| Revision as of 18:25, 8 October 2006 editStokerAce (talk | contribs)238 edits ACT← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:31, 10 October 2014 edit undoShotwell (talk | contribs)3,697 edits clearing talk page |
| (172 intermediate revisions by 44 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{WWF alerts}} |
|
{{busy}} |
|
== The Ashes of Eden == |
|
|
|
|
|
Nicely done! I think you could go ahead and remove the cleanup tag. ] 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: Thanks. Now I am one step closer to fitting in at a Star Trek convention. ] 15:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
==System Accident== |
|
|
Sounds good. I will review and vote later.] 05:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==''''WARNING''''== |
|
|
Please ] and stop engaging in personal attacks and ] behavior. Furthermore do not begin an edit war. All changes in ] should be listed on the talk page for discussion and comment and consensus building. The article as is represents a previously built consensus among divergent opinions. I have not added a warning message here, but if your behavior continues I will be foreced to do so. ] 14:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Personal attacks? What are you on about? ] 15:18, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Grading mathematics articles == |
|
|
|
|
|
First up, thanks for your contributions in grading mathematics articles. Could I request that you record the results of your work in the relevant section of ]? That way it prevents other editors from duplicating your efforts. |
|
|
|
|
|
Many thanks, ] 14:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:On the above page, you'll see a navigation box, which has links to the dozen or so "Assessment pages". These each cover some major division of mathemetics. When grading an article, decide which area it belongs to. (Some articles could go under several categories... just pick the one you think is best). Go to the assessment page, use the example {{tl|maths rating}} template at the top on the talk page of the article your grading. Then edit the "Assessment pages" to include the article you've just graded. Use other articles' entries to help you with wikicode etc.. Make sure you inlucde any comment you left. Hope this helps. ] 15:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: No problem. Always happy to help :-) ] 15:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] merge proposal == |
|
|
|
|
|
Are there any other college newspapers which have pages, if not I would support a merge and redirect. ] 21:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have responded on your talk page. ] 02:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Importance of Functional Analysis == |
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, no problem. The importance ratings I give I only ever intended to be initial ones. Inevitably, the importance reflects my own mathematical knowledge and experience. In some areas (such as analysis or number theory), this is likely to lead to someone more familiar with the area coming along and correcting the results of my ignorance. I never mind people correcting my ratings, providing they give a good reason (like you did). :-) ] 11:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==''''WARNING REGARDING GOOD FAITH''''== |
|
|
Please see Misplaced Pages's ] policy. Comment on ''content'', not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to ] for disruption. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. <!-- Template:No personal attacks (npa2) --> |
|
|
Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See ] for the guidelines on this.<!-- Template:agf1 --> |
|
|
|
|
|
Your placing tags, comments, and related edits that now appear retailatory are probably a violation of Misplaced Pages policies, such as not personal attacks, NPOV, etc. Please stop. <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 17:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm sick of these ridiculous warnings. I suggest that you carefully read the wikipedia guidelines before leaving another baseless warning on my talk page. Articles need references and that is that. If you're concerned with my motivations, please look at my contrib history. You'll see that I sputter around wikipedia around cleaning up articles. The ACT article led me to the others. I've also replied on your talk page. ] 17:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I am very familiar with Misplaced Pages policy and procedures and practices. Consider this your ''''SECOND WARNING''''. If you disagree with me and continue, I'd urge you to bring this matter to the Mediation group as that would be more appropriate than your vandalizing pages. <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 17:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Asking for references does not constitute vandalism in any sense of the word. ] 17:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, putting the {{fact}} after nearly every other line, particularily when there are clear references and sources {{verifiable}} at the beginning, in, and/or at the end of each paragraph to support the material is considered vandalism. Please read the Misplaced Pages policy on this. <font color="Red">]</font><sup>]</sup> 17:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ACT == |
|
|
|
|
|
You seem to know more about Misplaced Pages than I do, so I thought I'd ask you this directly. It seems crazy that the ACT page has been written almost exclusively by anti-ACT people (those who call ACT a "fringe" group, or have specific disagreements with ACT members, as shown by the various links I posted on the ACT talk page). The resulting bias in the article is obvious (as you have noted). Is there a mechanism for bringing this situation to someone's attention, and perhaps getting these people excluded from editing the page? ] 18:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
