User talk:It is me i think

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, It is me i think! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dekisugi (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Martin Postle[edit]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I think the article is coming along nicely. If you have more biographical details, such as date and place of birth, family details, early schooling etc, that would help round out the article. – ukexpat (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

city and state[edit]

I won't revert if you want to expand the Early life and career section, but the lead doesn't need to get into that level of detail. I have no idea if there's been discussion about city and state info on the talk page.
Also, please note that See Also sections are generally for tangentially related articles that haven't already been linked to from the article. Re-linking all of the sub-articles on the main article isn't needed, and neither is linking to the main article from one of the sub-articles. --Onorem♠Dil 03:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really haven't been following along closely enough to know if it's been discussed yet, but I wouldn't think that it would be controversial. If you think it might be, it's never a bad idea to start a discussion on the talk page before making a potentially controversial edit. --Onorem♠Dil 03:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Blist14[edit]

It looks like you were on the right track. Here is a page that lists most of the warning templates that are most often used. Personal messages are generally better than templated messages, but they work. Start at level 1, work up to level 4...report to WP:AIV if the user refuses to stop and/or explain their edits. --Onorem♠Dil 15:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, It is me i think. You have new messages at DeadlyAssassin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Do what Onorem says, its the offical way to deal with vandalism. Asarelah (talk) 20:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your question at WP:AIV[edit]

Just so you know, you can request Page Protection on a page that is receiving a lot of vandalism. Just go to Requests for page protection and it has all the instructions there. —Moo [T • C] 22:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Thanks for the message you left me, i dont know how you came across my page but im not that special in regard to reverting vandalism, in fact im still learning a lot like you. Whenever a user continues to vandalise just report them here after they have received sufficient warnings which you can find here. You may find it more useful next time if i hadn't helped to send a message to this user here - User:Thehelpfulone The user has helped me a lot and thats what they do, helpful one! Happy Wikipeding Roadrunnerz45 (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned articles[edit]

Thanks for your message on my talk page. The appropriate number of incoming links varies from one article to another, but I only consider one 'orphaned' if it has 2 or less; 3-5 incoming links is fine for most articles. The basic rule is, only add links from other articles where they're relevant to the context. I hope that helps; if you have any more questions, feel free to ask. Terraxos (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Postle 2[edit]

Hi. No problem. I would love to be able to give it a Start rating, but there just isn't enough info on him at the moment, never mind if it is sourced or not. Best wishes. Ref (chew)(do) 14:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of hillary clinton presidential campaign endorsements[edit]

I have nominated List of hillary clinton presidential campaign endorsements, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of hillary clinton presidential campaign endorsements. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? asenine t/c 22:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ayres[edit]

Hi, please see the talk page - the whole point was to expand the introduction per WP:LEAD. Thanks, Kaisershatner (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

No problem. It takes time to get the hang of things. Ty 02:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barack Obama Endorsements article[edit]

I put a suggestion on the talk page. They all should be included, but if Obama's campaign rejected them then that should be noted with an asterisk that says he repudiated them. What do you think about that? Check the talk page for my edit there on it. Arnabdas (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think in the source that I had put up Obama chastized Carter for meeting with Hamas saying terrorist groups are not heads of state. Therefore, it's a repudiation of the group. Technically, he is wrong on that point since Hamas was elected, but that's OR on our part. Arnabdas (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply to question about flags[edit]

Hillary Clinton has expressed multiply times her love of America (I can find credible sources and quotes if you need them) and I can't find any credible source/her her opponents which disputes this. Also, Clinton is a former first lady of America. This is more than appropriate. Do you disagree? It is me i think (talk) 15:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely why we shouldn't include flags - we're not supposed to be planting suggestions of a person's patriotism or lack of it in their biography, and the flag doesn't add any more real information than saying her nationality is American. The nationality line in the infobox is not a political statement - her nationality just indicates what her citizenship is, and the flag doesn't tell us more than we already know. Please take a look at WP:FLAG if you haven't - it explains this guideline pretty well. Tvoz |talk 16:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did read through this WP:FLAG and this is where I got my idea. So is your suggestion no flag icons should be added to any politician. In full disclosure, I did add flags to an Austrian politician and a Nigerian. It is me i think (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's pretty much what I'd say - best to leave the flags off of people's pages. Not to worry - you didn't do any harm. Tvoz |talk 17:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, don't add flags. That's my policy :) Kaldari (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If all flags should be kept of all people, why does a flag icon exist? My apologies for sounding negative, but this sounds like your POV and not wikipolicy. Do you have a place for better clarification or may a recent dispute over flag icons which I could reference to see how users view the usage of the flag icon. Thanks, and my apologies again for being negative. It is me i think (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell you why the flag icon exists, all I can do is refer you to the guideline that speaks against using them in biographies to illustrate what we already say in words - WP:FLAG. That is an official Wikipedia guideline - not a regulation, but something editors generally agree on and follow. I don't know what else to tell you, but I agree with Kaldari. Tvoz |talk 02:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, 2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 United States presidential election controversies and attacks. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Wasted Time R (talk) 19:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hannity[edit]

I left a message on the Hannity talk page that I have no problem with the removal of the children's names. By the way, if you want your signature to turn blue just make a small edit on your user page. --PTR (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click on your userpage tab and click "create this page" then put some text (just a dot is fine) and save. Your user name should turn blue after that. --PTR (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are very welcome. --PTR (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary nomination[edit]

I see you support this article being nominated as a featured article. Just go to the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hillary Rodham Clinton page and say Support and why you're supporting the article for nomination. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Ayers[edit]

Please temporarily protect the Bill Ayers page, I'm worried about all the vandalism that has been done. You'd likely only have to protect it until the general election. QuirkyAndSuch (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

86.165.34.125[edit]

Please do not add messages to the talk page for user 86.165.34.125. There is a clear request to this effect in very large print on the talk page. The IP is shared with almost 150 users. 86.165.34.125 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response[edit]

Here is how to create that WikiProject. I should tell you that I have never created a WikiProject before, and have not participated much in them even though I have been here for nearly 5 years! However, you can start the project by creating the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Philanthropists. Follow as much as possible the formatting in another wikiproject such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. Start out with a mission statement, and an article that you would like people to work on. Finally, go through the histories of some articles about philanthropists, and write messages to some of the contributors who are still active, to get some advice from them and see if they would be interested in joining.

I hope this helps. Good luck. Academic Challenger (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Weathermen, Ayers, Dohrm, Obama, and "terrorism"[edit]

Please note that I have created an RfC to discuss the matter of whether, how, and where we should use and cover the designation "terrorist" describe the Weathermen and their former leaders. It is located here: Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC. The intent is to decide as a content matter (and not as a behavioral issue regarding the editors involved) how to deal with this question. I am notifying you because you appear to have participated in or commented about this issue before. Feel free to participate. Thank you. Wikidemon (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC[edit]

This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. -- Noroton (talk) 02:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing survey[edit]

Hi It is me I think. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 13:38, 8 July 2009 (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) 13:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mail[edit]

Hello, It is me i think. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, It is me i think. 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:It_is_me_i_think&oldid=1096947130"