User talk:Orthorhombic/Archive 2

AfD nomination of Scottish Amaranthine Order

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Scottish Amaranthine Order. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Amaranthine Order. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain deletion of table

Your table on the article Mutual Recognition of States is too large, and has made the article huge,and could take a long time to load on slow internet connections/browsers. Therefore, I have deleted the table. This is not to say your work is bad; rather, it would be better to use text rather than a table to convey the information. Thank you. Brambleclawx 01:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem was that the table was too big and unwieldy, and it would have been much more efficient to explain it in prose. And it doesn't matter if I deleted that stuff; it's always saved in the history. If you like, I could help you with turning it into text. Brambleclawx 14:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look; basically, if a country is recognized by all, then you could remove that from the table, cutting the article's size down. Another way to do it is by listing a state, and then listing whom recognizes is:

State name: recognizer 1, recognizer 2, etc. Brambleclawx 14:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Mutual Recognition of States

I have nominated Mutual Recognition of States, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutual Recognition of States. 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ninety:one (reply on my talk) 20:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

re Abhay Bhushan

Hello Orthorhombic. You recently created the page Abhay Bhushan and also edited File Transfer Protocol. In both places you said that Abhay Bhushan invented the FTP. I don't want to doubt you, but I find it amazing that the person who invented the FTP is just now getting an article, and has so few references. I'd have thought that such a person would be reaonably famous. Anyway, the Abhay Bhushan article basically doesn't have any refs (one link to Linkedin and one to a blog). Surely the inventor of the FTP must have more, do you have any refes proving or indicating thast Abhay Bhushan did indeed invent the FTP? Thanks, Herostratus (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Monsieur Chouchani

• Monsieur Chouchani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

When you removed the notability improvement tag this was on the basis of this person being 'hugely influential'. Could you please add some reliable sources to the article in order to demonstrate that fact before removing the improvement template. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 11:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Radial glia

Добрый день,

Я ( http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Участник:AM_Borman ) коротаю время в Википедии, естественно пишу или перевожу только про то. чем занимался всю жизнь. Хулиганю преимущественно в ру вики, освоил недавно украинскую, и вот недавно залез и в английскую. Так как пишу вещи про очень р-р-революционные страсти, например и преимущественно про феномен старения, то часто возникают конфликтные ситуации ситуации. Недавно возникла, ну, вовсе не политкорректная ситуация на странице Radial glia. В эту страницу я добавил комментарий с рядом ссылок и ссылкой на главную викистатью: - The astrocytic hypothesis of aging of mammals. Что с этого получилось читайте: - Talk:Radial glia Редактор talk требует, чтобы все внешние ссылки были только англоязычными: "Your text can be returned to this article if you can provide English language peer-reviewed journal articles or textbooks that evaluate the theory. The policy governing this is WP:MEDRS. This is not a criticism of the theory, it is a limitation of Wikipedia which frequently prevents the very latest research and thought from getting into the encyclopedia"

WP:MEDRS в этом вики правиле - языковых ограничений нет, Википедия изначально многоязыковый проект. Поэтому если эти источники только на русском языке - это не причина удаления ссылок и комментарев. Видимо, это фантазии - прошу разрулить эту мягко говоря не политкорректную ситуацию,

С уважением, АМ Бормян AM Borman (talk) 08:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Coverage factor

The article Coverage factor has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

One line definition, without citation to demonstrate usage anywhere, no real explanation of terms used, orphan

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Melcombe (talk) 09:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Paula Bradshaw

The article Paula Bradshaw has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No notability has been established two years after it has been tagged as non-notable

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Traditional unionist (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited English language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Germanic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daniel Morgan Perry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Daniel Morgan Perry

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Daniel Morgan Perry requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Dmol (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Daniel Morgan Perry. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. GB fan 15:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyogirl79 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 11 July 2013‎

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tokyogirl79 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 11 July 2013‎

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

GB fan 17:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Daniel Morgan Perry at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2013 (UTC)