This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, in reply to you comment on my page... Firstly I re-added my updated reason, because this better portrays the reason for changing it, but I have also kept the original discussions and made it clear what replies and votes are to. Secondly, there is evidence to support such statements and they are in the article, perhaps you haven't noticed them. Heuh ( talk) 16:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
What the hell? First you delete my material, then you delete Dirac740 material? I added information, I did not delete any. I kept the chronology consistent. Heuh ( talk) 17:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
That is ridiculous.
"Musk isn't a business magnate - he neither controls nor dominates any market in any product." He clearly controls AND dominates the private space sector and the electric car market.
His activities as an entrepreneur and CEO (and Business Magnate) far outweigh his activities as an engineer, it is debatable whether he acts as a engineer at Tesla Motors or SpaceX, but acts, very clearly, primarily as the CEO, running the company. Additionally he was involved with the success of PayPal and Zip2.
I do not understand how you can possibly dispute this?!
DocHeuh ( talk) 14:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
YOU'RE doing it again. That is following my edits and reverting every one, it's coming across as a personal attack. There is no POV here just facts. Neil DeGrasse Tyson is known as a science communicator. A requirement of this is he is a astrophysicist, and as a physicist he has produced one or two papers. He spends by far the majority of his career communicating science not as a astrophysicist producing papers. To deny this is ludicrous, it would be like saying Carl Sagan is astrophysicist, but a science communicator in his spare time. It is the reverse. DocHeuh ( talk) 19:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Your recent edit in "Isaac Asimov" presents original research. for future edits please refrain from saying information that is not sourced. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 18:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You linked an article saying that he is prolific, That's not the original research, then you went on to write. "Isaac Asimov is one of the most prolific writers in the history of the world" which isn't stated anywhere in your linked article. That part came from your mind, If you can't respect Wikipedia enough to not write your own opinions and thoughts, it might be better you stop editing. I've fixed your mistake this time for you though.23:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC) Bryce Carmony ( talk)
you added the words "one of the most prolific writers of all time" which I've since removed ( again ) since you have failed ( again ) to say which # he is. # 1 # 2 #3? # 696945821985785792? do you understand that you can't just write whatever you want. this isn't your personal blog this is a temple for the mind. I take my duties here seriously I recommend you start to do the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony ( talk • contribs) 02:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
you recently vandalized an article becuase you are under the impression that Business = A business. if you say " a business" certainly you mean a company. but if you say Academics is not the same as saying an academy. The importance is targeting a field of study. not the people in that field of study. thats why we say " Academics" instead of "people in academics" I know that it is nuanced. but saying " A business" is not the same as " Business" if you have any further questions about the English language. I'm happy to help you out. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 02:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
When I changed " business people " to "business" you were adamant about keeping Academics instead of Academia. so when I chose academics it was because you were so vehement about keeping it when I went from Business People to Business. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryce Carmony ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
also Businesspeople is one word not two. ( if you read the Businessperson article I suppose you'd know that, but I guess you don't read as much as puff ) Bryce Carmony ( talk) 02:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
I started an article for a highly regarded award nominated board game called splendor. but I can't seem to puff it up with a bunch of fluff words could you help me out? you seem to be good at making articles longer than they need to be. thanks in advance for your assistance! :) Bryce Carmony ( talk) 20:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Please discuss your issues further on the talk page for this article. It's been requested that the article be protected, but I'm sure you and Bryce Carmony will be able to talk this out between yourselves which would avoid page protection. Panyd The muffin is not subtle 14:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
In this case, I simply refer to the topic you may or may not have opened, "A tentative question". You were way late on that one. I'm rather depressed by the length of time it took you to get there. I'm sure I was well and properly TROUTed at the ANI, and you may have mine. — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 00:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what this means andy ( talk) 08:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Help:Using talk pages discussing articles in user pages is not how we do things here at wikipedia, please for future discussion about articles use the article talk page. If you don't know how to do this I'm happy to help you out and learn. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 18:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I liked your post about me having "bad faith" when the only way to state that is for you to have bad faith. it reminded me when I was a child and we would peek our eyes open during a prayer to see if we could catch ( and thereby accuse ) each other of having eyes open when the only way to catch them was in fact to have their eyes open. was pretty funny made me laugh. but no worries andy, I assume that your assumptions of my bad faith are made in good faith. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 09:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I've asked you a couple times before that when you want to make a claim about an article that you put it in the article discussion. When you try and circumvent consensus that hurts wikipedia. if you want to discuss things about articles, all you have to do is write a section in the article talk page. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 12:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Eh? Andyjsmith ( talk) 12:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems you are confused about what vandalism is and isn't. so I have some information for you.
Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them about an editing issue, and repeatedly make changes against consensus. Edit warring is not vandalism and should not be dealt with as such. Dispute resolution may help. See also: Tendentious editing" Bryce Carmony ( talk) 13:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The Restoration of Religious Freedom Act (RFRA) the primary source would be the text of the act itself. a supreme court opinion about the act is not a primary source. I know you aren't a soverign like american citizens are (sucks not having popular soverignity I know) so I can forgive your ignorance. but heads up. Supreme court opinions are primary sources of supreme court opinions not of acts that they are opining. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 13:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
If you want to discuss an article, use the article talk page. if you want to argue that every branch of the government is a primary source of every topic of the government (the SEC is a primary source of the FDA, etc) then you are more then welcome to make that argument, but don't spam my talk page about it. spam the article talk page. I care about consensus, stop trying to circumvent it by boycotting article talk pages. Bryce Carmony ( talk) 14:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
You reverted my edits, saying while "crewed" does in fact sound odd, "that's the way it's now written". According to whom? Manned is the standard term for nearly all space agencies I know of.
Manned is already gender-neutral, however; just as "mankind", "manhole", and "congressman". MeanMotherJr ( talk) 21:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Where in the style guide does it mandate the use of "crewed", or state that "manned" is not gender-neutral? MeanMotherJr ( talk) 21:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'd love to, but from who? MeanMotherJr ( talk) 22:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing on his Forbes profile, see; http://www.forbes.com/profile/elon-musk/. A quick Google search will provide zero reliable sources, merely a small collection of unreliable sources, almost certainly getting the information from Wikipedia itself. DocHeuh ( talk) 15:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
It was not disruptive editing. it is almost all about Earth so it should not be in the Mars category. 118.93.90.74 ( talk) 09:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Incase you are unaware:
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Andyjsmith. Thank you. -- Orduin Discuss 20:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Your recent changes and attacks on our article are unwarranted as we worked hard to ensure we passed wp rules. Our main website went down 12 months ago but we are rebuilding 2 websites at .net and .org which will contain new links and evidence of our projects and work over the last 10 years. This is why the links don't currently work. Your research is only skin deep at best and as a real world organization I would warn you against defamation and damage to our reputation by your poorly researched changes. My name is Frank Stratford and I am the President of MarsDrive. Our work in mission design, funding concepts and human Mars settlement programs is important and our group is actually numerically bigger than it has ever been. Once our .org is up again over the next 2 months there will be more than egg on your face as you will clearly know your slander has been ill conceived.
Please hold off on any further actions at this time and if we have not updated everything over the next 3 months you can review it then with my permission. FrankS71 ( talk) 14:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The fact remains that yes the main website is down but the organization is not. All of the data and links from the old .com main website do exist still but it will take time to reconstruct them. If you had taken time to actually read some of the files you keep deleting you will see they are of an extremely high technical grade and valuable in research for human missions to Mars. Your research is shallow and as a result you have put this article into a category it should not be in. It will take time to reconstruct everything so again,please respectfully cease tearing the information apart without actually researching the content. We understand that you are just trying to keep things relevant and clean and we want the same thing too. But unless you are an expert on this article (and it's clear you are not), what you are doing is an abuse of the rules here. Wikipedia strives for accurate and neutral reports, but by being overly technical you are violating the very rules you seek to uphold. How can we establish accuracy, reliable citations etc if you just keep removing them? If you would like to constructively assist in rebuilding this article it would be appreciated. All the information is still there but just in different format now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.195.128.250 ( talk) 15:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I added a sentence to colonisation of mars mentioning hellas planitia. My edit You reverted it as unreferenced whereas all 3 facts in the sentence seem amply supported and referenced in the hellas planitia article. You could have reworded it slightly or flagged some or all of it with {{cn}} (as the section above had been). Did you check the Hellas planitia article ? or could you clarify why you reverted my edit please - eg what needs a reference? If we reference all such easily verified facts articles will have unmanageable lists of references. - Rod57 ( talk) 17:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
"This guy is like a neighbour from hell doing a spot of gardening - he tidies up a few leaves, then runs a mower right through your flowerbed and tries to fight you when you complain. But when you call the police he's as quiet as a mouse, says he was only trying to tidy things up, officer, and anyway the flowers needed mowing."
AJS, you owe me a new keyboard. I don't frequent ANI, and I don't pretend to understand the merits of the underlyting dispute, but I spit coffee out of my nose I was laughing so hard when I read your comment above. I'm so gonna steal your simile/metaphor. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 11:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Artvest Partners, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! 2602:30A:2EFE:F050:6C6F:3B3D:9F18:9068 ( talk) 21:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I removed the CSD tag you placed on Mina Ōba because A7's standard is WP:CCS as opposed to WP:N, and I think this meets WP:CCS. While it's possible Mini Oba is not notable, her involvement in AKB48 and SKE48 as well as her significant role in TV shows means that the article certainly meets WP:A7. I personally agree with a lot of what WP:A7M discusses about what cases A7 should and should not be applied. Regards, Appable ( talk) 05:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page).weather it was a big deal or not Rahman does not mean merciful it means gracious/benevolent..definition of merciful is Rahim..do as you will with the info..as muslims we strive to make definitions as clear and accurate as possible..thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dueller8992 ( talk • contribs) 02:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it was you that blocked me and channged back my edits! Give me my privledges back immediately and leave me alone!!! 😠😠😠😠😠😠 Ololpoo ( talk) 22:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Dear Andyjsmith, can you please explain why did you reverse the reference on the article about Marketing! Verbal.noun ( talk) 20:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Collar workers. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's
talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents
consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an
appropriate noticeboard or seek
dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary
page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be
blocked from editing.
We have an AfD process that involves multiple editors, not the whim of one editor edit-warring over it. I would also note that your redirect was rejected at the last AfD.
Andy Dingley (
talk) 23:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Andyjsmith,
Why the hell you will not delete Mars One? Why is it notable and Marspolar not? If you need some media articles just enter "Marspolar" (with quotes) in google and read it. I tried to be honest, it doesn't works here. This part wasn't created by me, I'm just edited it to make information actual, watch the history. Yes, I'm co-founder and I'm just don't want to see wrong information on Wikipedia about us. If you deleting us, so delete Mars One, because these guys are not notable, not we.
Hello what it mean "Reverted good faith edits by Eurohunter (talk). (TW)" in the Basshunter article? My edit, which was correct has been deleted so I back it. What to do? Please answer me on my discussion page. Eurohunter ( talk) 18:59, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I am new to wikipedia, and when I got the message that my article was an orphan, I tried to link to pages where I would find the link relevant. On that note however, I may have not linked them properly. It may be the case that I would need to write or contribute more to make that logical connection to my page. In that vein, I was wondering if you could give me some advice on linking or some pages that you think are good for linking to my page. Eesimonds ( talk) 17:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC)Eesimonds Eesimonds ( talk)