept under the rug for as long as they could; then Eris turned up and everything went crazy. Believe me, they didn't want to do it; Eris forced their hand. Serendipodous 16:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- That's actually a pretty good definition, but I think you should add (or at least state more explicitly) that planets have to orbit the sun directly (i.e., a planet is not a satellite). This is not about how "interesting" something is. Britney Spears is "interesting", but she does not fit the definition I have made for "music that I like to listen to". Another good addition, I believe, would be to mention that planets must be "unique", that is, there should not be an abundance of like objects (think: Kupier belt) in the immediate vicinity. And finally, if the definition of a planet is not a scientific issue, then the IAU (a scientific organization) should leave the definition to people in linguistics, like the Oxford English Dictionary. Jagun (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Be very careful when trying to explain numbers with words. Words are by nature inexact (a fact which gives us metaphor), whereas numbers are not. Linguistically speaking, one can be divided by one and itself (since it is one) but is not a prime number. A prime number is best defined, as my exasperated high school math teacher told me, as a number with only two factors. Science has it even worse, since it is trying to define the universe, which is inexact to all but the omniscient, with numbers, which don't like imprecision. In order for a definition to have any applicability whatsoever, it must have an absolute boundary. There has to be a fixed point whereat something ceases to be, say, a planet and becomes something else. Taxonomists are tearing their hair out about this right now over the precise definition of a species. Some say that it should be based on breeding capabilities, others that it should be based on phenotype (which would presumably make black people a different species of human). Steven Soter's mathematical value provides an absolute boundary to describe exactly when a planet ceases to be a planet. Serendipodous 08:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. Since the universe is indefinite, shouldn't we try to define it with (equally indefinite) words? Jagun (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. The world may be indefinite, but science cannot be. Science's job is to break the indefinite universe into ever smaller slivers of absolute certainty, each time getting closer and closer to the truth, even if it never actually reaches it. Science needs to be falsifiable, which means it needs to be capable of being proven wrong. Science needs precise definitions, because, wherever and whenever they are performed, experiments must have the same preconditions, so that they achieve the same results. These preconditions must be set to an absolute set of generally understood rules, so that scientists the world over can cross-check and verify the results of other scientists. That's why all scientists, whatever their nationality, use metric. It does no one any good when one scientist publishes a paper saying he's just discovered a new planet if no other scientists can agree what a planet is or is not. Have you ever read a scientific paper? They are not masterpieces of the written word; indeed from a literate point of view they are incomprehensible gibberish. They have to be, because science has to express its points and facts as correctly and precisely as possible, something that language is notoriously bad at. It's the same with the law. The reason law books are so convoluted is because they are, effectively, a forest of definitions upon definitions upon definitions, each one defining the absolute boundary of right and wrong for every conceivable set of circumstances. Law, like science, needs absolute boundaries; there has to be a point when a person is definitely guilty or innocent, or law cannot function. If poets, seers and magicians want to employ the term planet metaphorically, they're welcome to, but science doesn't have that luxury.Serendipodous 19:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- But we don't know the boundary condition in this universe, so it's pointless trying to exactly define it when not all pieces of the puzzle are in place. It's like trying to bake a cake with only flour and water. Jagun (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, we don't know. But science isn't about knowing, it's about evidence. For all we know, we could all be plugged into the Matrix and the world we experience might be only an illusion. Hell, I could be the only person in the universe and everything else could be a figment of my imagination. We only have this little universe to go on, and science to explain it to us. Science goes where the evidence takes it, and if the evidence tells it that the universe appears to function in a certain way, then science cobbles together as best it can a working model that explains everything we do know and, preferably, makes accurate predictions of things we don't know. For instance, Isaac Newton's theory of gravity made the prediction that another planet must exist beyond Uranus, since the motions of the outer planets were not following Newton's strictly defined rules. However, with another unseen planet added to the mix, Newton's rules worked out. Much to general relief and glee, this extra planet was eventually found. However, Newton's rules also demanded that another planet exist interior to Mercury, since Mercury's orbit was also not behaving within the strict limits set by Newtonian mechanics. In that case, no planet was found and ultimately it was Newton's rules that were at fault; Einstein's theory of general relativity was needed to fully explain the orbit of Mercury. Newton's theories explained the universe as best as Newton knew. Einstein's rules explain the universe as best as we know now. Some day, another conception of the universe may (I'd say will) come along that will make what we know now as obsolete as Aristotle. Science is always changing because our conception of the universe, with the aid of new evidence, is always changing. Serendipodous 19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but there's simply not enough evidence to make such a strict definition of planet (and at least have it be reasonably correct). Since we know/have evidence for so little in this universe, it follows that the best definition at this point in time would be one that is rather indefinite, to avoid having it found incorrect by some small detail. Jagun (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that was the position taken by the IAU until 2006. The only impetus for this discussion was simply that Eris was either a planet or a minor planet and, unfortunately, astronomical naming convention demands that minor planets have numbers denoting the order of their discovery placed before their names. Before Eris could be named, the IAU had to decide if it was a planet. If it wasn't, then neither was Pluto, but if it was, then where to draw the line? Basically, this whole debate revolved around whether or not Eris should have a number in front of its name or not. This is not by any means the final word on the planet definition. Even if it is precisely defined next year, future discoveries could force it to be rethought completely. Mike Brown has already started a sky survey with the expressed intention of locating an object as massive as Mercury within the outer Solar System. Such a discovery would throw a wrench into the whole dwarf planet concept, since it would technically be a dwarf planet as large as a planet. The Juno mission to Jupiter in 2011 could determine whether or not Jupiter formed as a planet or as a star; if it did, then it and perhaps even Saturn could be reclassified as low-mass stars, with their moons promoted to planets. Then the debate would shift to Uranus and Neptune, and the arguments will go on. But that is what science does. It argues. And thank God for that. Serendipodous 19:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're right on that count! Thanks for taking the time to argue with me. I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. Jagun (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ditto :) Serendipodous 20:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're right on that count! Thanks for taking the time to argue with me. I look forward to collaborating with you in the future. Jagun (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, that was the position taken by the IAU until 2006. The only impetus for this discussion was simply that Eris was either a planet or a minor planet and, unfortunately, astronomical naming convention demands that minor planets have numbers denoting the order of their discovery placed before their names. Before Eris could be named, the IAU had to decide if it was a planet. If it wasn't, then neither was Pluto, but if it was, then where to draw the line? Basically, this whole debate revolved around whether or not Eris should have a number in front of its name or not. This is not by any means the final word on the planet definition. Even if it is precisely defined next year, future discoveries could force it to be rethought completely. Mike Brown has already started a sky survey with the expressed intention of locating an object as massive as Mercury within the outer Solar System. Such a discovery would throw a wrench into the whole dwarf planet concept, since it would technically be a dwarf planet as large as a planet. The Juno mission to Jupiter in 2011 could determine whether or not Jupiter formed as a planet or as a star; if it did, then it and perhaps even Saturn could be reclassified as low-mass stars, with their moons promoted to planets. Then the debate would shift to Uranus and Neptune, and the arguments will go on. But that is what science does. It argues. And thank God for that. Serendipodous 19:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, but there's simply not enough evidence to make such a strict definition of planet (and at least have it be reasonably correct). Since we know/have evidence for so little in this universe, it follows that the best definition at this point in time would be one that is rather indefinite, to avoid having it found incorrect by some small detail. Jagun (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- You're right, we don't know. But science isn't about knowing, it's about evidence. For all we know, we could all be plugged into the Matrix and the world we experience might be only an illusion. Hell, I could be the only person in the universe and everything else could be a figment of my imagination. We only have this little universe to go on, and science to explain it to us. Science goes where the evidence takes it, and if the evidence tells it that the universe appears to function in a certain way, then science cobbles together as best it can a working model that explains everything we do know and, preferably, makes accurate predictions of things we don't know. For instance, Isaac Newton's theory of gravity made the prediction that another planet must exist beyond Uranus, since the motions of the outer planets were not following Newton's strictly defined rules. However, with another unseen planet added to the mix, Newton's rules worked out. Much to general relief and glee, this extra planet was eventually found. However, Newton's rules also demanded that another planet exist interior to Mercury, since Mercury's orbit was also not behaving within the strict limits set by Newtonian mechanics. In that case, no planet was found and ultimately it was Newton's rules that were at fault; Einstein's theory of general relativity was needed to fully explain the orbit of Mercury. Newton's theories explained the universe as best as Newton knew. Einstein's rules explain the universe as best as we know now. Some day, another conception of the universe may (I'd say will) come along that will make what we know now as obsolete as Aristotle. Science is always changing because our conception of the universe, with the aid of new evidence, is always changing. Serendipodous 19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- But we don't know the boundary condition in this universe, so it's pointless trying to exactly define it when not all pieces of the puzzle are in place. It's like trying to bake a cake with only flour and water. Jagun (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Absolutely not. The world may be indefinite, but science cannot be. Science's job is to break the indefinite universe into ever smaller slivers of absolute certainty, each time getting closer and closer to the truth, even if it never actually reaches it. Science needs to be falsifiable, which means it needs to be capable of being proven wrong. Science needs precise definitions, because, wherever and whenever they are performed, experiments must have the same preconditions, so that they achieve the same results. These preconditions must be set to an absolute set of generally understood rules, so that scientists the world over can cross-check and verify the results of other scientists. That's why all scientists, whatever their nationality, use metric. It does no one any good when one scientist publishes a paper saying he's just discovered a new planet if no other scientists can agree what a planet is or is not. Have you ever read a scientific paper? They are not masterpieces of the written word; indeed from a literate point of view they are incomprehensible gibberish. They have to be, because science has to express its points and facts as correctly and precisely as possible, something that language is notoriously bad at. It's the same with the law. The reason law books are so convoluted is because they are, effectively, a forest of definitions upon definitions upon definitions, each one defining the absolute boundary of right and wrong for every conceivable set of circumstances. Law, like science, needs absolute boundaries; there has to be a point when a person is definitely guilty or innocent, or law cannot function. If poets, seers and magicians want to employ the term planet metaphorically, they're welcome to, but science doesn't have that luxury.Serendipodous 19:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
|
All the tea in China | |
| I haven't quite got the hang of personalised barnstars yet, but I thought you might like this instead. Just don't demand a contract from the Chinese Communist Party. Serendipodous 21:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC) |
Yeah, thanks :) Just took me a while to find a suitable response. Serendipodous 05:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Rock music WikiProject
[edit]I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I was blocked!!
[edit]
- Thanks dude! Jagun (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm still blocked...
[edit]Your RFA
[edit]Hi, I closed your RFA per WP:NOTNOW because im afraid that it would have snowballed due to your low edit count. Feel free to try again at any time, however it may pay you to wait untill your edit count is above 2-3k before trying to go for adminship again. Please dont be disappointed as many users have thier RFA closed early for the reasons yours was. I look forward to seeing you run for adminship again soon. «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l» (talk) 09:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Your request for rollback
[edit]Jagun, per your request on WP:RFR, I have enabled your account with the rollback feature. Please read documentation on the tool, and remember that it is to be used for the removal of vandalism only—it must not be used to aid edit warring.
If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at my talk page.
Anthøny 02:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Speedies
[edit]Per WP:ATHLETE , Olympic athletes are unquestionably notable. Anyone who ever competed in any Olympics, now matter how short the article. The assertion of this in an article prevents a speedy unless its an obvious hoax. If it is unsourced, you should if at all possible improve the encyclopedia by looking for sources, and other ass an unsourced tag, & then someone will source it. DGG (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
New Page Patrolling
[edit]
Hello. I noticed today that you were doing newpages patrolling but are not marking some of the pages you visit as patrolled. Though this is not mandatory in any way, and should not be done for all newpages, where appropriate it keeps your fellow patrollers from wasting time reviewing the same page multiple times. In any event, keep up the good work! Thanks. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 22:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
"Cleanup" tagging
[edit]I'm going to assume good faith here, but please stop tagging articles with "{{cleanup}}" needlessly. You tagged mine (Gary Sinyor), the 154th article I've created, and I see nothing wrong with it. Furthermore, I've checked some of your other edits and couldn't see anything wrong with Twyford and Thorpe either, so I've also reverted both. Please be more discriminate about your use of these tags in future. If you could leave notes on the talk page outlining specific concerns, this would be far more valuable than simply putting templates on articles left, right, and centre (even if it would slow you down and affect your edit count). Regards, --DeLarge (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Article tagged: MC Flasher - reconsideration
[edit]Hi Jagun The entity described in "MC Flasher" entry has been an influental figure in culture of South-West (Seaside) Slovenia through 1990s into early 2000s, especially in regards of the ideological framework within the electronic music scene. The data inputed so far has been received through a biography, movie website and one of the online media interviews. The subject has also been extensively covered in national media in Slovenia with articles written about this artist in Dnevnik (major Slovenian daily newspaper), Primorske Novice (West-Slovenia primary daily newspaper), Antena (Slovenian Teenager Culture magazine), Cultura/Entertainment/Media sections of Delo (another major daily newspaper in Slovenia)... and interviews on TV Slovenia (National TV Network), MTV Adria, POP TV (Major private TV network in SLO),... I hope this gives a bit of explanation. Let me know if this is ok. Cheers xflshr —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xflshr (talk • contribs) 07:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for tagging. I think it needs an AfD though, as there's quite a few notability claims in it. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Speedy tagging
[edit]I see I'm not the first person to ask this, but please could you take some more care with your speedy tagging, particularly with regards to WP:CSD#A7. A7 is intended primarily to let us deal quickly with the most obvious "vanity pages" about blatantly non-notable people. Stuff like "Joe Bloggs is a teenager at Somewhere High School. He likes football and supports Manchester United." It's not supposed to be used on every new article where it's not immediately obvious that the subject passes a strict interpretation of WP:BIO; notice that the wording describes it as "...a lower standard than notability... an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable" (my emphasis). It's certainly not appropriate for an article like Dee Molenaar; while the article could perhaps have made it a little clearer, he's one of the most respected American mountaineers of his generation (the Third American Karakoram Expedition is the stuff of legend), and his artwork been used to illustrate literally hundreds of books. Remember that telling new contributors "your article is crap and we don't want it - go away" (I paraphrase slightly, but that's the gist of the speedy deletion template) is about the worst possible welcome we can give them. If a newbie if obviously making a genuine effort to improve Wikipedia, even a slightly inept one, it's far better to welcome them, give them some hints on how to improve their articles and point them to the relevant introductory pages than to hit them with impersonal templated notices and ask for their articles to be deleted two minutes after they were created. Regards, Iain99Balderdash and piffle 21:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I over-wrote your vandalism correction on the seven dirty words page; I clicked the wrong version. K95 (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank'ee much for joining! Your request has been approved and you are now a proud member of Wikipedia's only counter-vandalism cabal! Want a userbox to go along with it? (Also, we've got an InvisionFree board; check the cabal page.) 21655 ταλκ/01ҁ 17:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
List of Canadian national hockey team rosters
[edit]Hey, Jagun. Seconds after I removed a clearly fictional roster from List of Canadian national hockey team rosters, you went in and reverted my change. Now, I assure you, I know what I'm doing, and that makes me wonder if you know what you're doing. But, trust me, no 2010 roster has been announced yet (and if it had, it would include Sidney Crosby and would not include Curtis Joseph or Owen Nolan). Don't believe me, do a Google search. In the mean time, I'm going to go back and re-remove what I already removed and I'd certainly appreciate it if you didn't re-revert my changes. Cheers. --99.224.245.159 (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- I see you've beaten me to the punch, thanks. --99.224.245.159 (talk) 05:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Flagged Revs
[edit]Hi,
I noticed you voted oppose in the flag revs straw pole and would like to ask if you would mind adding User:Promethean/No to your user or talk page to make your position clear to people who visit your page :) - Thanks to Neurolysis for the template «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
No flagged revisions category up for deletion
[edit]The category associated with the no flagged revisions userbox you have placed on your user page is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009 April 23#Category:Wikipedia users who oppose Flagged Revisions and you are invited to share your opinions on the issue. Alansohn (talk) 04:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry!
[edit]Hey there! Apologies for reverting your reversion. I think timing/me accidentaly hitting spacebar got me confused here. Sorry to bother you! Mouse Nightshirt | talk 00:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Acc
[edit]Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Prodego talk 01:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
moles
[edit]As an established editor of the article Mole (animal), your input is solicited on the Talk page to help resolve an ongoing dispute as to the nature and scope of the article. Chrisrus (talk) 05:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I read in a book abouth mongols that the word jagun means something , but it is not defined in the book. Do you know what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.94.206 (talk) 19:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Quixotic plea
[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 06:30, 23 May 2015 (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) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
[edit]
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
- Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
- Editor-focused central editing dashboard
- "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
- Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
- Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list
Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)