User talk:Egberts

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback|your username}} on my talk.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback|Egberts}} on your talk.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

The word "dumb"[edit]

You might be interested in a discussion at Talk:Dumb#"Dumb" as pejorative. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... And as a Deaf person striving for NPOV, this might be tenuous when working with archival quotes from a world-view, particularly while I'm expanding User:Egberts/Deaf history. -- Egberts (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cresix: I see that you've been wonderfully diplomatic about the various words used within the Deaf society of the World. It's been what about 8 years and I'm about ex-PM Blair's age. And the Deaf Studies in many universities (in both sides of the ponds) have rapidly evolved their curriculum in such that it is now a dissonance culture (without geography) and not so much a subculture anymore, worthy of their own history, culture, political, people, economic, philosophy, psychology and medical. My only concern at this point, is the pacing of these pages' roll-outs (complete with citations but of course). Can I pry on your immediate concerns? -- Egberts (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I have very little time for serious editing. I have a few deaf-related articles on my watchlist, but I usually don't get very involved unless I see something that smacks me in the face as glaringly biased, such as the discussion I mentioned above, or several months ago Talk:Sign language#Animals' use of LANGUAGE. But thanks for your good work, and if you ever need an opinion or a little help fighting bias against the Deaf community on Wikipedia, please let me know. Best wishes. Cresix (talk) 23:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion (Relgis, deaf culture)[edit]

Hi. The only reason why this was there was in the hope/belief that there may be room for a future category on deaf culture literature or something similar, rooted in the main and vague "Deaf culture" category. I added in there (or rather there as well) so that it would be easier to find when/if this should occur, and spare some time to those who may be looking for articles on deaf writers/writers of books on deaf culture among the many and vague deaf people category. Although I've been spending some time pondering on this issue, it is certainly not something I would revert you on, and I'm not stuck in that solution. But I am writing here to urge you to consider the feasibility of further subcategorizing the "Deaf culture" cat., and, since you're obviously more familiar with the subject than I am, see were else Relgis would also fit. Regards, Dahn (talk) 09:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You'll get a snappy restounding YES on overloading of the generic Category:Deaf culture category. For Relgis, sounds to be like we'll be needing a Deaf culture in Romania, of which I should be able to fan out. And like you've said, just because it's an English-based Wikipedia, doesn't make it post-de-facto and automatic US/UK-centric. By opening more subcategories like Category:Deaf culture in the United States or Category:Deaf culture in the United Kingdom, we can mitigate Wiki-wars and permit more inclusion by other English-based and many other countries, as well. But that wasn't the real reason for the deletion -- it was because people don't go directly under a culture category (even if they made the cult), generally speaking... of which we've got a lot of cleaning up to do. -- Egberts (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Perhaps we could consider a Category:Deaf culture in Romania as part of the Category:Deaf culture restructuring? That is, before or instead an actual Deaf culture in Romania article, and only when other such subcategories come into existence. The thing is that, so far, Relgis is probably the only entry in such a category - I haven't yet seen another "hearing impaired Romanian" article in my time on wikipedia, and the sources on deaf culture in Romania as a phenomenon are bound to be less available and scholarly than their Western counterparts (and, judging from some of your earlier comments, even these are scarce or controversial). In any case, I'm willing to help out from this end if you decide to give subcategorizing a go. Cheers, Dahn (talk) 07:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay: I note the "in Romania" cat is now a bluelink. I'm on it. Dahn (talk) 07:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deaf astronomers[edit]

Excellent touch on that new category. Just noticed Henrietta Swan Leavitt in it. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs[edit]

Hi Egberts - just a note to let you know that the Deaf-related stub category has now been moved to Category:Deafness stubs and is ready for use with {{Deaf-stub}}. Cheers, Grutness...wha? 22:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Catgegory:Deaf for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Catgegory:Deaf is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catgegory:Deaf until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Naraht (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaf painters[edit]

Category:Deaf painters, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. LeSnail (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Egberts/Deaf people[edit]

User:Egberts/Deaf people, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Egberts/Deaf people and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Egberts/Deaf people during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't remove the notice. You can comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Egberts/Deaf people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Egberts/Deaf (disambiguation)[edit]

User:Egberts/Deaf (disambiguation), a page which created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Egberts/Deaf (disambiguation) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Egberts/Deaf (disambiguation) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

96.68.233.61 (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Wut? So, I should have marked it as ROUGH DRAFT, no that I've lost all my information.[reply]

Is there anyway I can get back the content of this deleted page? Egberts (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaf educators has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Deaf educators, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Egberts (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Go ahead and hurry delete this Category:Deaf educators because it is too ambiguous (is it an Category:Educators of the deaf or Category:Deaf educators?) We have the appropriate alternative but more correct categories now.[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Egberts. 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[edit]

Hello, Egberts. 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[edit]

Hello, Egberts. 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]

Bed warmer[edit]

Hi! A while ago you edited bed warmer replacing "embers" by "hot stones". Thanks for the attempt to help; but, if you had googled around, you would have found that indeed the pans were filled with embers. Check the references that I have just added. (That not only created a big risk of fire, but also must have made many people sick with poisoning by the carbon monoxide from the embers burning with insufficient oxygen...)
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 11:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- I am thinking perhaps we should add some type of forewarning/harbinger type of statement with regard to ember. So, can we put both 'ember' and 'hot stones' and somehow note that 'ember' has demonstrated some type of risk? Egberts (talk) 09:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]