User talk:Nil0lab

Tor

But please stop changing the links to tor. You are doing the wrong thing and working against prior concensus. Tor meaning a type of crag or hill is the clear primary meaning as shown by the number of internal links. In this instance, if you think the priority ought to be changed you should take it up at Page Move requests. -- Solipsist 03:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You speak as if I've done it many times, but I only did it once. If there has been a discussion and a consensus, it should be documented on the talk page, and it was not. My failure to read your mind is not my fault. And I have to say I very much disagree about one discipline calling "dibs" on a word. Archaic words fall into disuse and are reused- that's what synonyms are and what disambiguation pages are for. --Nil0lab 06:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to some extent you are right. To some extent you were getting tarred with the same brush as other completely unrelated page move problems. But really you were acting recklessly. You made some provocative comments on Talk:Tor then proceeded to make some significant changes without waiting for a response, without understanding how Wikipedia works, and against concensus. That's why I had to stop you before you went too far. I would have reverted all your disambig changes, except that on a couple of them you were more accurately linking to specific articles on the Tor in question, which was a good thing.

There is no issue of calling 'dibs' on a word. You should take time to realise that in an international community such as Wikipedia, your experience of the world might be the minority one. Tor, meaning a hill, is not an archaic word, just one that is not commonly used in America.

Wikipedia's naming policies are designed to ensure that editors will usually be able to guess a link without having check it and disambiguate it. If there are already a large number of internal links for an article, that's a pretty good indication that a page has a primary meaning and is already in the right place. -- Solipsist 07:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if there has been a discussion and a consensus, it should be documented on the article's talk page. I've yet to see any decent argument to the effect that tor-the-software should be subservient to tor-the-Britishism. And yes, I do tend to express my opinions forcefully, but I think calling them provocative is provocative. Expressing one's opinions forcefully is, in my experience, a good way to get a discussion going. I'm sorry if you felt provoked. --Nil0lab 21:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wild goose chase

Thanks for starting this article. Sometimes it's odd what's missing here... But I'm worried that in its present form the article might get deleted as nothing more than a dictionary definition. Can you add more to it - perhaps where the phrase originated? Happy editing, --Alynna 03:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

or perhaps you can --Nil0lab 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raon Digital

A Proposed Deletion template has been added to the article Raon Digital, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. – Tivedshambo (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for adding the external refs to this article. However, to meet the notability guidleines, it will need a sentence or two in the article itself explaining what makes this company notable. See WP:CORP for more information. Any assistance you can give with this article would be apprecisted - thanks. – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:39, 5 November 2007 (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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Device Software Optimization

The article Device Software Optimization has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't appear to be notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Izno (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]