Hello, Xionbox, 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - Mailer Diablo 15:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response. Yes, teachers aren't always right. I can remember a number of times I was pretty certain I had the right answer, and it got marked wrong, then later I found I was absolutely right. Doesn't mean I'm always right though. And guess what? Now I'm a teacher! HiLo48 (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Measurement system of the 2010 London Marathon[edit]
Note that your edits are contrary to WP:UNIT, which clearly states "US articles generally put United States customary units first". As the MQ-9 is clearly a product of US origin, your changes to put SI units first are contrary to existing guidelines. Please stop, or further action will be taken. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are continuting to make these changes in US-related articles. Please stop. - BilCat (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response on BilCat's talk page:
Dear BilCat,
First of all, please be civil when talking to people, even people you are in contradiction with (including me). The bare minimum is to start personal comments with a greeting, which you have not done during our previous conversations.
Regarding me edits, in which I add the metric conversion, I incite you to read the following extract from WP:Units:
The use of units of measurement is guided by the following principles:
[*]Avoid ambiguity: Aim to write so you cannot be misunderstood.
[*]Familiarity: The less readers have to look up definitions, the easier it is to be understood.
[*]International scope: Wikipedia is not country-specific; apart from some regional or historical topics, use the units in most ::widespread use worldwide for the type of measurement in question.
(...)
When the source uses one set of units, generally put that one first; if editors cannot agree, put the source's units first. If they are not first, this should be stated in the citation.
According to these rules, if the source does not explicitly use US Customary units for specific information, then the most widespread units must be used.
More specifically, my edit of the Pan American World Airways article respects these rules for two reasons: firstly, as you probably did not notice, I did not alter the units (nor even added the metric conversion) which were taken from sources expressed in the US Customary unit system. However, the unit I did in fact change is in regards to the weight of the plastic explosive used on Pan Am Flight 103. The source specified does not even mention the weight of the explosive (a citation needed flag could be raised) and, as the metric system is used throughout the world with the exception of US, Liberia and Burma, placing the metric system first is in accordance to the WP:UNITS. In addition, and it will be my final confer to the WP:UNITS, even if this part of the article may be strongly associated with a given place, it would be related to the UK as it occurred on its soil; WP:UNITS states the following: UK articles more often put metric units first.
Until you are able to precisely point out to the source of the article which clearly states the weight of this explosive in pounds, my edit placing kilograms before pounds will be committed. Should you revert this edition once more, I will feel obligated to place an Edit War banner on your talk page. I hope you understand my concert and I would greatly appreciate your respect of the Wikipedia rules for etiquette and unit system to use.
Xionbox (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Xionbox (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Xionbox I have been asked by BilCat to look at your recent changes to the order of units. As far as I can see BilCat correctly challenged you changes to these articles, when the subject of the article is clearly American the consensus is to put american units first then metric. Before you make any more of these type of changes please take into consideration that they may not be appropriate for United States-centric articles, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a few links that I believe showcased the continued use of the Fahrenheit temperature scale in Canada quite nicely (one especially good link was from Environment Canada, Canada's official government sanctioned weather tracking authority). You removed all these links and kept only one -- is this one link enough? I read in the "Fahrenheit" discussion forum that generally, the Fahrenheit scale (or any scale for that matter) must be "officially sanctioned" by a government in order for it to qualify as a secondary scale. Canada, as you may or may not know, is probably the only nation (not too sure about the UK) that officially maintains legal definitions for BOTH metric and imperial units and also officially allows for the use of EITHER system of measurement (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/W-6/page-9.html#anchorsc:2) and (http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/1996/r96w0171/r96w0171.asp) and (http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/forecast/city_e.html?bc-74&unit=i). Australia, in contrast, has completely stripped all legal definitions for imperial units from its books. Fittingly, Australia's meteorology bureau (unlike Canada's) does NOT offer a "Fahrenheit" or imperial option next to weather reports (http://www.bom.gov.au/nsw/forecasts/sydney.shtml). Thank you in advance for your feedback :-) 173.180.196.28 (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Xionbox, although there is no specific mention of "Fahrenheit" in Canada's Weights and Measures Act you have to consider that there is no specific mention of "Celsius" either -- as Celsius automatically corresponds to the SI system and Fahrenheit to the imperial. Do you see what I mean? The United States doesn't even explicitly say the "Fahrenheit scale" is the "official American temperature scale." Nonetheless, and based on the US' large use of customary units, one can presume the Fahrenheit scale is indeed "official." The US government, believe it or not, actually prefers the metric system but does not impose its use on Americans (http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/metric-program.cfm).
The fact that Canada officially allows for EITHER system of measurement (which was actually done as a compromise to the fierce public resistance to metrication in the early 1980s; Customary units (3) In addition to the units of measurement otherwise referred to in this section, the customary units of measurement and the symbols therefor as set out and defined in Part IV of Schedule I may be used in Canada, which units of measurement are commonly used with the International System of Units; http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/W-6/page-2.html) suggests that the Fahrenheit scale should be viewed as an "official government sanctioned" secondary scale, perfectly legal for use among Canadians (the scale's 'officialdom' is assumed). The fact that Environment Canada still keeps a Fahrenheit/imperial "option" on hand further corroborates my point (http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/forecast/city_e.html?bc-74&unit=i) and with all due respect; most American visitors would theoretically use their own weather bureaus to check the weather in Canada. You have to ask yourself, if the Canadian government still keeps imperial measures on the books (and you should note that when the units are changed on the Environment Canada website, they are changed to "imperial" not "US customary" or "English units" so as to comply with the Act that mandates their use within Canada), isn't it perfectly normal to presume that the "imperial/Fahrenheit" option given on Environment Canada's website is for Canadians? I certainly think so. If you truly believe the Fahrenheit option on Environment Canada's website is for American use, why aren't most Canadian road signs listed in US customary measures? Canada certainly has its fair share of American visitors, the vast majority of whom have no trouble complying with Canada's largely metric road signage. Australia has plenty of American tourists and that nation's weather bureau only gives temperatures in Celsius (http://www.bom.gov.au/). Same with New Zealand (http://www.metservice.com/national/index). Mexico, another of the United States' neighbours and indeed the recipient of vast numbers of American visitors, only officially gives temperatures in Celsius (http://smn.cna.gob.mx/). So I'm afraid your premise that Environment Canada's "imperial" option is for American use only is fundamentally flawed and incorrect. Based on my above stated points, one can only assume, and pursuant to the Weights and Measures Act which authorizes the continued use of imperial measures in Canada; Environment Canada's imperial option is NOT for American tourists but rather for Canadians who prefer the imperial system (which includes the Fahrenheit scale, and thus fully qualifying it as an official scale of measurement in Canada). Also, how would you describe the dual imperial/metric unit listings of MANY Canadian products MADE in Canada FOR Canadians? The soup I had for lunch read "10 fl oz (284mL)." The soup was made in Canada, by a Canadian company, for Canadians ... NOT for American visitors/tourists. It is also important to note that virtually ALL ovens, refrigerators, etc, in Canada come defaulted to the imperial/Fahrenheit unit as imperial measures, by in large, still dominate in Canadian kitchens. Thanks for your response. 173.180.196.28 (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your input. I will consider opening an account :-) It seems you are interested in the topic of measurement systems (I am too). I'd like to know if the Cayman Islands is "imperial" or "metric." I do know that most weather is reported using imperial units, distances and speed limits are in miles and MPH, gas is bought by the imperial gallon, and most food in stores seems to be sold by the pound, ounce, etc. I haven't been able to locate anything that officially sanctions these practices in the islands though. Do you know anything about this? 173.180.196.28 (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Xionbox, I am sorry about the edits to the Constellation program... I find myself in denial that we aren't going to the moon (big supporter of NASA/space exploration) and I would like to formally notify you that I will cease to revert changes made to Project Constellation.
I saw your exchange with Rsteilberg (talk) re Constellation. I was interested, being a bit of a True Believer myself. I just updated the lead section of Space exploration, which was embarrassingly outdated. But you might like to look at the material I added to the "Future of space exploration" section about the Nautilus-X concept study, which I think is quite exciting. In my opinion we are in far better shape, technically, to settle the whole Solar System than we were to land on the Moon in May 1961, when JFK issued his famous challenge. So now all we have to do is sell it to the public, who have to pay for it. I think the ISS shows the path for that too, as it needs to be an international undertaking, and has the potential to draw support from the whole human familly. Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And I understand you about the spaceflight, and hopefully we can make it to Mars/an asteroid at least once in my lifetime (regardless of whether the moon landings are bypassed). In my opinion, spaceflight holds the future of the world in the aspect that human's expanding demand of curiosity will one day extend pass the Earth and the Solar System into deep space, and I am an advocate of getting prelimenary space exploration underway. Rsteilberg 17:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsteilberg (talk • contribs)
When it comes to the the study of energy release [ Joules ( Foot pound-force )], I am a bit of a pariah around here.
I see you are a member of Wikiproject Spaceflight. It may be of interest to you that I have the the original photographs of the moon from the 1st soft landing of Surveyor 1 on the moon. My father was the “Press secretary” from Hughes Aircraft Company/JPL on that night: “First Press release”, June 1, 1966 11:17:37 Pacific Daylight Time; “LUNAR LANDMARKS”, VOL. II June 2, 1966 NO. 12, which I am copying from at this moment.
I have all the original photos that appear on the Surveyor 1 article page. If you are interested in seeing (handle and inspect)them, email me at: gregoryglove@yahoo.com
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.
If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Xionbox! You restored a deleted PROD template at Marriage in the world. You shouldn't restore deleted PROD-templates, because they're for uncontroversial deletion only (and it seems this wasn't uncontroversial in the creator's opinion). If you don't mind, I'll get an AfD started on the case. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scratch that - already nominated. Going there to voice my opinion. Zakhalesh (talk) 18:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zakhalesh, thanks for contacting me. The only reason I restored the PROD template is because the user didn't specify a reason to keep the article. I may have clock too fast.
Hello, Xionbox. You have new messages at Zakhalesh's talk page. Message added 18:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello, Xionbox. You have new messages at Zakhalesh's talk page. Message added 19:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Strike that, already gone.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shirt58! didn't check for copy-paste but I'm not impressed. Anyways, wow, that was a quick deletion. Xionbox₪ 10:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Completely off-topic, I'll bet Sydney to a brick that, though you're obviously a native speaker of both English and French, your cognitive processses are mostly in French. --Shirt58 (talk) 10:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's probably true as I grew up in France, and did almost all my studies in French schools. I'm curious, what made you think that? Xionbox₪ 10:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what does Sydney to a brick mean. I've looked it up, but can't seem to find a definition. I guess it means you're ready to bet a lot that you are right. Did I get it? Xionbox₪ 10:31, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer:
Hi Shirt58! didn't check for copy-paste but I'm not impressed.
Just a tiny little nuance, but it was reads in English like you were not impressed with me, instead of the person that added the copyrighted text. In Romance languages you can leave out the inflected attributions, but not in Germanic languages. My own one of them is notorious for leading other languages down dark alleys, beating them up, and stealing their vocabulary. Like nuance, for example.
Long answer soon, --Shirt58 (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shirt58! Sorry for the later answer. You brought up a very interesting point, which you have remarkably applied to my sentence (and my though process). In fact, you are right, I was not impressed by the fact that the article contained copyrighted text: nothing to do with you then. ;-)
Hello Xionbox. Thanks for the speedy deletion work you are doing; it's a very important activity! I did want to let you know, though, regarding Eating For Two, that current consensus holds that it is bad practice to tag articles for speedy deletion as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as users may be actively working on the article content. Ten to fifteen minutes is considered a good time to wait before tagging such articles under either of these criteria. Please note that before an appropriate waiting period is over, the articles should not be marked as patrolled, so that the wait does not result in the article escaping review at a later time. Nothing here is meant to apply to any other criterion; attack pages and copyright violations especially should be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks.
Thanks for undoing your own edit. This account is an alternate one, and is bound to show up on the feeds of Huggle and Igloo. I've faced similar problems with them! Regards, Yes Michael? •Talk 10:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeLynch Public (talk • contribs) [reply]
I just removed a revision which replaced a long paragraph with "I like turtles"... Ciao and good work! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 14:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realized that afterwards. Sorry for reacting so quickly. Xionbox₪ 14:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll look at it and get involved if I can, I am excited about it too. One of my best friends at Langley is in temporarily in charge of the collaboration there, until he can find someone else to manage it. Of course everyone is preoccupied with the danger of chaotic devastation from the current budget battles. We're clearly at a critical moment, like 1972, when the shuttle architecture was cast in stone for the next three decades. I hope we can do a little better this time around (as I'll never live to see the next iteration). :) Cheers, Wwheaton (talk) 20:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have drafted a letter to Mark Holderman at JSC and David Gilman (Assistant Director of Flight Projects at Langley) about your stub:
by another editor. I think it is not bad as a "stub" (just basic information, to give other editors a place to build), but you might like to take a look.
I hope this article may be helpful in building community and public awareness of (and support for) the possibilities now open to us for expansion into inner Solar System space.
we have to live with (even fanatics like me have to keep up appearances), so there are strict limits on what is permissible regarding source material, conflict of interest, "point-of-view pushing", etc, but most things that have a NASA or academic (university or journal) sources are considered acceptable.
I hope this may be helpful. While no editor owns a Wikipedia article, I wish not to cause you or the Agency more than the usual heart burn we all face in the rough and tumble of public discourse in a democracy, and would like to do anything I can to support you in this effort.
You might like to take a look and see if you agree it is permissible under WP POV & COI, etc, rules. I will hold it for a day or two in the meanwhile. Thanks! Wwheaton (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, shoot me your e-mail & I'll cc you. Wwheaton (talk) 08:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Bigelow Aerospace, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Re your recent edit on the Bigelow Aerospace article. I suppose this could be true, but do you have a source for it that you can cite? Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)N2e (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me that, I added a source. Xionbox₪ 07:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Xionbox.
DO you know why all my edits today have appeared under your name. eg. 09:43 Anticyclones page, and premier league football? -Gilderien (talk) 09:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gilderien,
Interesting remark. No, I don't know why your edits show under my name. I am currently patrolling recent changes, so if you are too, and we both revert changes at the same time, maybe do my edits sometimes arrive to WP before yours. Hence, my name will be registered for the modification. Could that be a reason?
In addition, could you direct me to the exact pages which you think that might of happened?
Thanks!
Xionbox₪ 09:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you are an administrator or not but would you please check on User:Omer123hussain. This user has been making compulsive POV edits to Secunderabad--Kurienne (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, this is The Shadow Fighter. I noticed that you recently commented on 98.216.122.241's talk page. I have to tell you something: That account is a school computer account, so some middle schoolers are apparently vandalizing wikipedia on this account. I myself go to school here (I am 12 years old). I will keep watch so that kids won't vandalize wikipedia. Best, The Shadow-Fighter (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the level 1 warning re the above? I just deleted an minor vandal entry which you then reverted - any special reason for that ??. VelellaVelella Talk 12:21, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing this out. There obviously was a mix up as you didn't vandalize the Mohammad Soleimani article.
Could you explain why you approved these two pending edits on the Tim Westwood article? The first introduces unsourced material in the article, and the second removes a citation request tag for uncited material. Both of these changes should have been rejected. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 13:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that IP was me, I somehow got logged out. Is there a reason you had to do this? I did my best to read up on guidelines before editing but I may have missed something. I didn't think the last sentence was particularly necessary, and I removed a link to the school's website to substantiate a claim that was easily sourced from the accrediting body themselves..BelloWello (talk) 06:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I already had redone it but your explanation makes sense. I didn't notice I had added the default image template. BelloWello (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Xionbox. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle/Bugs. Message added 06:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Regarding the barnstar I awarded you;
No problem, I'm surprised you've only been awarded two, the number of times you've reverted vandalism and similar via the changes page. Regards, Gilderien (talk) 10:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In all fairness, you're one of the fairer administators I've came across, what with all the corrupt administrators throwing bans around like confetti for disagreeing with them; this is what causes the majority of vandlism. I retract my previous insult. I shall still continue my vendetta against the unspeakable evil all the same. Fortune Teller's Dog (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind! I saw the wrong revert. >.< 210.9.137.221 (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no problem. Xionbox₪ 06:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting my revision back! Was not a happy camper there for a minute! But, I can see why it might have looked like vandalism, with some big revisions at the front. (Yep, obviously I'm new to this!)72.95.55.7 (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Xionbox please take the time to look at this [1] I have redirected a page made User:Maheshkumaryadav he/she has been very active in the past few days making articles regarding information about Osama bin laden and I believe his motivation may be to do with POV please check if my contributions are correct as I am new thanks Ichigo0987765 (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sorry to bother again but he/she has created another article which I believe makes no sense at all [2] do you think he/she should be reported to admins for disruptive editing? Ichigo0987765 (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Xionbox just wanted to say thank you one last time for your help most of the repetitive and biased articles have been deleted I appreciate the help you provide to new users like me
Please contest the article Inter-Services Intelligence role in terrorism for deletion, before doing so. The census should be taken into consideration before taking deleting or merging. I am working for Wikipedia and not against it in any way. For the particular article name can be changed, content can be changed. It is well referenced. Completely denying that there is any role of 'ISI in terrorism' might be view of those in favor of ISI, but Deleting the article and declaring 'vandalism' for those who want the article is not 'civic' or 'democratic'. Thanks.(Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 16:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)).[reply]
Thank you for your message. I am not new on Wikipedia but it doesn't matter. I have deleted sentence about Esther Pan, since there is no mention about him/her in articles listed as references. I admit I should have written it to edit summary. ~ Illioplius (talk) 20:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, if it is possible, remove that warning from my talk page please, as I didn't mean to vandalise, but just made a mistake with didn't filling the edit summary. ~ Illioplius (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I need your help for contributing to the Biofuels article, as I mentioned on the discussion page the concepts of third, fourth,... generation of biofuels are not scientific concepts but rather atempts to promote particular second generation biofuels. COuld you use the edit I made and put it in a decent form and decent English so that it becomes a good contribution to the article.
Thank you
Louis Berghmans
--Lberghmans (talk) 08:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Lberghmans,
I reverted your edit because there were section blanking without any explanation in the edit summary. Filling you the edit summary, which is the input box right below the article input, greatly helps the work of the patrolmen and patrolwomen who monitor changes of Wikipedia articles in order to quickly counter vandalism. Anyhow, I'm glad to see the issue seems to have settled.
Hey, sorry if I'm being rude with this message, so a prime apology before any further reading.
You have the full right to revert an edit by me, but that doesn't give you the right (although, unfortunately, it's possible) to edit my user talk and send a message edit as an official Wikipedia. You can simply revert the edit without any of your messages!
Don't do this again!
Thanks,
Francis Marks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francis Marks (talk • contribs) 08:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying, but my point remains.
Please don't send those messages when you revert an edit. Also, you're not a monitor/admin of that page, so a warning by you would be unacceptable.
Sorry if my language might sound any offending, but I still would not accept any warnings from a normal user. I once added a sub-title which was considered vandalism - however, it was reverted without warnings and it was reverted by the page's admin herself.
So as I made myself clear, please don't send those warnings again, and if you want to revert an edit then do it quietly.
Also, I can remove the sanction you posted in my user talk because I already read it and I don't need it in my talk page anymore, so your advice in this case is not considered.
Added/Edited by Francis Marks 12:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Xionbox. You have new messages at Gz33's talk page. Message added 09:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello Xionbox. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ShotgunHost Internet Services, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguously promotional. Thank you. SalvioLet's talk about it! 13:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
remove the warning on my page User:pakkiu is my main account — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocobox (talk • contribs) 06:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Xionbox. Thanks for the speedy deletion work you are doing; it's a very important activity! I did want to let you know, though, regarding Charles boddington, that current consensus holds that it is bad practice to tag articles for speedy deletion as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as users may be actively working on the article content. Ten to fifteen minutes is considered a good time to wait before tagging such articles under either of these criteria. Please note that before an appropriate waiting period is over, the articles should not be marked as patrolled, so that the wait does not result in the article escaping review at a later time. Nothing here is meant to apply to any other criterion; attack pages and copyright violations especially should be tagged and deleted immediately. One minute is far too quick for a AI. The essence of New page patrol is quality and accuracy, not speed. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2011 (UT
Dear Kudpung กุดผึ้ง,
Thank you for reminding me that. I usually try to slow my CSD pace. However, in this case, the username of the editor was the same as the article, and the article only had that same name as content. I probably shouldn't have marked the article as A3. What would have been the best CSD marking? Would it have been preferable to tag the article as possible COI or autobiographical?
Put a COI tag on it by all means, and a COI/USERNAME warning on the user's talk page. But there is no immediate need to CSD an article that is clearly in development - COI alone is not a reason for deletion. Keep it on your watchlist and return to it 15 - 30 minutes later, then tag it for speedy. If in doubt with articles like this, it's best to move on and let the next patroller tag it. Do have a look at the updated page at WP:NPP. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not come to the page you mentioned in recent years.
So the question of me making any edits there does not arise.
--Ved from Victoria Institutions (talk) 06:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You earlier today reversed an edit I made on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_the_Independent_Adjudicator - I took out content that was unsuported and in parts not factually correct or verifiable but these are now back on the page. Could you please let me know what I should do to remove this?
GilderienTalk|Contribs is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.[edit]
Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis[3][4], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.
I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.
Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)
PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.
UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages[edit]
Dear Author/Xionbox
My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Epidermolysis bullosa.
I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain and if interested, please visit my Talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance.
Hydra Rain (talk) 09:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The refs for the lead can be found in the body of the text per WP:LEAD. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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) 13:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Xionbox. 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.
Hello, Xionbox. 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.
Hello, Xionbox. 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.
Hello Xionbox. Thanks for the speedy deletion work you are doing; it's a very important activity! I did want to let you know, though, regarding Eating For Two, that current consensus holds that it is bad practice to tag articles for speedy deletion as lacking context (CSD A1) or content (CSD A3) moments after creation, as users may be actively working on the article content. Ten to fifteen minutes is considered a good time to wait before tagging such articles under either of these criteria. Please note that before an appropriate waiting period is over, the articles should not be marked as patrolled, so that the wait does not result in the article escaping review at a later time. Nothing here is meant to apply to any other criterion; attack pages and copyright violations especially should be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Bigelow Aerospace, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
Re your recent edit on the Bigelow Aerospace article. I suppose this could be true, but do you have a source for it that you can cite? Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC) N2e (talk) 16:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
