Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. Start a new talk topic.

Perhaps you can explain to be why that geography congress is notable. Almost every individual congress brought up for deletion at AFD has been deleted, except for a very few very famous ones that are discussed in histories of the subject. The feeling is different about conference series -- if there are more, could you fight out and adjust the article ? DGG ( talk) 18:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, I'm definitely not an expert, but my understanding (based in part on talking to someone who knows a lot more about this than I do) is that this wasn't a cogress in the sense of a bunch of academics getting together and presenting papers. What it apparently was was a government-backed meeting of Turkish geographers to decide how the relatively new Turkish nation-state was to be perceived from a geographical point of view. So they did things such as (as mentioned in the article) defining the official geographic regions of the nation. As such, the congress has, in fact, been discussed in histories of the making of the modern Turkish nation-state. Klausness ( talk) 13:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Please can you stop adding this, and discuss it on WT:RAIL? Thanks, -- RFBailey ( talk) 16:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I was creating a category to replace List of railway stations managed by Southern (per a suggestion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of railway stations managed by Southern). I've added a note about this to WT:RAIL, per your suggestion. Klausness ( talk) 17:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Theanine is known as Suntheanine in vitamnwater b-relaxed. I am undoing 1 revision of your edit. You cannot rely on IPs being WACKY INFLATABLE ARM TUBE MAN salesman. 98.227.189.232 ( talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but Suntheanine® is clearly a trademark, not a generic name, as indicated by the ® symbol. Also, the label of a bottle of vitamnwater b-relaxed (whatever that is) is not a reliable source. In any case, this is all moot, as someone else appears to have already reverted your edit. Klausness ( talk) 11:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--  _{Wiki11790   talk}  14:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC) reply

• I don't believe I failed to assume good faith in any of my edits (including the ones to which I think you're referring, though you don't cite any specific edits). Klausness ( talk) 12:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC) reply

An article that you have been involved in editing, Trans-Siberian Pipeline, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trans-Siberian Pipeline. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Beagel ( talk) 22:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC) reply

Restored. -- Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 16:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I think they are all back. Sorry about that. Thanks for the quick and patient message. -- Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Glad I was around to respond when you contacted me. Let me know if/when they are ready to go. -- Kukini ^{háblame aquí} 17:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, Klausness. I notice you removed the prod tag at this article. Could you elaborate a little on your reasoning? You equated "argument from poor design" with "dysteleological argument," but to me there seems to be a relationship, but not an equivalence. For example, it wouldn't seem appropriate to merge AFPD with Dysteleology. Can you say what makes you believe AFPD is notable? I couldn't find any references to the phrase as a serious concept outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors. Thanks, Gnixon ( talk) 19:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for getting back to me. I'll look into things further. Gnixon ( talk) 20:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd like to know why you removed my deletation request from all these useless articles created by Skanter.

We already explained that these Scottish Brazilian or Belgian Brazilian articles were ridiculous, because these people make up a very small population in Brazil. Opinoso ( talk) 16:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Dear Klausness,

I work on the wikipage of the Center for Policy Studies and I would like to write the name of this page in capital letter (the current title is Center for policy studies). Is it possible?

Thank you in advance,

Jadrienj ( talk) 13:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Jadrienj reply

Hello! The icon was missing because you're running ad-blocking software that mistakes certain images (those stored in "ad" subdirectories) and suppresses them. When I get a chance, I'll replace all of the icon's transclusions. — David Levy 00:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC) reply

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Affinium (software), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also " What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{ dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Oo7565 ( talk) 08:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Yep, there's more. Butwhatdoiknow ( talk) 22:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hello,

I noticed that you removed a paragraph from the "Brahma Chaitanya" page on wiki. Looking at the other pages on wiki, it was a pretty small one. Could you kindly put it back?

17:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)AMD08

I thought it was unencyclopedic (and, by the way, it wasn't very small), so I removed it. Anyone (including you) can restore it if they disagree. I've left a longer note on your talk page about this. Klausness ( talk) 19:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi there just created some userboxes, if you want to use them then please do. Thankyou. Assalamu Alaykum. Moshin ( talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC) [1] reply

Hi! You said "if a user doesn't know where Turkey is located, he/she have to see the map i chose " but if a user doesn't know where Greece is located (or other European states) what can he/she do? In the article of Greece and in other European states' articles, maps are the same with my Turkey location map

Note: Cyprus is located in Southwest Asia Izmir lee ( talk) 11:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Ok, if you want to change the maps, please begin with others but the maps are showing enough continents.. -- Izmir lee ( talk) 11:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I just quickly added some cites. But (and I'm not trying to be insulting here) when you're trying to do an overview, you tend not to add them. If you look down in the MSNBC article there are citations about how it has a liberal bias.

I don't think any citation is neccesary. But do you think it might be better to copy paste the same cites? Or add new ones? (what I did). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.176.44.252 ( talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I see someone else has already reverted your changes, and rightly so. Newsmax and some random blog are harely reliable sources. Klausness ( talk) 09:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

My question remains; why should I cite sources in an overview?

Should I just repeat the cites below?

Please answer!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.68.114 ( talk) 13:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

All such claims need to be cited, whether they're in an overview or elsewhere. If they're properly cited elsewhere in the article, then a summary in the overview doesn't necessarily need to repeat the citations, but it needs to accurately reflect what's said (with proper citation) in the rest of the article. The bias section of the article claims that MSNBC has been accused of both liberal and conservative bias, but what you added only claims conservative bias, so it does not accurately summarize what's said in the rest of the article. If you're going to mention claims of bias in the overview, you need to either mention that there have been claims of both liberal and conservative bias or provide some very good references that indicate that the claims of liberal bias are significantly more notable than the claims of conservative bias. Other editors may still disagree about whether the claims of bias should be mentioned in the overview at all (I have no strong opinion on the matter), but mentioning only the claims of liberal bias (at least without some strong support from reliable sources) appears to be a clear violation of neutral point of view.
(Also, please remember to sign your comments on talk pages using ~~~~ rather than relying on a bot to add the signature.) Klausness ( talk) 13:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for expressing your concerns on the recent issues with TinucherianBot in Project Banner Tagging for WP:FOOD . I have made some comments and explainations at Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#TinucherianBot and I am leaving this note just for your information -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 09:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Some time ago, you participated in a deletion discussion concerning Allegations of Israeli apartheid. I thought you might like to know that the parent article, Allegations of apartheid, was recently nominated for deletion. Given that many of the issues that have been raised are essentially the same as those on the article on which you commented earlier, you may have a view on whether Allegations of apartheid should be kept or deleted. If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). -- ChrisO ( talk) 18:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Would like your opinion on redirecting CRM to it's primary topic, Customer relationship management. The current experience seems cumbersome. Kingsley Joseph ( talk) 00:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I explained on the talk:Entity-relationship model, why I trimmed that list of software tools. If you don't agree, please first discuss and don't change it back unless there is some kind of agreement. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker ( talk) 15:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Unica Corporation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TimonyCrickets ( talk) 18:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Unica Corporation, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{ hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TimonyCrickets ( talk) 18:37, 30 March 2009 (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) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Template:Xpd2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply

Template:Xpd3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 14:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC) reply