User talk:LinkTiger/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:LinkTiger. 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Wikiproject North Dakota (November 2011)
Hello friend, it's Illinois State Asking you for some help again. could you consolidate my similar references like you did for the others? that really cleaned it up before, and you've got the skills to pay the bills, and I appreciate it. More to come! Ztteaguisu (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
- No problem! I'd be more than happy to "Wikify" your contributions. And I hope you are okay with some of the other edits I made to the page earlier, cutting some of the prose that was a little too far off topic of this particular article, in my opinion. If you see something I did wrong or anything else that needs improving, be bold and make the edit! Glad to have you along, fellow Wikipedian! —LinkTiger (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Done —LinkTiger (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
December 2011
Illinois State calling again. I'm in the process of adding some content to North Dakota Democratic-Nonpartisan League Party once again. I'm looking for you to help clean up my links in the reference section like you have so greatly done for me in the past. case in point, reference number 5. here is the real link to the work I referenced, http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/neppc/researchreports/2011/neppcrr1102.pdf I took the content of the link and translated it into an MLA reference much like you might find in an academic work sited. I know you have turned past references into real access to readers of the page. Hoping you can do that with this one? Wikify that bad mamagama!!
Thanks LinkTiger
Ztteaguisu (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Sinanthropus
You've proposed to put the article on the genus back to the unsuffixed title, which IMO is likely to be part of the best outcome. But your suggested path to it is very wrong, and i'd like to offer my help toward another approach -- rather than just removing your tags, explaining why, and inviting you to start over from scratch! Here's what i envision, with or without the move request staying in place:
- (start anticipating expansion of the article on the genus, e.g. at least to discuss when the name "Sinanthropus" was applied and by whom, when at least however many species were added to it, and its history from the first proposal that a broader taxon was needed until its replacement was widely regarded as a done deal)
- move the dab to Sinanthropus (disambiguation) (and the talk page correspondingly)
- move Sinanthropus (genus) to Sinanthropus (and the talk page correspondingly), and fix the lead of Sinanthropus (disambiguation) accordingly (perhaps "Sinanthropus is a genus of hominids.")
- start a discussion at talk:Sinanthropus (disambiguation) of whether, as i assumed, the former status of Sinanthropus as a Rdr to Peking Man requires a Dab entry for that variety's article, and similarly of whether my having erred on the side of caution, by giving "equal billing" to Lantian Man, meets any real need
- decide whether the link count remaining in the Dab suggests a self-contained HatNote on the genus article, rather than one pointing to a Dab page
Shall we hash this out a bit here on yr tk pg, then summarize our discussion on an appropriate Talk-namespace page for wider involvement?
Thanks for your attention.
--Jerzy•t 05:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input, Jerzy. I still favor eliminating the disambiguation page and linking to the two species once assigned to the genus within the article prose itself, as it does now. But you're right in that the former redirect could lead a hurried reader to confusion if he or she ends up at Sinanthropus expecting Peking Man. I stumbled upon these articles from the disambiguation page; I am not a regular editor of scientific or taxonomic articles, though an avid consumer—I defer to your judgement. I'm just not convinced that a genus's two former species and a sound-alike really warrant an entire disambiguation page, but there are certainly arguments to be made on both sides. If you disagree, I won't fight it. Your solution is certainly a vast improvement over the status quo. Thanks again. Please let me know what you think we should do from here. —LinkTiger (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I tentatively disagreed, back in July when i was groping alone in the dark, and i'm prepared to insist that simply "merging" a Dab and an article is a bad practice and probably counter to strong guidelines. But there's more than one way to kill a Dab page, so i'm optimistic that those who know more than i will convince me. I'll propose a post to the talk page -- a way of lightly reformatting the above -- to you w/in 24, and expect we'll soon know if others have issues. Thanks!
--Jerzy•t 10:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds great! I knew there had to be a better way than my "merge, then delete, then rename" business. I didn't realize the WP:CSD for disambiguation pages were so liberal. Thanks for your help. —LinkTiger (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the underlying principle is that Dabs exist solely to disambiguate among articles; when one stops doing that, it's just clutter.
I don't know if you choose to join me in arguing that Sinanthropus has not yet achieved its fullness, but i think it's relevant to our task and i'm quite willing to state that as just my own view. I'd like us to say that you and i are agree that 2 thru 5 above are an appropriate agenda, and that we propose to seek consensus on those points one by one. (I don't imagine that will stop all discussants from proposing answers to all four at once, but it may nevertheless help organize the work.)
2 and 3 actually are probably a package: if there's consensus that the genus is the primary topic for the title "Sinanthropus" (contrary to what my former quick-and-dirty approach of not trying to arbitrate among the contenders suggests), then we do both; if there is no primary topic, we do neither. I'll be surprised if there's support for a different candidate for primary topic (but we'd do 2 and then move a different page to the vacated title if we reached such a consensus). I think saying that right off the bat would be timely.
I'd state 4&5 at the start, but defer explicating their angles.
I don't think i have to be the one to post such a plan at your designated discussion section on Talk:Sinanthropus (genus), but i'm willing to take that role if you like. Think we should widen this discussion at this point?
--Jerzy•t 04:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I went ahead and removed the merge request and made the first move (Sinanthropus to Sinanthropus (disambiguation)). Unfortunately, I can't make the second move, so I added a redirect and will propose it on WP:REQMOVE. Take a look and see if you approve of the changes. —LinkTiger (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- And now the second move is complete. I have nominated Sinanthropus (disambiguation) for speedy deletion because, in my opinion, it does not disambiguate. If you disagree, remove my speedy deletion template and we can talk about it at Talk:Sinanthropus (disambiguation). Thanks for your help in this process. Since I'm not involved in this mess, I'd be happy to help improve the Sinanthropus article. I know almost nothing about the topic, but I can probably drum up some reliable references for information. —LinkTiger (talk) 17:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. I went ahead and removed the merge request and made the first move (Sinanthropus to Sinanthropus (disambiguation)). Unfortunately, I can't make the second move, so I added a redirect and will propose it on WP:REQMOVE. Take a look and see if you approve of the changes. —LinkTiger (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, the underlying principle is that Dabs exist solely to disambiguate among articles; when one stops doing that, it's just clutter.
- Sounds great! I knew there had to be a better way than my "merge, then delete, then rename" business. I didn't realize the WP:CSD for disambiguation pages were so liberal. Thanks for your help. —LinkTiger (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I tentatively disagreed, back in July when i was groping alone in the dark, and i'm prepared to insist that simply "merging" a Dab and an article is a bad practice and probably counter to strong guidelines. But there's more than one way to kill a Dab page, so i'm optimistic that those who know more than i will convince me. I'll propose a post to the talk page -- a way of lightly reformatting the above -- to you w/in 24, and expect we'll soon know if others have issues. Thanks!
December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--Kumioko (talk) 03:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Colleges and universities list nom
Hi there. I saw your name at the ND Wikiproject. I just wanted to see if you could weigh in at the pending FL nomination for List of colleges and universities in North Dakota. You can find the review page at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of colleges and universities in North Dakota/archive1. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 18:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
July 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Scjessey (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
| Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited | |
|---|---|
 |
|
Orphaned non-free media (File:Intel Core Duo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Intel Core Duo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
){kind=link}
File:BBC World Service.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BBC World Service.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. 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. Cloudbound (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Nfulogo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Nfulogo.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 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).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:25, 5 June 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)