Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RegentsPark (talk | contribs) at 18:45, 18 May 2010 (→Research Fellow: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Greetings! Please post on this page.
你好, 中华 宾 请 撰 此地 英文

Template:Archive box collapsible

Angela Laich

Guten Tag!

Thank You very much for recommendations about the references, i have improved by this way also the article in Russian language. Now will see step by step what is about the photos and how to load them. Will ask the questions, if have some difficulties. Mit freundlichen Grüß, Farmount1989 (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Sehr gut/ Excellent! The article is coming along quite nicely. I've raised some additional issues at the articles talkpage Talk:Angela Laich. Please have a look, if you may. Yours, Mootros (talk) 14:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Template:Muslims and controversies. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Codf1977 (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Delete of Muslims and controversies‎‎ templates

Hi, Please do not re-add Speedy Delete tags to either of the about templates, I do not feel that any of the the possiable criteria would apply, if you wish to nominate for deletion then please go through the WP:TfD. Thanks Codf1977 (talk) 10:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. very useful link! Mootros (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic Density

Hi. I have taken your "hoax" tag off this article, rather sadly because it read like the sort of hoax article I enjoy debunking, and I hoped to chase up some of the references and show that you were right; but this and this show that Durkheim did indeed use the term as described. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. Yes, I am aware that Durkheim actually used this term in some of this writings. However, I am not sure whether this actually constitutes a sociological concept in itself. There is no mentioning of Durkheim in the intro. It is also unclear how Morton fits into the story. Where does population come into play? Who are the sociologists hwho have used this concept? If not a hoax, surely it must be original research. Mootros (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The article could certainly be clearer, but the second link in my note above gives a lot of references to other people using the term or discussing Durkheim's use of it - I looked on as far as the fifth page of that listing, and though there were a few about air traffic control, the great majority were in reference to this (Durkheim's) use. I think that's enough to show that the concept is probably notable, and anyway the article isn't a hoax in the intent-to-deceive sence. JohnCD ([[User

talk:JohnCD|talk]]) 21:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's not a hoax -- thanks for establishing this. Please have a look at its talk page for some further discussion. Mootros (talk)

Burmese–Siamese War (1548–49)

Hello,

I'm very sorry but I had to undo your recent changes in the article. The policy states quite clearly that the subject should be bold, plus the WWI article has bold on all the other names such as: World War I, First World War, the Great War, the World War (prior to the outbreak of World War II), and the War to End All Wars in its lead, so I think that is the accepted convention. Best Regards, Sodacan (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for contacting me. No problem! I guess it might be matter of taste in style. It looks rather messy, especially with all the different scripts offset against the font changes. The policy clearly states the subject should be bold in the first sentence and should be avoided at all if it is descriptive. I will now leave this to your discretion to review the issues. Let me add, you did an excellent job in getting this article to its current shape. Well done! Best wishes, Mootros (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! That is what I thought at first too, but after looking around I found that many others have the same format so I just replicated it. Again, Thank you for the kind words, and Best Regards, Sodacan (talk) 09:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Research Fellow

FYI, I semi-protected the article for two weeks. Let me know if the disruption continues. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)