User talk:Kborer

Please feel free to leave any questions or comments.

links

{{disambig}} WP:MOSDAB#The disambig notice Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace Kborer 21:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

notes

Barry Goldwater
Norman Borlaug‎
Michael Crichton
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/factover/ch9.htm
http://www.meps.ahcpr.gov/mepsweb/

Hauskalainen has accused you of being my sockpuppet/meatpuppet!

Please take a look at [User_talk:Doopdoop#DoopDoop/Freedomwarrior/Kborer] --Doopdoop (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

Kborer (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Please be aware you have violated the WP:3RR policy on the Socialized medicine page. Please do not engage in an edit war. Redrocket (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted you to be aware a case has been opened against you at [1], apparently for your four edits to Socialized medicine that occurred within seven hours on March 2. Just letting you know. Redrocket (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow-motion revert war on Socialized medicine

Kborer, I was delighted to see you taking the time to reply to comments in depth on the talk page, as I thought that perhaps it meant that you were finally interested in conducting discussion to consensus rather than continuing the slow-motion revert war on the lead section. As I was replying to your comments, where there was some indication that you were ready to compromise, I checked my watchlist to find that you had reverted to wording again that people had already objected to! It is not enough to post your responses as justification for resorting to objectionable wording. Could we please work out compromise wording before another wholesale change to the lead? If you are unwilling to do this, I will be forced to conclude that you are not really interested in the consensus process, and instead wish simply to be disruptive. --Sfmammamia (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every wording has been objected to, so I do not see how this is relevant. If I make several improvements to the article, and someone complains about one and reverts all of them, then when I defend that one improvement, I am going to restore all of the improvements. Kborer (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is that "defending an improvement" does not equal reaching consensus on it. You might want to re-read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD. I'm far from a perfect exemplar of these guidelines, but I keep trying to improve my approach to them. In my mind, leaving a comment on a talk page, when there have been objections expressed by multiple editors, does not by itself resolve the issue and meet consensus, nor does it justify a wholesale revert. A pattern of this will be perceived as disruptive editing.

The problem I see is that there have been multiple objections, by multiple editors, to the version you first suggested at the beginning of March. And I acknowledge that you seem to have multiple issues with the current lead, but I'm doubtful that all of those issues and debates can be resolved in one fell swoop. May I suggest that a more piecemeal approach may be more constructive and more acceptable to the other editors? What's the most egregious problem, in your mind, with the lead as it is? If you can isolate that, perhaps you and I can work together on a proposed change to the lead that we could introduce together on the talk page, which might help us start building consensus instead of simply debating (and reverting) in circles. If there are other ways you can think of that we can work together on this, I'm open to suggestion. --Sfmammamia (talk) 18:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(undenting) Welcome back! Sorry, but your version is not "better" and has no consensus. Please do not make wholesale changes to statements that have previously been objected to without first discussing them on the talk page. Thanks! --Sfmammamia (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. By better I meant more accurate, factually correct, etc. Hope that helps. Kborer (talk) 23:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam in Attic ladder

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Attic ladder, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Attic ladder is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Attic ladder, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 18:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Freedomnomics

I have nominated Freedomnomics, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedomnomics. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ff m 00:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Gwg logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Gwg logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Engineer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dynamics. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Green circle.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Green circle.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kborer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kborer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kborer. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Collage example.jpg

The file File:Collage example.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Star world

The article Star world has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:N. Unref article that has been in CAT:NN for 12 years with no WP:ATD.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Boleyn (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Sphere world

The article Sphere world has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:N

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Boleyn (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Forest of stars

The article Forest of stars has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article is closely related to Star world and Sphere world recently deleted for notability, therefore a priori there is a good chance that it fails WP:GNG as well. Tagged for lacking context since 2009, and for clarity since 2007.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 22:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Health care systems.png

The file File:Health care systems.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Superseded by c:File:Health care systems.svg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 03:06, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]