User talk:Lwiner

Welcome![edit]

Hello Lwiner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

Also, enjoy being a part of Wikipedia and don't be overwhelmed! Spend a day customizing your user page and/or finding out the basics of Wikipedia. Then you could concentrate yourself on one or two specific areas! --Landon 22:15, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Policy[edit]

Hello, Lwiner, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please note that creating articles to promote yourself or your work is strongly frowned upon in Wikipedia. Such articles are likely to be deleted. Thank you, Slac speak up! 06:57, 25 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Leon Winer article[edit]

Hi there. As mentioned above, self-authored biographical pages in the article space are generally frowned upon. Please see Wikipedia:Vanity_page and Wikipedia:Notability (people) for more information. Also, you are welcome to maintain that information in your user space. --Alan Au 18:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete AfD talk[edit]

Please do not delete AfD talk as you did on the Leon Winer AFD. Also, please keep new comments to the bottom and sign your posts with ~~~~ which will give something similar to: —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 06:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Also, don't edit other people's comments. Either put a comment below theirs, strike it through, or something, but don't put words in other people's mouths. —Last Avenue [talk | contributions] 06:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research[edit]

Hi Lwiner. You made a comment about original research during the recent "Leon Winer" article-deletion discussion, and I thought you might benefit from reading Wikipedia's policy regarding original research. Note that this may precipitate the removal of your other articles (on SCAN) unless they can be independently verified. Please understand that this is not a reflection on the quality or validity of your work and is simply meant to preserve the integrity of Wikipedia as an impartial resource. --Alan Au 22:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy (again)[edit]

Please note that creating articles to promote yourself or your work is strongly frowned upon in Wikipedia. Such articles are likely to be deleted, again. Cheers! Budgiekiller 19:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

I promise not to create articles.

I promise not to publish original research that has not been published previously.

Regarding "impartial," I have lived 76 years and met thousands of people and I have never met anyone who is impartial. All you can hope for is to present several points of view.

Anything else? Leon Winer Lwiner 19:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel this way but Wikipedia's policies are quite clear. You aren't being singled out, it's just a case of playing by the rules... Budgiekiller 19:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem if you would like to create articles, as long as the content is externally verifiable and has relatively broad appeal (see Wikipedia:Notability). I probably should have used "neutral" instead of "impartial," but the difference is purely semantic (see WP:NPOV). --Alan Au 22:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your contributions.

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you.

Perfecto 03:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Body mass index[edit]

I've reverted your edits partly because they don't seem to be based on any fact, and partly because they made the page look a bit of a mess. Just because a formula is counter-intuitive doesn't automatically mean that it's wrong. Besides, the links appear to be to pages you've created yourself, and they don't convince me any further on the validity of your claim. As such, it looks like original research at best. Moreover, the mere fact that the 'standard' BMI formlua has survived about 170 years already suggests that it was developed on more well-founded research than yours. Please see Talk:Body mass index#Should height be cubed rather than squared? for a more detailed discussion. -- Smjg 12:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also; i'd just like to thank you for your contributions to the article; but please realise. The Body mass index; while it does not take into account 3 dimensions, is only used as a quotient. Whilst it does not take into consideration those who have above average height, as default (i.e - just using the BMI), when used with a height chart, it is used as a means of comparison with a height chart of ideal body composition. The magical Spum-dandy 10:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Defs_of_SWOTs.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Defs_of_SWOTs.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright status is that I am the owner of the copyright and I grant non-exclusive license all Wikipedia users to download or copy the image. [[[User:Lwiner|Lwiner]] 00:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)]

Please note that the diagram has a note to that effect [User:LWiner]

SWOT Analysis[edit]

Hi. Glad you appreciated my edits. I like the SCAN process, although on an individual level wouldn't you always end up with Aristotelian happiness as the top objective? Or is that just me? (I want another job -> I want a more interesting life -> I want to be happier.) Anyhow, back to Wiki matters. A "fly by" editor removed the link to www.321books.co.uk/catalog/tesco/swot-analysis.htm Tesco Swot Analysis. This seems a shame after it has been living there happily for months. Do you agree that it should be restored? It now incorporates comments on SCAN, and a link to your site, after the criticism you gave it recently. Please respond here and I'll watch for a response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pgrieg (talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

---> On an individual level, the objective selected for SWOT analysis may be at the highest level or at a lower level. A frequently used example will illustrate this point. A college freshman, seeking ultimate happiness, may be contemplating the career-choice decision. His first choice is a career in biological sciences. Using that as the objective of his SWOT analysis, he evaluates his strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats. He is then in a better position to decide whether to pursue his first choice or to choose another career. If he stays with "biological sciences," following the Wikipedia page, he develops suitable strategies.

Regarding Tesco, my concern is that the listed SWOTs are not relevant to the vaguely stated objective and that "Opportunities" are in reality possible strategies. It's a sloppy job and should not be used as an example. User:Lwiner, 20 Dec. 18:15 (UTC)

Good to see that you still around --Pandaplodder 11:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC) If this comment was addressed to me, I didn't change any of your posts. I always sign my posts. The only changes I have made were corrections of typographical errors.User:Lwiner, 11 April 2007 23:15 (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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]