I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Forum (education), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria.

Reason given is : Fail to see how this is different from forum (legal) in which schools are mentioned and it is unlikely to be expanded. Sufficient explanation in Wiktionary[1].

If you remove the prod please give me an explanation why you think the article should be kept. Thankyou. Firelement85 15:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, delete it. See my comments on the talk page to the referenced article.--Cbdorsett 15:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, thanks. Firelement85 15:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cb, I've reverted a large proportion of your recent changes. Take it a little slower next time you feel an urge to make such large-scale changes, and maybe you'll get some help in deciding if it's the right thing to do. In this case, distinguishing electrical from electronic is what you forgot. Dicklyon 21:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Your talk page is a place for other users to send you a message; you'll get alerted by a banner next time you log in. Then you can reply here, since the guy who posted will then have you on his watch list; so you can carry on a discussion. See mine: user talk:Dicklyon. And always sign you talk with four squiggles, which expands into a name/date signature like this: Dicklyon 16:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

12/31/2006

OK, here’s the deal. I found a mess and started cleaning it up. It's a big job. All searches for electronic circuit or any of its synonyms ended up on "Electrical Networks", which itself was a mess. Here's what I wrote on the talk page there:

This page used to be redirected to Electrical Networks, along with about 650 other pages. Electrical Networks are usually thought of as electrical distribution networks, the things with lots of big towers and high-voltage power lines. There also seems to be some sort of collection of electrical components NOT arranged in a loop, but which seems to have no practical application (it doesn’t do anything). Also, plenty of distinct concepts were redirected to this page instead of being explained in their own right, such as Circuit Theory. Circuit Theory was even added to the list of To Do pages. Adding to the confusion is the fact that Electric Circuit, Electronic Circuit and Electrical Circuit all mean the same thing.

I took it upon myself to clean things up. I left a message on the talk page advising that I was going to do it, and nobody objected. The task ended up being bigger than I thought, but at least I could make a dent in it.

The plan is to start off rearranging the redirects and move the existing text to this page from Electrical networks. Then I will plow through the What Links Here pages, directing things either here or to other pages where it makes more sense. I will put some short text in appropriate places, together with stub tags.

I left a few comments on a few of the pages I edited, but it's too much to leave comments everywhere.

If you have comments about any of my changes, please let me know, but follow this protocol: Write the full text of your comments on the talk page of the affected Wikipedia page, and leave me a one-line note here, referring me to the page you are interested in.

When I get the basics out of the way, I will leave instructions for how to help me out, if you are so inclined.

Thanks.

I guess, you read the Bibliography section where I listed all the book/lectures notes, I used in this writing. This writing is actually a "cocktail" off all of three components WITH MY THOUGHTS. All three things, tell nothing about circuit generalization. Their purpose is completely different: HEre they are:

• • ALgorythms in C++ by Robert Sedgewick
  • Electric Circuits (unknown author) Chapter 5
  • Electromechanical Devices course manual, by Peter B. from New York City COllege of Technology.
• Peter B. is my current teacher, in NYC COllege of Technology, where I am continuing education now. By the way, on monday I have a final with him.
• Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circuit_theory"

The text may look like lecture notes, since its style is very close to it.

that some of American Colleges has a course on "General Circuit theory" and I copied lecture notes...?

• To oppose this, I can state you that I'd wish to be a student of such a course. Tell me where is it? I'd wish to take it.
• Or, speaking in other words, IT IS A COURSE invented by me. The problem is that I am not a professor, so there is no audience. I have merely BS in Computer Science from Polytechnic University of New York

GK tramrunner 01:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it looks like lecture notes, lets move it WIKIVERSITY —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GK tramrunner (talk • contribs) 19:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, 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:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! -- Francs2000 | [[]] 20:39, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm wondering, is there a reason why you're creating images of several templates instead of subst'ing them directly onto your talk page? If you subst them, you can then go in and remove the categories and whatnot so your userpage is not included in all of those categories. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanks for noticing. I wanted the images to appear on my userpage, but I don't want the userpage to appear in any of the automatically generated categories. As far as I know, there is no way to "edit" the automatic category off of a page while still retaining the template tag. Is there a special procedure for this? You mention "subst" - what is it? Thanks.Cbdorsett 06:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SUBST. In short, substitution (subst, for short) is a way to copy the text and markup that generates the template directly to the article/page where the template is. After you save the page with the subst'd templates, you can edit the page again to remove the categories. It's a little strange to try to explain, but try it out and you'll see. The way you subst a template is just to add "subst:" to it (i.e. typing {{subst:template name}} instead of {{template name}}.

If you do this, the images you've created won't be necessary, so you can then add {{db-author}} to their pages to get them deleted. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thanks for the tip. Cbdorsett 06:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did half the job :) You subst'ed the templates, but didn't then edit out the ccategory links (I just did). I also corrected the info about where stub templates should go. BTW, you might also want to add {{sectstub}}, used when just one section of an article needs work (it's put at the bottom of the section that needs expanding). Also, a couple of tricks - if you want to show the name ofa cateegorry as a link without adding the page too the category, type [[:Category:Categoryname]], with a colon at the beginning. It'll add a link like this Category:Stubs. For templates, you can do the same by writing {{tl|templatename}} - it appears as a link like this {{stub}}. Grutness...wha? 03:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - I can't see anything wrong with the flags... they all look like they've come out OK. It may be just your browser having a bit of trouble displaying them. Grutness...wha? 02:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I reverted your addition to Germanic Languages because your addition seems to relate to the ethnic group, not the language itself. There must be a good place for this information - maybe the pages you included as links? When you do re-insert it, please write the text without any abbreviations. Thanks. Cbdorsett 15:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I who thought that the reason why certain ethni were "Germanic" was because they spoke "Germanic languages". I must be going crazy since I still see a connection. Please, don't worry, I would not venture into reinserting something which was so widely off-topic that you were forced to revert me.--Berig 15:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say the text was worthless, only that it was in the wrong place. Cbdorsett 16:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think reversion is totally improper behavior unless you are dealing with vandalism. Next time, try seeing how the inserted information might be useful and if needed rewrite parts, or even move it within the article (or to the talkpage if it can't be moved within the article).--Berig 16:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding {{dispute-section}} tags [2], [3], [4], [5] to image descriptions that accurately cite reliable sources (in this case a museum) without providing conflicting reliable sources during a dispute is either trolling or disruption. If you wish to get along with other wikipedians, please refrain from such behaviour in the future.--Berig 18:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urmmmm I have no idea why you'd revert my edits but can you put them back in when you are done? (Emperor 19:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

"I'll take the tag off as long as you'll agree not to revert the edits." I find this a rather odd thing to say. I only revert when there has been vandalism. When you've finished I'll take another look through things and see if there is anything else that needs fixing. (Emperor 19:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I've been through it and just added some more links but I can't work out that sentence I'm afraid - might want to drop the guy a note. As you can see the entry had a rather unusual genesis and, while edit conflicts have happened from time to time, the rapid fire editting meant I have run into it a dozen times with that entry so had stepped back to give it a chance to calm down. It might be another round of edits might take place to clarify certain points but a nudge to the original writer might help move things along. (Emperor 14:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Cbdorsett,

I noticed your comment on the Coriolis effect talk page.

"centrifugal force" and "Coriolis force" - neither one of these is a force"

An image that is currently in the Coriolis effect article was manufactured (and uploaded) by me. schematic representation of cyclonic flow (to be used in conjunction with this image )

I maintain a website of my own with articles about physics subjects, and a series of four of them is about the Coriolis effect as taken into account in meteorology. In my articles I use animations to illustrate the concepts. Some of the articles of my website contain material that was also uploaded by me to wikipedia.

Will you please have a look at my website, and tell me whether you agree with what is presented there about the Coriolis effect?

In the long term, I'd like to edit the wikipedia Coriolis effect article. In order to do that I need to build support among wikipedians for the edits I think are in order.

(I have edited the Coriolis effect article in the past (only the image survived), but back then I didn't understand the Coriolis effect in the way that I do now; this didn't help my credibility. My website gives my full understanding.) --Cleonis | Talk 12:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I think you are on the right track, but neither one of the images quite does it. Let me explain this way.

Let's start with a point on the Northern hemisphere - maybe 20 or 30 degrees N of the equator. Let's shine some heat on it. In time, the air at that point will heat up and expand. When it expands, it becomes less dense, so it rises. Nearby air which is not so heated (maybe because of cloud cover, which reflects light and heat back out into space) remains more dense, so it stays near the ground. However, the rising of the packet of air we talked about first creates lower pressure because the air is moving away (upward). Though the nearby air packets are at the same pressure they were before, that pressure is now relatively high (relative to the pressure of the rising packet). The high pressure air pushes into the place where the low pressure air is rising from.

Now, we're talking about a lot of air here, packets that might be 1,000 km across. It takes a lot of time for the packet to move 1,000 km.

Here's where the Coriolis effect becomes apparent. All the time that these neighboring packets of cold, high-pressure air are traveling, the good old Earth is rotating underneath. So now we have two objects that are moving: the packet of air and the Earth. What happens? Let's just consider a packet directly to the north of the rising packet. It begins motion in a straight south direction - directly toward the center of the rising packet. While it travels south, the surface of the Earth is moving toward the East.

Get a globe. Rotate it toward the East. While it is moving, close your eyes and draw a line straight "south" - use an erasable marker. Open your eyes and see which way that packet of air appears to have moved.

This is something you could animate. Do it in stages - I think it will make a great educational tool.

The images you made are a combination of the physics of the Coriolis effect and the physics of centripetal force. You have to keep them separate.

Let me make a suggestion. Go to used-book stores and buy a bunch of different books on weather and physics. Some will be well written and others will be confusing. The more you read and the more you think about it, the more you will understand. One of them has that unique combination of explanations that will give you the Aha! experience. There's no way to know which one it is in advance.

Keep up the good work. Cbdorsett 20:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there has been a misunderstanding.

I didn't mention the two images as a sample of my understanding of meteorology. Those two images are extremely schematized representations. Those images have been reduced to the barest essentials of cyclonic flow, to present the simplest possible picture of cyclonic flow to novices.

Inadvertendly, I have wrongfooted you, it seems.

Unfortunately, you underestimate me now. Ironical twist: you are explaining atmospheric dynamics to me in terms of Hadley's theory, which turned obsolete in the second half of the 19th century. William Ferrel was the first to improve on Hadley's theory. Ferrel's first paper was published in 1856 (Eighteen-fiftysix).

Judging from your response, you haven't checked out my website. Can I persuade you to have a look?

A few samples:

This animation from my own website concerns ballististics and satellite orbits.
This animation concerns meteorology: the phenomenon of inertial oscillations.
--Cleonis | Talk 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know what you want from me. I in fact checked out your website and found it hard going. It does not help matters that you use the scientific term "Coriolis effect" interchangeably with the folk term "Coriolis force", and you mention both centripetal and centrifugal as forces. You asked me about the Coriolis effect, and that is what I answered. If you had asked me about atmospheric dynamics, my answer would have been quite different. Are you asking for my opinion about the Coriolis effect or atmospheric dynamics? Are you asking for a general review of the reams of material on your website, or are you asking a specific question? Cbdorsett 10:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What triggered me was your remark '"centrifugal force" and "Coriolis force" - neither one of these is a force"' That is my point of view exactly. I wrote the description of the schematic representation of cyclonic flow in 2005, and rereading it I notice it does contain the expression 'coriolis force'. Back then I had conformed to a usage that I have come to disapprove more and more.

The expressions "centrifugal force" and "coriolis force" do not appear anywhere on my website. (I double-checked just now with a file search; none of the files contains either the string 'centrifugal force' or the string 'coriolis force')

In my opinion, the expressions 'centrifugal force' and 'coriolis force' should never be used in physics education.

The current wikipedia Coriolis effect article is contradicting itself. It states the following two things:

A) That the coriolis force is a fictitious force B) That air mass will go into cyclonic flow around a low pressure area, instead of flowing straight down the pressure gradient, due to the Coriolis force. That means that the article states that a fictitious force is counteracting a physical force - which is impossible. So my specific question is: do you agree with me that the current Coriolis effect is contradicting itself?

Wikipedia is about building consensus. I want to address the self-contradiction issue, but in order to do that I need to find people who also spot the self-contradiction, and who also want to address it. --Cleonis | Talk 14:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here we go... Since I'm not a numismatist, so some of the words may not be correctly translated to the right terms - indicated with (?).

Imitations

An imitation (an "after"coining ?) is a contemporary copy, often in good silver, made far from the coining location stamped on the coin. The most common "stamping location" (?) on early imitations is Madînat as- Salâm, i.e. Baghdad, but they are made in Russia. The khazarian (?) "empire" (or contry ?), between the Black Sea and the Caspian could, thanks to its position, benefit from the commerce between northerners/vikings and moslem merchants. A Khazarian imitation with a tamgha (a clan- or family mark), here in the form of a branch. It is usually associated with Turkish tribes. ”Madînat as-Salâm 803-4” (Coin 12).

Two stamps (the instruments used to stamp coins?) are official khazarian with the text Ard al-Khazar (The land of the Khazarians). Ard al-Khazar 837-38 (Coin 13).

”Moses is Gods messenger" is written in Arabian on one coin (coin 14). Moses is the figurehead of the Jews. The writing is a parallell to the islamic confession of faith ”Mohammed is Gods messenger" on the islamic coins (see coin 5). The phrase ”Moses is Gods messenger” is known from earlier, from four coins from other treasures. The fictive stamping/coin location is ”Madînat as-Salâm 779-80”. The now discovered fifth coin has been stamped with (at?) a different "side stamp" (åtsidesstamp ?), ”Madînat as-Salâm 766-67”. Through this stamp all the Moses coins can be connected to a chain of stamps where the "coining location name" (?) Ard al- Khazar (Land of Khazars) 837-38 is included (see coin 13). From written sources we have the knowledge that the khazarian king and his court converted to Judaism.

Hope this helps... --Janke | Talk 08:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Cbdorsett, thanks for starting off the article on the Mayanist scholar and then fixing up the redirects after the name change. And sorry 'bout my mistaken attribution of the article's creation to someone else on its talk pg, which I've just now noticed- my bad, I got it confused with another. Cheers, --cjllw | TALK 05:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Cbdorsett 05:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first two pictures aren't clear, I could read 2 lines of the 3rd coin...The first 2 lines in the middle says "محمد رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم", (Mohammed Rasol Allah Salla Allah Alaihi Wa Sallam) it means "Mohammed is the messenger of God Peace and prayer upon him). I couldn't read the 3rd and the 4th lines below but I could read "رسول الله" (Rasool Allah), aslo the script bordering the coin is not clear but I could read a short phrase "بحمده عالخير كله" (Behamdah Alkhair Kollah).

I guess that wasn't very helpful, sorry :) radiant guy 10:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not radiant guy 05:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Writing systems WikiProject Newsletter Issue I - December 2006
News Welcome to the newsletter of the Writing systems WikiProject, everyone. Our project currently has 29 members. Any questions or requests for assistance on writing system articles can be posted at WT:WPW. Our Article Assessment Project is currently underway. Feel free to contribute by assessing and improving all unassessed articles according to the assessment page. Any help is appreciated. We would like to bring all mid-, high-, and top-importance articles to at least B class by the end of the year. We are working on implementing writing systems templates into appropriate articles. Try to help out!
To subscribe or unsubscribe this newsletter, or if you would like to edit the next issue, please drop a message on the discussion page.

This is the project's first newsletter. If you have any questions, comments, or ideas about it, feel free to post it on WT:WPW. Thanks. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 23:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Hessian. Your edits could be considered vandalism, and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Cbdorsett 15:40, 1 March 2007

Cbdorsett. For your information I removed "the hessians are pretty cool people go chikens." <-- seems to me it has nothing to do with the article, I guess I could be wrong Hence I was removing vandalism and not creating it. 208.251.68.76 21:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes FNB, your point being? 208.251.68.76 20:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and yes I do have an account, but am often too lazy to log in for small edits. 208.251.68.76 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to place 8 warning at once, there only needs to be one warning at a time. Also, you need to warn the vandal before reporting them to AIV. Do you know for a fact that those writers aren't bisexual? John Reaves (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked through the IP's contributions and the categories do, in the cases that I have looked at, seem to match the authors' alledged sexuality in the article (also the category Queer does seem to be in use, and have survived a previous CFD). It might be best to engage in discussion with the contributor as a first step. Cheers TigerShark 10:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I looked at your comment, and it is fully understandable that you acted as you initially did - it can be very disconcerting when you see questionable edits being made so quickly. Cheers TigerShark 11:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Rettetast 11:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Thanks for your quick reply and happy vandalfighting. Rettetast 11:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-).I am sorry for not checking your previous warnings to user. I think it is a good idea what you think about doing to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, but you should ask at the talk page since the have done a lot of work on that page the last months and may have discussed it. Have you tried one of the automated tools for warning and reverting like popups or Twinkle. Rettetast 11:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for your comments: yes, I'm aware of WP:3RR, and check myself against it every now and then. It's getting to the point where this user should be blocked for a while, but this would not be very effective, as they tend to edit only once or twice a day, and a block would not last more than 24 hours, I would imagine: it's not the typical type of vandalism. May be they just want us to finish off the job of fixing the transcriptions. BTW, do you know of a policy on Arbaic transliteration? Some articles use IPA, others a variation on the more traditional system used for Arabic, which is fine for semiticists but not so great for most others. I think I probably use the latter for Standard Arabic, more IPA for dialects, but am not sure this is the best solution. Drmaik 08:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, very helpful.Drmaik 08:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go back and have a second look. There was some recent edit warring there (which I was a part of) so I tried to be conservative in my revert. I'll try to find the earlier version you are talking about though. Thanks for the heads up. Tiamut 10:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I checked it out, but I couldn't find any problems with the current version. It's possible I missed something, so if you want to have a look again, that would be good. Tiamut 14:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird ... but thanks for double-checking again. Salamat. Tiamut 17:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re this old edit [6]: just for information, latkey.com is a very spammy link that shouldn't appear anywhere, and Veinor presumably blanked it on purpose. Femto 13:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! The reason I don't list Turkish or Faroese is because I don't consider myself to know them. And I was referring to my real name about being unique in the world ;) It's nice to see other technical writers joining in wikipedia (although I've been out of the biz for about 5 years now ever since I decided to concentrate on translating). Have you been studying Linguistics for long? I specialized in Comparative-Historical. -Yupik 10:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to say thanks for the copyedit tag on Dingling. I wasn't aware that template existed. I had attempted some copyediting back in January on that article but the main editor ended up reverting my edits. I ended up giving up. I really don't have much time to deal with difficult collaborations. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 18:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify... By "main editor" I mean the editor who is doing all the work expanding the article even though the English is poor. I haven't noticed anyone else contributing, let alone attempting to copyedit the article. I'm hoping the tag will bring more participants. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 05:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thanks for the message. I'll leave it alone for a little while. Most of your edits look good: but genitive is not used for nouns in construct state: it's the head that's in construct, and the following noun is in the genitive. Regarding genitive/ prepositional case, I've always used genitive (prepositional just doesn't fit for possessive uses) but will accept if that's the major usage. But I'll come back to it later (either in an hour or so or tomorrow). Drmaik 13:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My contribution to The World Set Free was H. G. Wells' theme of world government which occurs in much of his fiction and nonfiction. The history for Leó Szilárd contains this entry:

20:58, 11 October 2003 Dpbsmith (Talk | contribs) (Szilard acknowledged Well's "The World Set Free" as an inspiration)

I don't know the facts behind this reference but he is said to have met H. G. Wells in 1929[7]. --Jbergquist 13:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments. I completely agree. Currently there is a discussion going on at the talk page. Please participate as I am also planning to. Thank you. Dr.K. 14:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am the one who created Stadfries_language/Dutch. I intended to translate it, and never finished it. I have a copy of it in my userspace, and honestly, that page should be deleted. Sorry for the confusion. Zweifel 06:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cbdorsett! Here is the reason why I consider the citation tag silly:

Firstly, what is in need of citation in that paragraph? Is it a) the fact that this particular use of the term 'numerology' is colloquial or b) the fact that some people use the term derogatively when commenting on a scientific theory? A citation tag is silly when it is unclear exactly what needs documentary support.

Secondly, both of the above scruples are silly. Eminent scientists like Eddington, Weyl and Dirac were not really numerologists and therefore it is self-evident that 'numerology' has a colloquial significance when used to describe their ideas. Secondly, it is self-evident that a scientific theory is being rubbished when it is described as numerology (only numerologists would not consider this to be self-evident!).

Thirdly, if the citation tag is not removed somebody eventually will delete the paragraph or whatever part of the paragraph he/she thinks the citation tag refers to. Any tag that is obscure and unnecessary is an invitation to mischief. Therefore someone will delete the tag eventually, either because he/she will consider it silly or because he/she will edit the paragraph to satisfy the tag's silly requirements.

I removed the tag for the above reasons. I supplied the OED quote as some kind of documentary support for the self-evident fact that 'numerology' in this article has colloquial significance. If however you think the citation tag is necessary then you should provide the documentary support you think is required. I am sure it will be something quite silly and unnecessary Lucretius 12:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at Talk:Numerology#Unreferenced_assertion_in_.22Numerology.22_in_science Cbdorsett 07:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article about Volapuk encoding, so I hope now it will be more clear what volapuk is, and how it differs from translit. :) 213.141.137.47 12:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cbdorsett, I found this on Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation and was looking through it to give it a quick copyedit as requested, but all the original German seems to have been left in the article in comments. As you have done a lot of work on this, I thought you might know why. I think it should be removed and am happy to do so, but I thought I should ask first in case you had reasons for leaving it there! Please let me know and I will get to work. Happy editing! Cricketgirl 11:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll get to work then! Cricketgirl 11:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your problem with the Spillings horde is, but it has been well-documented. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cbdorsett, Actually, I did not delete the article itself. That is a task and tool only given to administrators, which I am not. What I did was to remove the article's listing at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English, and I did that because the listing was redlinked when I did a periodic check of the page, e.i., the article had already been deleted. Since PNT is, ideally, a temporary listing of non-English pages needing quick translations to assess their notability, editors who monitor the page like to remove deleted articles to make way for the new ones always being listed. So, the best thing to do would be to find out which admin deleted the article itself. I hope this clears up any confusion you have. -Fsotrain⁰⁹ 21:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, if you can translate this rather short article, or if you feel that someone else might, I am wholly willing to restore it. Let me know.--Anthony.bradbury 23:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I will do so forthwith.--Anthony.bradbury 23:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted immediately again by User:TerriersFan. So now perhaps you might want to discuss it with him. I would prefer not to wheel-war with him by re-restoring.--Anthony.bradbury 23:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may have failed to see my note to you of May 3rd. It relates to your comment to me of today's date, and explains why I feel limited in my range of options.--Anthony.bradbury 11:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently deleted this page محمد جعفر محمد عبدالرحيم آل نمر just a few hours after it was listed on Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English. Normally, these pages are reviewed by at least one person who can read the language or otherwise determine the content. I would like to see whether there was any salvageable information in this page before it was deleted. I am unable to access the page's history. Maybe you can explain how I can view the original content, or why you acted so quickly on it or what you thought it contained? Please reply to my talk page. Thanks. Cbdorsett 12:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only did I not delete it (that was User:Swatjester), I added a 'hangon' suggesting that it /not/ be deleted for the time being. I have userfied it to User:Cbdorsett/Articles needing translation. TerriersFan 16:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cbdorsett. We have a discussion regarding the correct translation and the actual meaning of something written by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya. We might need an opinion from some native arabic speakers in order to reach consensus. If this caught your interest, feel free to join our discussion at Talk:Hadith of Sabra reporting on the prohibition of Mut'ah. Thank you. Hamid-Masri 11:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing me. No, it is not the hadith itself that is in question, it is Ibn Qayyim's understanding of it. The article (in my opinion) quotes him wrong, and says that he viewed the narration as weak. That was the issue. Thank you anyway. Hamid-Masri 14:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for finding that dumb mistake! :D I've removed the prod off the article since I had added the blurb to the beginning, and I've prodded the original poster, but if you feel it still needs to have it on it, please feel free to add it back. I've translated some of the tracks, but as you seem to know Russian, if you have time, could you please translate the rest of them if I don't get to it? Thanks :) -Yupik 06:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually yes, I know "it's okay for non-native speakers to contribute to Wikipedia in English", being myself a non-native speaker, and, BTW, my English is far from perfect, a thing that's a source of considerable embarassment to me, because it's reasonable to demand from an admin a very good knowledge of the language. The point is there is a limit to everything: Nasz seems to be constantly misreading the sources he presents as alledged references, and his English is often unreadable. But honestly what concerns me by far most is his regular violation of WP:ATT, and especially his passion for original research. Still I must admit I lost my nerves and should have avoided that comment: I can only say to my defence that apart from his desseminating OR, Nasz has started stalking me, which I don't much appreciate. Anyways, thanks for correcting me. Ciao,--Aldux 14:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several times, you've added comments to articles listed at WP:PNT that say "Should be moved from this list to Wikipedia:Translation". I case no one has yet made you aware, I wanted to let you know that this suggestion is incorrect. Wikipedia:Translation is for pages that exist on other language wikipedias, that are being suggested for translation and adding to the English wikipedia. It is not for articles in a foreign language that already exist on the English wikipedia. That's exactly why they are already listed at PNT...this is the correct place for them. Looking over past subjects here on your talk page, you had some questions about deleted articles. As an admin, I often deal with deletions of foreign language articles. If there are any outstanding issues you need an admin to deal with, please let me know. AKRadecki 04:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note on my talk page about the redlinks. Actually there were four when I got to checking this morning. One was a cut-and-paste copyvio from a university website, one was an out of context listing which appeared to be some person's unremarkable CV. The fourth, Alba Nydia Diaz, looked like it might be something. I'm going to approach the admin who speedied it and see if he wouldn't mind letting it ride at PNT for the two weeks. AKRadecki 15:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, forgot I was going to add one more thing...you asked about the 14 day review period...they're supposed to remain there only if it's not obvious that the articles fall into one of the CSD categories. I have clarified it a bit in CSD A2, but there are plenty of people operating from memory who haven't seen the change yet. AKRadecki 15:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually no idea who would be the proper person to fix this problem. I'm sorry I can't be of any help, but my Arabic skills are extremely limited. -Yupik 22:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Category:하늘 만큼 땅 만큼 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ayleuss 11:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion page of the artticle. Jclerman 07:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to [8] you can help us fix the language at [9]. Is it so? Best regards/Mannen av börd 18:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Sverige/Bylaws&diff=662824&oldid=662697 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.103.251 (talk) 10:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! You have asked me a long time ago for my reasons on requested cleanup of the Bellows page and I never responded. Until now. Now the article looks quite fine and a lot more readable than then. As I see much because of your contributing to it. File:Cordialgreetings1x pix.gif Sorry for such a delay. All the best. --Biblbroks's talk 10:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I will remove the template, finally.

I've translated the "Nepovezani poslanec" into unaligned deputy. Though, "nepovezani" would literally mean unlinked. Also, "poslanec" is a member of parliament - in its broadest meaning. Something as an envoy of the people. I think the term deputy could do the job for poslanec. As for the "nepovezani", the "independent" could serve as a translation, but I think "unaligned" is better because nobody asserts they are truly independent. :-] I comprehend the term nepovezani here as to emphasize that the deputies aren't linked with any specific party. Anyway, I hammered on the whole section a little bit, too. I use your words - hammering - just so as to exercise this newly learned expression. Cheers :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Biblbroks (talk • contribs) 12:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are not Russian my friend. They are Azeri Language. Teşekkürler, iyi çalışmalar. XD kızılsungur 05:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. My Name is Vusal. İ have created that page. You are right. But only memorable quotes are in russian. Because the film was shot in russian. So İ wrote down these quotes in original language. I think it is all right. Because I didnt wrote the quote in cyrillic, I wrote them in latin. It is possible to translate them. But it would not be so effective. It will loose its effectiveness.

Vusal Aghayev

No! I don't speak Hungarian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiet Nam (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please mark lv:Ideogrāfiskā rakstība to be deleted, as it is the same as lv:Ideogrāfiskā rakstība – ķīļraksts. I would do it myself, but I do not know Latvian.  Andreas  ^(T) 17:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. :) I saw that you had indicated at pages needing translation that you might be able to create an article on this individual to replace the untranslated text. I just wanted to let you know that it's been sitting for three weeks since you moved it and so far has had no translation, so if that's something that you would like to do, it would be very helpful. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping by the page, I saw that it's looking much better. Thank you! Well done. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It amused me to no end as I went to go look at it too and it was already gone :D -Yupik (talk) 07:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did provide a link to where it was supposedly copied from: compare "Its emancipation politics was obtained through Law n º 2,602, of 1° of December of 1961," with "Sua emancipação política foi conseguida através da Lei nº 2.602 de 1º de dezembro de 1961."; and this text has been present for most of the history of the article. I've pulled out the infobox, interwikis, etc, from the deleted version so that work is not lost. Are we sure that it's not a copyvio on the pt wikipedia? —Random832 15:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the history (but not yet put the text back on the article) - it's hard to identify what is copied from where in translated text, can you deal with this? Remember, anything that is derived from the copyright violation is also a copyright violation, so you'll need to look at the history in case any wording was gradually changed from what was copied from there—Random832 15:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence I quoted above was just an example, I'm not sure if the rest of the paragraph from that page was copied or not, so make sure you're sure anything you put back isn't derived from there. —Random832 16:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:AndreasJS#Arara, Paraíba. —Random832 15:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cbdorsett. Sure, I'll do it in a couple of hours (as I must go to the market now). Thanks for your good work. "Arara" is a funny name for a town. Best regards, Húsönd 17:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the translation and made just a couple of minor changes. Thank you for your good work! :-) Best regards, Húsönd 18:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good work in Arara.--201.68.189.213 (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your remarks about Arara, Paraíba, this was my mistake. What if a page is 99% copyvio, such as Tjoba [10]? If I remove only the copyvio content, it will still stay in the history. The correct way would be to delete the whole article but first to put the non-coyvio content into a temporaty page. I leave it to you to deal with it.  Andreas  ^(T) 20:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I deleted the history was twofold: First of all, I was in CAT:CSD when I came across it (since it was tagged db-copyvio), so I was in a "deletion mindset" going in. Second, my (apparently quite flawed) interpretation of the content of the history was that the copied text had been there for the entire non-stub lifetime of the article. —Random832 16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do know that the US thing is specific to the US (other governments do often maintain copyright, see e.g. Crown Copyright for the UK and some commonwealth nations). I don't know specifics about Brazil, but it should probably be presumed they hold copyright unless we know for sure otherwise. —Random832 19:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Often the Wikipedia in the corresponding language will have a link (written in English!) to free unicode fonts, .ttf files, which work on any operating system made after the stone age. Barring that, I try googling the language and "unicode fonts". I suppose I should have been keeping track of all of the good pages I find with free unicode fonts for each language, so we could keep them in one place (Wikipedia:Foreign language unicode fonts?)

I have a trusty MacBook, and on here the downloaded files go into (User)>Library>Fonts. On Windows it might or might not be more complicated than that. I'm not sure. Grandmasterka 08:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, there's one really good site I've found that specializes in just this sort of thing: http://www.wazu.jp/. Grandmasterka 08:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres where I have posted a response to your Strong Keep opinion --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not db-bio notable individuals as you did with this. Being the first African-American adjunct general of the Army National Guard and the Army National Guard should satisfy nobility. Be careful of placing speedy tags on notable people. Miranda 15:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me - I don't think you can summarily delete tags for deletion. Cbdorsett (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore all rules. Miranda 15:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cbdorset; it has come to our attention on IRC that you have tagged a couple of articles for speedy deletion incorrectly, although in good faith (specifically, the articles are Doris Grinspun and Martín Lousteau). Please be careful when tagging articles for speedy deletion, as those two articles do not meet the A7 criteria, and tagging suitable articles can offend users, even experienced users. Thanks for all your work! Qst 16:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully suggest you seriously re-read WP:BIO if you are tagging articles about ministers of countries for speedy deletion. A7 clearly does not apply. Regards, ~ Riana ⁂ 16:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you tagged this page as needing translation. I think that, while obviously well intentioned, this wass erroneous, as all that was not translated were actual book and magazine titles. While these may have additional translations as a courtesy for the reader, this is not necessary, and certainly not a reason to move the page to the French Wikipedia after two weeks, as the template states. I guess it was just a way to list it at the project page, but perhaps another template is needed then ("this page needs some additional translation " or so) which doesn't mention deletion and/or transwikifying. Anyway, I only noticed this because the editor who swiftly translated didn't remove the tag, so it does look as if the translation project works pretty swift. Fram (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template, mainly. It gives in general the impression that the article has sections or sentences that need to be translated, while in fact what was wanted were additional translations for original French titles which could perfectly stay as they are (would you translate "in an interview in Le Monde..." with (The Morning))?

More importantly, the template states at the top of the article page that "If the article is not rewritten in English within the next two weeks it will be listed for deletion and/or moved to a Wikipedia in French.", which is patently untrue in a case like this. A page where some additionla translations, as a service to the user, may be added, should have a different template than this one (which has the orange sidebar of a serious problem, not the yellow sidebar of a normal cleanup task). Perhaps the template cleanup-translation would have been better. The template you used has as explanation in Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup: "# This should be used only for articles that are completely or almost completely in a foreign language. # Note that if the issue isn't dealt with in two weeks, the article goes to Articles for deletion." When one has just finished translating an article, it gives a very strange effect to see this template. I don't care that much, but for a newbie, this could be a case of WP:BITE...Fram (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can uderstand your arguments, but even within the existing templates, there are much better ones, like the one mentioned above. Check out the Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, there are a bunch of translation-oriented ones near the bottom. Fram (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I forgot to add the template reflist. Should be OK now. Or do you think it doesn't due to a1? Kerem Özcan (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I commented on the talk page of the article. Regards, Kerem Özcan (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a second look at the Rosetta Burke article, preparing to work on an AfD recommendation. Oddly, some of your earlier comments had been moved out of the AfD and put in the article's talk page by the article's author (who, I suppose, is an administrator). I've never seen that sort of editing of an AfD before. You might wish to replace them, perhaps prefaced by *'''Comment''' . Tim Ross·^talk 12:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments that detract from the deletion discussion can be moved to the talk page. Miranda 14:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a courtesy note I removed the CSD#A7 tag as the article is sourced and founders of political parties are generally considered notable. In this case I recommend you nominate it at AfD where a discussion can take place to ascertain notability. Gnangarra 13:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

replied on my talk page to keep things in one place. cheers,xC | ☎ 15:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As said in the AFD, I highly suggest you stop inquiring about my edits, because that is in the borderline of stalking. 1.) I moved your excess comments to the talk page because they were a.) detracting from the discussion as well as this b.) You made your vote noticeable per saying delete. 2.) Second, I am tired of you stalking my edits, as seen with this and this, adding comments from my talk page that I have archived to mainspace without my permission here and here. I have already told you per this as well as my userbox on my page that I do not want to be an administrator on English Wikipedia. Not everyone with a high edit count wants to be an administrator on this project. So, I think you constantly bringing the point up for me "desiring to be an admin" is false, disruptive, and detracts from the real reason of Wikipedia, which is to write an encyclopedia. I apologize that I was uncivil, but I do suggest you read notability of people, so that you will have a clear knowledge of what is notable on Wikipedia. Since I apologized to you, I hope that you won't continue to follow my edits or inquire about my reasons for editing, because that is a.) stalking b.) disruptive and c.) stressful. Continue to spread "rumors" about my edits and my motives, and I will seek administrative action. Regards. Miranda 05:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm fine, how are you? The Armenian word for book is girq (գիրք). In his defense, Armenian does have few loan words from Arabic and there is a large Armenian diaspora in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt... The people over there might be using the Arabic version of the word[11] VartanM (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw your question to Vartan and I can confirm that such a thing is not true. As mentioned, Armenians use գիրք which is pronounced "keerk" by the Armenian diaspora located in the Arab world. But anyway, you can proceed by removing it. - Fedayee (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the above. --Aramգուտանգ 09:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your note. I am sorry to say I don't think I have any idea who the people in question are, but I did like your story, and I do have an interest in languages, so I can completely appreciate the advice you received about sitting in front of the TV and repeating what is said (I actually tried it this week). You may not have had the chance to tell your friend how they affected you, but by sharing their thoughts you honor their memory. I'm sure your late friend would be pleased to have something they taught be passed along after they departed, especially something so useful. Thanks for sharing it with me. Kaisershatner (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really very sorry I couldn't get back to you earlier. I've had exams on, and what the holidays season on, haven't spent any time on WP at all.

I read the whole thing and I think you dealt with it alright. I saw sharp comments all round, so it was definitely not one of the ... erm... straight-forward AfDs I've seen. But then AfDs are an area where you can (and will) encounter hostility.

Just in case, here's a few (unsolicited?:P) tips from a vandal-fighting-AfD-er to prevent messy AfDs:

• I only db tag. So it helps to know the speedy delete guidelines thorough.
• Somehow, I don't prod, ever. If there's someone contesting the deletion, AfD.
• In the AfD, all you need is to show lack of notability. A glance over WP:N will tell you if its lacking.
• Avoid tagging articles which show first man/woman/child/white/black/brown/orange human being to do whatever. Somehow, people believe that being the first to do something out of a particular well-defined sub-category automatically makes you notable in front of all humans. Clearly, this is well-intentioned but poorly implemented and so we have a plethora of articles starting with "was the first ...". Leave them alone, nothing can be done about them.
• And lastly, avoid AfDs as far as you can. They are bitter grounds for people to discuss/debate/destroy everything. Anything is fair game.

You hadn't asked for it, but I thought I'd just give these little tips to make vandal fighting a little less harassing (:P) for any editor. A little bit of festive cheer might make these editor hordes a little happier, you'd think...

sigh

Happy editing,xC | ☎ 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't actually my bot, that was me. That is definity a copyvio of something, but I can't find what. See how it cites a figure that isn't present?-Carados (talk) 05:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cbdorsett, อุษา ดุลนิมิตร is in Thai. I've summarized it on the Wikipedia:Pages_needing_translation_into_English page. I think is should be deleted. - Thaimoss (talk) 18:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]