Panda

Its seems a bit late to welcome you to Wikipedia- you've been around quite a while. But I was surprised to see your talkpage was still a redlink and thought I'd rectify the oversight. Welcome to Wikipedia! WjBscribe 21:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good work with the Hot Shots and the dance camp!

Unfortunately, due to copyright issues we can not just take huge chunks of text like this [1]. We can use it as a source, but the text as such is copyrighted. Unless get the author to release the text under GFDL, it will have to be removed. If the author releases the text under GFDL, I think till the text should be kneaded a bit. It contains a little bit too much detail; it was obviously not written for an encyclopaedia. // habj 19:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I know that you can't just copy and paste the text in. I put it there in hopes that someone else (you perhaps?) would recognize that and paraphrase the material into the wiki since I'm working on other pages right now. Or is there some sign you can put on the page to ask someone to do that? I've added a note to the discussion page. apanda 20:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nu att jag vet du är svensk, är du medlem i SSS? Eller är du bara intresserade i Lindy Hop-sidor? Det finns en gammal SSS-tidning där de beskriver HDC-historien i mycket mer detalj än den som finns på HDC-webbsidan. Tyvärr så har jag inte tidningen med mig för att kunna översätta informationen. apanda 20:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I used to dance lindy, I don't any more... maybe I should start over. Not entirely sure. Anyway, I think your move of merging the two Hot Shots articles was a great move - a major improvement.

Cheers! // habj 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Logo SIE.png, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Logo SIE.png is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Logo SIE.png, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 15:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing this error out. I'm not sure of an easy way to avoid this type of issue again in the future, but I'll look in to it. Sorry for the mixup. --Android Mouse 18:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

You can perhaps have your bot search for the text "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below." and follow the link to find the actual author...? panda 02:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good idea. I'll have it scan for that text before it notifies users. --Android Mouse 17:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:BoxedRedX.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 22:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

By mistake. I was going to restore myself, but became busy with small expansion of Jive (dance) and forgot. Sorry. `'Míkka 01:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Panda, what the hell is your problem with me? Do you have something against me? jesus fucking christ man, I'm not up for this. Look, handle all articles on wikipedia on your own from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahm2307 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 5 August 2007

Hey, use the template {{subst:afdx}} in the first step, then follow the second and the third. That will do. :) PeaceNT 04:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I didn't realise I was the main contributer to that page! Anyway, I've replied on the talkpage. --BelovedFreak 15:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

first off, i have to appologize for the 'way' i reverted your edits. i pushed the wrong button before i could enter explanatory text. having said that, i am fully aware the article is not a 'mirror' of the nobel site, however, in absence of a better source of the nationality of a given laureate at the time the honours were bestowed, the nobel site is the best 'source' and should be the final arbiter, and come into play when one of the 600 or laureate changes citizenship later in life. --emerson7 | Talk 19:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

the nobel site indicates "Titles, data and places given above refer to the time of the award." --emerson7 | Talk 23:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

So what does the "Country" stand for on the Nobel site? panda 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

well, i would presume Country is laureates nationality at the time of award as indicated on the website. --emerson7 | Talk 02:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

please stand by...i'm in the middle of something requiring my attention right now. --emerson7 | Talk 22:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

You pretty much hit it on the nose - I just explained myself a little further. --MCMLXXXIII 03:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. emerson7 | Talk 21:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

i undid your indiscriminate reversion of my edits. it is indeed WP:Crystal since 1) the event has not yet happened, 2) there was no indication in the article given when it would happen, and 3) the entire claim was not substantiated with a valid reference. also you reverted changes having nothing to do with the wp:crystal issue. cheers. --emerson7 | Talk 20:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not WP:Crystal since this was announced by NPR on 2 Sept 2007, which is indeed a valid reference:

"All Things Considered, September 2, 2007 · After two years hosting All Things Considered on the weekend, Debbie Elliott will begin reporting from Capitol Hill. Andrea Seabrook, who had been covering Congress, will take Elliott's place in the host chair."

I'll allow you to revert your own revert. Feel free to add the reference. panda 20:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

According to the transcript for the show, Debbie Elliott's last show was 2 Sept 2007 and Andrea Seabrook took over on 8 Sept 2007. Andrea Seabrook will be in the office in a few weeks after showing Debbie Elliott "the ropes on Capitol Hill". In the meantime, Jacki Lyden will be covering. But the change has already been made. panda 22:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I come back to wikipedia infrequently these days because I'm caught up in real life; however, I saw (too late) your note to comment on the Jumpswing article deletion. Thankfully, I didn't have to add anything: you did such a good job that I couldn't have really added anything (which would have also been to delete). Just wanted to say, Well done!--Will.i.am 05:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your reformatting of the "See:" reference to the Mössbauer effect [2], I suggest that you either apply this formatting consistently throughout the article Nobel Prize in Physics or revert the change. Strive for uniformity. Myasuda 14:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the heads-up! Done. panda 15:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see my comments at the above talk page. I realize that you have established rules for which flags the laureates get associated with, but I think those rules should be reconsidered. --Metropolitan90 06:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

it seems to me that you've cast the net too far in your latest rfc by including so many peripheral items. though perhaps more cumbersome, they should be handled separately, and this one should be narrowed to one or two items to prevent the main issue from getting too muddled. imho. cheers!--emerson7 | Talk 19:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

my dear, dear panda. had you taken a moment to actually examine the edits made you would have discovered that none were related to the rfc in question. the "country"....and whatever that means is exactly the same, only in its own column. as far as the sortabilty, the only fields that were sortable were the first name of the first person listed in the box, net effect: zero; and the date which although unnecessary, can be replace. unless you can come up with much better reason i'm changing it back. --emerson7 | Talk 15:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

  you make me smile. --emerson7 | Talk 19:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you attempted to make the table in Nobel Prize in Chemistry sortable, which is a nontrivial process as you discovered. If you would like some tips for how to make the table sortable, please see Talk:Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine#Major changes to the table. (I made the table in Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine sortable.) –panda 17:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, You're right, I tried to make it sortable, as I did in fr:Prix Nobel de chimie. The problem on the english table is that some records contain |rowspan=2|. I didn't have time to correct these problems, but I still think a sortable table would be a better solution. Best regards. SalomonCeb 21:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree that a sortable table would be better. Having already spent a lot of time doing this for Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine and then wasting time arguing with an overzealous editor who doesn't believe there's any reason for a sortable table (pointless edit war), I've decided that it's better if someone else makes the other tables sortable. So it would be great if you choose to change the table in Nobel Prize in Chemistry. (I've separated the "no award" years into their own rows in preparation for this.) BTW, I like the way you listed multiple statements for one year in fr:Prix Nobel de chimie. –panda 21:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

my dear, dear panda. just so that you know, i was just seconds from reverting that pointless column sort earlier this morning. the only column that makes any sense at all for sorting is the date. once your little rfc the sorting of the columns will indeed go away as well. --emerson7 | Talk 01:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

yeah, i guess it 'could' be considered vandalism, but you know very well that it is not. i would ask you to apply your own advice by assuming good faith instead of hovering around waiting for someone to make an error. cheer! --emerson7 15:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

sorry, all done! Wikidea 14:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some articles to add to you watch list: Vernon L. Smith‎, Milton Friedman, Template:Nobel Prize in Economics and Herbert Simon‎. Check for accuracy and revert vandalism. // Liftarn

your edits to the article are incorrect. the bank of sweden does 'not' present the award, it founded and endowed the award prize money. it is presented by the nobel foundation as are the rest. --emerson7 17:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't write the text. Feel free to make the necessary changes to reflect that the Bank of Sweden does not present the award. I believe the point of the original edit was that the econ prize is not a Nobel Prize. –panda 17:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

I decided to check the Nobel Foundation's website about this and have updated the article. –panda 20:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

They do not say that prize in economics is not a Nobel Prize. By attributing such view to them you are conducting original research. -- Vision Thing -- 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You might be interested to know that Nobel Foundation under all Nobel Laureates list says: "771 individuals and 19 organizations have been awarded the Nobel Prize" and they normally list prize in economics with rest of them. This means that they consider it a regular Noble Prize. -- Vision Thing -- 20:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You might also be interested in know that the Nobel Foundation states "Nobelprize.org provides comprehensive, first-hand information about the Nobel Prize and Nobel Laureates in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace starting in 1901, as well as the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel and the Economics Laureates starting in 1969."[3] There's more examples of this on their website.

If they consider it a Noble Prize, why do they never actually state "Nobel Prize in Economics"? Your example is just an example of grouping for the sakes of simplicity. –panda 20:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

They are not just groping for the sake of simplicity. They say: "771 individuals and 19 organizations have been awarded the Nobel Prize", they don't say "715 individuals and 19 organizations have been awarded the Nobel Prize and 56 individuals have been awarded Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel." -- Vision Thing -- 20:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

First, your example text would be false, which is probably why they don't write it. (There haven't been 715 individuals or 19 organizations that have won the Prize in Economics.) Also, what do you believe the rationale is for why they wrote the above text, which clearly separates the Nobel Prizes from the Prize in Economics, is...? Also, once again, why do they never state anywhere on their website "Nobel Prize in Economics"? –panda 20:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I see that you have now completely removed the point that a Nobel to Avery or Franklin would have been posthumous. I made the previous edit on this subject which was deleted. As the point is often mentioned in connection with Franklin especially, someone is likely to mention it again, so I think we should try to get it right.

As I understand the paragraph at Nobel prize#Nomination and selection, there is a difference between posthumous nominations and posthumous awards, with the rule for the latter changing in 1974. Nominations are made several months prior to the award, and posthumous nominations were never accepted either before or after 1974. The two cases mentioned in 1931 and 1961 refer to Nobel laureates who were alive when nominated (in the spring?), but died before the prize was awarded posthumously (in December). The 1974 change means that if this situation recurs, the prize will only be awarded posthumously if it has already been announced (as happened in 1996).

This means that for the 1962 Nobel in physiology or medicine, Avery and Franklin were not eligible to be considered since they had both died several years previously. Whether they would have been considered if alive is a speculative question, and there has been widespread speculation in the case of Rosalind Franklin, so I think the point should be included though possibly with modified wording. What do you now think please? Dirac66 22:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah ha ... I understand now. (I had heard the same thing, especially with Franklin, but from a cursory glance at Nobel prize#Nomination and selection, it looked like it contradicted the text there.) Thanks for clearing that up! –panda 22:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for changing it back. I had to read the Nomination and selection paragraph twice myself to get it all straight. Dirac66 00:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Nej, panda. Det var dansk. I was just trying to show some Scandinavian solidarity.--Anthon.Eff 14:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

i don't believe any such rfc is required in an effort to bring some consistency to the five nobel articles. if you don't agree with the changes, you are welcomed to state your position. if you don't like the changes simply because it was i who made them....well that's 'your' problem. i really think your behaviour regarding these articles in particular is broaching on WP:OWNERSHIP, and it's frankly getting a bit tiresome. --emerson7 16:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

my time should be of no concern to you, and my edits are consistent with policy. --emerson7 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

again, my edits are consistent with policy, and if you don't agree with the changes, you are welcomed to state your position. --emerson7 17:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Jag har frågat svenskarna vad de tycker om det--Victor falk 13:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Tack! Jag hoppas bara att folk svarar. –panda 15:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

as there is no consensus on the rfc you authored with regard to the definition please do not continue to mis-represent your opinion as fact. --emerson7 16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

As I stated in the RFC: This is a fact. It is the definition according to the Nobel Foundation. If you dispute the fact, then I invite you to go to the library and check the book. –panda 16:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerson7 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 10 October 2007

(Please do forgive this tardy response. I've been tied up in real life recently. My apologies.)

As a user who has not been involved in the issue previously (and as this matter apparently requires no administrative actions), I am offering my view as an outside editor. After reading some related talk page discussions, I see the disagreement could be summed up as to whether or not the article should state/imply that the Economics prize is a Nobel prize. Well, since the RFM demonstrated no established consensus for either side of the parties involved, and if I'm not mistaken, relevant sources could be interpreted as contradicting one another, my view is that if it is not explicitly and officially stated anywhere that "Economics prize is/is not a Nobel Prize", then that is how the lead should be phrased, we go strictly as close to the official wording as possible. The official website of the foundation doesn't specify distinctly if the economics prize is a Nobel prize, so it is not our job to try to figure out the meaning of their contentious words. The current wording in the lead looks fine to me, by the way, I hope everyone has come to a compromise.

Just another thing, this cited edit for one, doesn't appear to me as POV pushing, actually, the phrase "is technically not considered a Nobel prize by many." is ambiguous wording and should be omitted (questions raised: which organizations do not consider it a Nobel prize?, how many constitutes "many"?, etc... ). That is the type of material that is likely to be challenged, thus should either be sourced or deleted. That is to say you should assume a little more good faith from other editors. :) Besides, I understand you're worried that the user in question has and probably will attempt to make many reverts, I think you could point out the three revert rules to him or her. More than three reverts in one hour warrants a block in most cases, it's always important to discuss before reverting the others' edits.

My two cents. Best wishes, PeaceNT 15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments -- I understand your point. Sorry to bring up a ton of extraneous material about the topic but my real question was whether it is ok or not for an editor to, in a single edit, revert/remove 17 edits made by various editors simply because he didn't like them? The text that was removed was cited so there was definitely no vandalism involved. I've also posted this to WP:AN/I#17 reverts for no reason (with a more detailed time line) and have not received an answer yet as of this writing. –panda 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

(My apologies again for the delay in replying) Sorry I did not realize the above question. Such a revert is certainly unjustified, on no account should the editor continue reverting like that. About the ANI thread, sorry I can't read through it now, got to go. I'm sure an administrator would take a look at the matter soon. Best wishes, PeaceNT 16:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Readers are perfectly capable of understanding that Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, Nobel Prize in Economics, and Prize in Economics are exactly the same thing. There is no need to clutter the introduction with such nonsense. /SvNH 22:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's not nonsense, it's the alternative names that the prize is called and it's common practice in WP. If you search the web, you'll find that all of those terms will bring you to pages about the prize. As this section of called, readers should be able to find all alternative names for the prize in the article. I can't think of any good reason for not including them. So if you have some alternative rationale for not including them, then please let me know what it is. –panda 22:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you can't give some good reason for not including its alternative names, then I plan to revert your changes. There's no reason why one alternative name should have priority over the others, especially when one of them is the current official name. –panda 22:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

It is a matter of clarity, not justice among names. /SvNH 22:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Exactly, it's a matter of clarity. All of those names are used in WP so it makes sense to include them so that when people go to the article, they won't think they're at the wrong place. People know the prize by different names and it is called different names so they should all be listed. Is there a particular name that you don't like? Cause I really don't understand your reasoning. –panda 22:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hans Göran Persson (Swedish IPA: ['ʝœ:ran 'pæ:ʂɔn]) (born January 20, 1949) also known as Göran Persson, Göran Persson (prime minister of Sweden) (until 2006), Göran Persson (former prime minister of Sweden), statsminister Göran Persson (until 2006), före detta statsminister Göran Persson, Göran Persson på Torp and Göran Persson på Övre Torp was the thirty-first prime minister of Sweden (1996 – 2006). /SvNH 23:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

And your point is...? Those are identical except for the qualifier. The alt names I've listed aren't that similar. Let's continue this in the article's talk page cause this really tops the lame edit war list IMHO. –panda 23:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

For one thing, it's NOT "17 reverts", and you shouldn't call it that. One revert of one edit is no "worse" (for being a revert, that is) than a revert to last year's version. It's a simple content dispute - maybe try WP:3O, and then go from there to try to get dispute resolution. —Random832 04:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You admitted it was a personal battle with another user. It's tiresome. All you had to do was lay out facts with resources. But you chose this duplicitous method. No one ever "owes" someone else an apology in the way you demanded one. If that's how you get apologies, you and I are too far apart to have anything to discuss. Don't post on my talk page, and don't battle-shop on Wikipedia. If the facts and the references don't support your arguments, then they're not supportable. But if they do, and you can't get people to see what the issues are, you need to review your tactics. Pause and consider exactly what it is you are trying to show people on Wikipedia, and what the evidence is. Then ask yourself, if people can't see this, is it because of faulty reasoning on your part or is it because of your methods? If you really thought about it you might see another way to getting your reasoning across to people that didn't include attempting to badger apologies out of them by slapping them with AGF. Let's end this now with you not posting on my talk page, and I won't post on yours. You have too many battles already. KP Botany 05:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say it was a personal battle -- you interpreted it that way. If you still think it was a personal battle, go check the talk page and see who has been editing there. With the way you wrote your comment there, you should have been expecting to be slapped with AGF. Try taking your own advice and consider using it sometime. –panda 05:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I have no particular reason on splitting it into chunks of 25 years. Actually, the template before consisted of just one complete roster which was generated a lot of discussion, since some editors proposed to delete it since it's too long. So I just decided to split the roster, of course, still with the option to view a template with a full list. As for splitting it into 25 years than say 10 years, considering the long history of the prize, then I will prefer to look at the four different 25-year templates spanning 100 years, than 10 different templates spanning the same period. In any case, you're free to discuss that with other editors if it will improve the template and related articles. Joey80 06:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Panda, I suggest you refrain from editing the article Nobel Prize in Economics for a week or so. Your actions seem to indicate perceived ownership of the article, and the two daily reverts will definitely not help to make any progress. Perhaps some previously uninvolved editors will be able to sort things out - but they won't even get a chance to try if you (and others) continue blocking all attempts. Thanks /SvNH 19:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please don't waste my time with WP:Wikilawyering. My edits were justified and had nothing to do with ownership. I agree that some uninvolved editors could help sort things out. User:Ashley Y and User:EconomicsGuy are pretty uninvolved and have stated their comments. Even User:AdamSmithee, User:Liftarn, and I have come to an agreement. But it seems that some users still don't want to work towards consensus. –panda 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've edited the name controversy section, but you can find your list in my sandbox: [4]. --victor falk 21:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

:) ROTFL! :) –panda 21:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's very interesting, but my suspicion is that it won't make a difference. The Nobel prize website incorporates the economics stuff. It would only be a trade mark infringement if there was no permission for its use with the Economics prize. I imagine it is. Furthermore, the only people with a case, or a claim would be the Nobel foundation itself. Not us, or Alfred's family, sadly. Mr Nobel's name is being usurped. Like you I just wish that people on here would use the proper name! Wikidea 01:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Theoretically, the community could endorse this kind of sanction, but only if it became clear that the other side was a disruptive minority. We're much too far from this kind of consensus to be discussing it now. And a proposed move is good: anything to solicit outside comment. Cool Hand Luke 22:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Why did you make these tables sortable? Please look at the tables if they are sorted by Names or Nationality !! The lists show absolutely nonsens !! You should make it retrogressive !!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarszick (talk • contribs) 09:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

The tables have been made sortable because:

• Many editors have commented that the lists should be reversed and sorting deals with that.
• Sorting by name or nationality shows the years in which there were no awards very quickly. These years have not always been war years.
• If you prefer, you can always modify the names so that sorting by name is done by last name. I personally don't care if the laureates are sorted by first or last name.
• If all of the individuals were put into separate rows, sorting by nationality would be even nicer. I haven't had time for this yet but you're welcome to try implementing this. The list of Nobel Peace Prize laureates is partly already in this format.

–panda 14:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think that the lists in their current form are very good !!

If they will made sortable by year, you will lose the information, who has won the half of the prize and who has won a quarter of the prize in the same year. Now these informations are visible immediately.

To make the lists sortable by names makes small sense: What is the advantage to list all winners for example with "M" ??

Or to list them by alphabet ? In this case you will lose the information who is/are the Co-Winner(s) in that year !

Some people probably are interested to see the lists sorted by country. But then it is necessary, to give every winner his own row. That destroys all connections in the lists. Is that worth it ?

In my opinion only the current form of the lists make the best sense. I think, everybody can find in the lists "his winner" he looked for !

Jarszick 22:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Replies to each of your concerns:

• What portion of a prize someone has won is another issue that someone else already brought up in one of the Nobel Prize article talk pages. I was in fact planning to add that info to the lists as another column.
• The sorting makes the lists more flexible for people who want to view the lists differently.
• If someone is sorting the list by name, they're not interested in who the co-winners are. If they wanted to know the co-winners, they would only need to re-sort by year, and/or by motivation.
• I was planning to put each person on their own line, which would be necessary to sort by name or nationality.
• No connections will be destroyed in the list just because it's sortable. The original order of the list will still be shown when someone first views the page and can be restored by resorting by year.

All of your concerns can be addressed with a sorted list so if you have others, let me know and I'll make sure to incorporate them into the final design. –panda 00:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey Panda,

Thanks for your note and feedback. You bring up some good points, and I agree I made some things more confusing. I appreciate you pointing them out, and I tried to correct some of that. I also have a couple of comments on your feedback on the discussion page. It's always good to have peer oversight to improve the knowledge here :) Let me know what you think.

RJSampson 07:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have requested an informal debate on the Nobel Prize image. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Cheers mateNastykermit 22:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I see that you're now "Currently studying Scandinavian history at uni level." FYI, I checked on the Norwegian and Swedish articles in the references section of Johan Galtung, and if it was based on those sources, it appears to me that Galtung's statements were really twisted around by the American journalist. Good luck with your studies! –panda 23:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've left my reply on my talk page. It seems that issue's not in question at this point, but if it comes up again, please refer to my response there. —Preceding comment was added at 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What was their response to your email? Monads (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Reply posted to Image_talk:DSCN0732.JPG#Email_the_Nobel_Foundation. –panda (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

User:Zarathustra799 was not vandalizing the Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Please do not post unneeded vandalism templates on his page for actions that were clearly not vandalism, he was simply trying to help out in Wikipedia.

Redmarkviolinist 15:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

This user was modifying others' comments in Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry to confound the issue, and continued to do so after being warned. The template was specifically about refactoring others comments. [5] [6] [7] [8] So they were justified. –panda 15:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the misunderstanding. At first I did not see that, but now I do. But I am still against putting Nazi flags on that page.

Redmarkviolinist ^(talk)

You may want to participate in the flag discussion if you have opinions about the flags. It was one of the unresolved issues for a previous RFC.

FYI, you haven't closed off some of the formatting tags in your signature (<big> and <sup>). –panda 17:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I was just wondering if your issue got resolved. Let us know either way so that we know whether to archive the thread. Thanks. Adrian M. H. 00:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I placed that comment in the wrong spot. It was in response to the increased editing of the said article. --Jab843 (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

• See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Speedy deletion of Shity University of Hong Kong for my answer. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, panda; I'm reluctant to get involved. All you can do is your best, and if issues can't be resolved with several weeks of work, then perhaps come to WP:FAR. Standards have changed since older article were promoted. Good luck there :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I see that you're making some progress, slowly but surely. Keep up the good work, and if you can't attain current FA standards, then WP:FAR might be able to help. The citation format looks good now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Regarding my unlinking of some dates in the Swedish language article: Dates referring to when links were retrieved, et cetera, are not significant in relation to the article. There is no meaning whatsoever in linking Swedish language to a certain date, just because a reference was retrieved that date. LarRan 18:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Judging by your comments over at Sandy's talkpage, I noticed that you're interpreting the dispute over Swedish language as being about academic traditions; it's not. It's really more a matter of my not aggreeing with some of the citation guidelines and the fact that my methods have been accepted in many other articles that I've worked on. The reason you seem to think that I'm taking you're suggestions personally is really more because you worked rather carelessly to press home your points and this is making me suspicious not so much of your good intentions, but your methods. You approach to research of the actual subject matter, Swedish, is especially disconcerting and I would really prefer it if you tried to put more hard work into research of decent external sources instead of bonking me over the head with guideline citations and a beginner's guide to Swedish grammar.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The issues I've brought up have been solely about English citing standards. There's no need to make it into some larger issue. –panda (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Then kindly stop commenting on factual matter which you know squat about.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Such as...? I've been only saying that the references need fixing and the article needs more references. I really don't understand why you're so opposed to that. –panda (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

You made an extremely stubborn and unconstructive effort to challange general grammatical gender terminology by citing a basic grammar simply because the terms weren't in there (not that it actually contradicted anything). If you want to review an article thoroughly you should at least make a minimum of effort to learn something about the topic, or at least go a bit easier on your demands on what should be cited or not. kwami may have the patience with people who can't be bothered with research of their own (and who reject relevant reference given in discussions), but I don't. I basically don't accept ignorance as an argument for citation padding.

Right now, you really need to start getting a bit more detailed about what you think is unverifiable or not, and you can't judge that simply by measuring the distance to the nearest footnote. Believe it or not, sometimes you actually have to read the source that the nearest footnote points to or try to check the list of sources a wee bit closer. At the very least you could ask questions about it first and demand more footnotes later.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

What you don't realize is that the book I have has been translated into several languages and is widely used. So whether you like it or not, there should have been a citation for the "common" and "neuter" issue. If you look at the original Swedish version, you would also see that the authors never used those terms, which is why it was never translated that way. Whether you believe the article needs more citations or not is irrelevant. More than one editor has asked for additional citations, as can be seen in the article's history and talk page, and you should instead be adding them instead of fighting the requests. –panda (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

What you fail to understand is that the authors don't actually contradict a word of what I've claimed. All they've done is to take a different perspective. They refer to the nouns themselves, not the abstract idea of gender. Calling a certain word an "en/ett word" doesn't contradict the fact that the gender they belong to is either neuter or common (neutrum and utrum respectively). You can check this out in even the most basic linguistic sources. For instance, NE has articles on both neutrum, utrum and even the older term reale.

And as for asking for citations, fine. But you're still only requesting "more references", not what needs more references. I'm not fighing requests, I just don't accept every single general demand for them. Specifying your requests will make things so much easier.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Um ... I have specified my requests. Instead, you're nitpicking on a single issue, probably because you can and you seem to need someone to be your complaints department today. You can see my comments in the Talk:Swedish language page so let's continue the conversation there. –panda (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd really like to see you admit that you were at least a bit off the mark on the gender issue, especially since you're proceeding uninterrupted to make even more mistakes concerning population figures and the definition of Finland Swedes. No one has to be an expert to request improvements, but you're doing it with an especially disheartening combination of ignorance, stubborness and utter refusal to accept counter-arguments unless they happen to fit your understanding of certain guidelines and policies.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:34, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I don't see anything wrong with asking for a reference about the gender issue. I see that you consider this a battle between who's right and wrong instead of improving the article. Considering your statements on the article's talk page, do you need see the irony in your statement: "combination of ignorance, stubborness and utter refusal to accept counter-arguments unless they happen to fit your understanding"? If you have nothing constructive to say, then please stop using me as your complaints department. –panda (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hey. Just as a heads-up: additions to 3O are supposed to be short, neutral, and to the point. I've removed the points that were listed on the 3O page, and instead posted them on the talk page where the dispute is taking place. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 17:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks! I added your new section to WP:3O in case someone wants to see the short version of the dispute. –panda (talk)

Please consider using the talkpage to request citations. It's much more difficult to track down individual comments and reply to them when they're hidden in wiki-code, and fact tagging on mere suspicion isn't always the best option.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you have comments about the Swedish language article, please make them in the article's talk page and not my talk page to keep the discussion centralized. –panda 04:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is a personal comment about your modus operandi in general. It's a recommendation that applies to all articles.

Peter ^Isotalo 11:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is a general recommendation to tag article with citation requests. If you dispute it, please take it to the appropriate talk page, not mine. Bringing up what needs citations in the talk page wasn't working as you were ignoring them. It was obviously more effective to place them in the text so that would focus on what needs citing instead of a single minor issue that you didn't like. You were essentially not responding to citation requests until after the article was tagged. -panda 14:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

You hadn't not specified any of your requests for more references before you started fact-tagging. If you think you're exempt from respecting consensus because you cite guidelines every other post, you're badly mistaken.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I "hadn't not specified" = I had specified. And yes, I did specify what needed references before tagging, which you would know if you actually read my comments. For example, how many times have I brought up the Barfotabarn issue, which is still unresolved, and when was the first time it was brought up? I'm citing guidelines because the guidelines were determined by consensus and they do in fact have a bearing on whether or not the article should have FA status. If you don't like the guidelines, then you can try changing them. And do you even see how ironic your statement is? You seem to think you're exempt from respecting consensus (the guidelines), either that or you seem to believe your opinion is consensus. In either case, you're badly mistaken.

Once again, I'll remind you that if you have nothing constructive to say and are only here to use me as your complaints department, please do that elsewhere. If you would like to comment on the Swedish language article, do it in the article's talk page. Otherwise please don't waste my time by coming here just because you're upset and need to let off steam. –panda 00:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're acting as though you were the ultimate arbitrator of every single guideline and policy you cite. Try not so hard to game the system considering you have no previous experience of active participation in FAC or GAC and not a single edit of any FA or GA before you took on Swedish language.

Peter ^Isotalo 00:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Try applying what you say to yourself. You're acting as if "you were the ultimate arbitrator of every single guidelines and policy" that I bring to your attention. If you know so much about FAC/GAC and FA/GA, then prove it by your actions instead of by only complaining. –panda 00:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

How can I possibly prove anything to you when you've rejected almost every single disagreement or reversal as hostility and breeches of policy?

Peter ^Isotalo 01:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Put the article up for review in WP:FAR. If you're right, then the review won't recommend any changes. –panda 01:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I won't put it up for review to prove a point to someone who finds fault in almost everything I say and assumes bad faith in just about any contradiction or counter argument.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'll remind you to please not exaggerate, once again, as I haven't assumed "bad faith in just about any contradiction or counter argument". That's a pretty bold claim to make. At any rate, even if you don't, I will post it to WP:FAR at some point if you continue to refuse to cooperate since I have been advised to do so. –panda 01:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Almost every single post you've made in the last few days has contained some type of accusation of bad faith or insinuations that acting against your wishes is tantamount to wrecking the project (often both). I don't think you realize that your approach to this issue has been extremely belligerent.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's an interesting statement from someone who has challenged many other editors in the talk page. Could you remind me again who has been edit warring about the date links? –panda 01:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the message. I know there are lot of tools but I don't know which to choose. Is Twinkie good? Which tool is easy to use? It would be nice if you would teach me about the tools. Best regards. Oda Mari (talk) 18:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Panda! Thanks for your help, I think I've been doing OK with Twinkie. I appreciate your advice about using the tool. Best wishes. Oda Mari (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Some of my comments directed at you on Talk:Swedish language have been less than fully civil, and I have failed to assume good faith. For this, I apologize. With a bit of perspective, I feel that you genuinely desire to improve the article. henrik•talk 00:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would like to apologize for losing my temper with you on occasion. It was unnecessary to accuse you of intellectual dishonesty and the likes and I take it back.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've made a Wikiquette alert concerning your behavior related to Swedish language. You can find the report at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Panda.

Peter ^Isotalo 03:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi Panda. You'll have noticed I removed the Featured article review for Swedish language. It may well need review, but when a nomination is the product of acrimony it can often do more harm than good. It just seemed to be talk conflict that spilled over. Peter was the actual nominator, though I think you were the one who wanted the review. To be clear, I'm not making any comment one way or another on the content disputes or the behaviour disputes. I just think you and Peter need to come to some sort of truce before FAR can have a worthwhile effect. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

You're correct that I would like the review. Asking for outside opinions hasn't been very successful. I posted a request in WP:3O and asked an outside editor for comments. Peter also posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sweden and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages. Other than the date linking issue, no one has commented except for Peter's friend, Henrik, who has agreed with everything Peter has decided, not very surprisingly. It wasn't until the FAR notice was posted in several locations that other editors started to become involved and examine the text more closely. The disputed statements I brought up were quickly resolved by these outside editors. So I believe the FAR would be the best way to handle this since the dispute is primarily over whether or not the article needs additional references for verifiability and to meet FA status. Peter doesn't believe the article needs more references while I do, and I don't really know where is a more appropriate location to ask about it than FAR. If you have another suggestion, please let me know and I can bring it up there instead. –panda (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just to set the record straight here, the outside involvement so far has revolved almost exclusively around the issue of date linking. Other than a few comments on how important Strindberg was to the development of Modern Swedish and a comment on gender terminology, there has been virtually no input on factual matters by any other editors. I'd also like to point out that I don't consider any requests for additional citations to be inappropriate, I simply haven't seen much in the form of convincing arguments in most (but not all) of panda's requests.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Then you must have missed 1, 2, and 3. Edit 2 apparently finally motived you to make a change to the Crystal ref. Edit 3 isn't completely to my satisfaction but at least it removed the contradictory statement about Rinkeby Swedish being "surprisingly similar to variants in geographically distant immigrant-dominated suburbs", which contradicted the first statement about Rinkeby Swedish being the name of the Swedish variant spoken by people "of foreign heritage in the suburbs of Stockholm, Gothenburg and Malmö."

–panda (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I forgot Fred's comment on Rinkeby Swedish, but that's really it. The rest of your diffs really don't constitute major sources of input. This, mind you, has been a major problem since I started working on the article in 2005. People with eny experience with linguistics aren't exactly jumping over one another to improve or comment the article.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, and I should add that the issues that were "solved" here were primarily problems caused by your extremely rigid interpretations of the text and refusals to accept just about any factual arguments from me. Fred did make a good summary, but the text wasn't flawed to the extent that you claim before you started picking every sentence apart.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) That may be related to the level of interest people have in a topic. And what is "this"? As in "This, mind you, has been a major problem since I started working on the article in 2005." Adding references is a matter of making the text verifiable. It's irrelevant if I accept factual arguments from you or not in the talk page or any other talk page. It's what's in the article that matters. –panda (talk) 16:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

"This" is what you just defined. The level of interest people have in a topic. But since we're already rehashing old disputes for the umpteenth time, I think it would appropriate if you replied to the latest post I made over at the WQA.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Huh? How can "the level of interest people have in a topic" have "been a major problem since I started working on the article in 2005"? Sorry, that makes no sense to me. Are you saying that people haven't been interested in working on the article with you since you started on it in 2005? As for the reply at WQA, I'm working on it. –panda (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm saying I've had to slug it out on my own for most of the time. It hasn't been a one-man job to the same extent as medieval cuisine, but most of the linguists we have here on Wikipedia (laypeople and academics alike) have had little or no interest in the article. Most likely this is because Swedish is a mid-sized language and not really all that exotic.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you didn't attack other editors who come along and show some interest in the topic, then you would maybe get some help with it. Instead, I'm wasting my time writing a reply in WQA when I should be at the library checking a book that I didn't have time to read yesterday. –panda (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

You couldn't resist the temptation to make a swipe at me instead of just letting me explain myself, now could you? This is exactly the reason why I filed the WQA in the first place.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

(outdent) Ah, see, this thread is a good example of why I'm glad it's not on FAR. FAR is not dispute resolution; it creates headaches enough already. I have no prejudgements on your arguments. (Were you really arguing over date formats?—the MoS, whatever else its faults, can answer in a minute or two.) If you can actually agree on what you're disagreeing on—a specific list of points of fact or formatting that are at issue—than maybe they can be (re)-presented at FAR. Or, if you want a specific mediator, I can try. No bombardment with multiple issues, if you want informal mediation. All I know about Swedish is that it's Germanic, so it would have to be one-by-one issues. (I make no promises on upcoming holiday timing, though; I'm flying in 24.) Marskell (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm happy to make a list of specific issues with the Swedish language article, but I may need some time to do it. I would really like to go to the library today, so it may not happen today. Would you prefer the list be made here (in my talk page) or in Talk:Swedish language? –panda (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not in your user space. A subpage of Talk:Swedish language or, if Peter agrees, a subpage of my own talk in order to mediate. If the latter, do not post all of the issues in question. Just the one or two that can be most easily solved. (And I really am flying tomorrow—long—so this won't be immediate mediation.) Marskell (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ah, you meant 24 hours. I can post them one at a time. I guess we just need to wait and see if Peter is interested in this and to decide where it should take place. Thanks for your offer! –panda (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would really prefer if a minimum of agreement over appropriate user conduct was reached over at the WQA first. As long as panda and I stay in the trenches sniping at one another without any attempt of meeting half-way, another mangling of reference demands is not going to be fruitful.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, not for now then. This is headed to some form of mediation, I suspect. Marskell (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just to clarify: Marskell, I think you suggestion is a good idea, but I don't feel that panda has really dropped the bad faith he has against me. There's no point in engaging in constructive dialog without this minimum of respect between the two relevant parties.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Peter, please don't put words in my mouth. If you can't move on towards mediation with Marskell, then that has nothing to do with what I think. It's purely what's in your own mind. –panda (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

If you can't see why blaming the lack of Wikipedians with an active interest in Swedish linguistics on me is an uncivil, bad faith remark (especially when we're in the middle of trying to settle a dispute), we're not making any progress.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I must admit I do recall making these changes and finding myself torn as to what to do, because there were inconsistencies in the spelling and grammar in the revision prior to the one I made. If I happened to overlook a specific spelling or similar, I do apologize for introducing further inconsistency. Bobo. 03:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Panda and Melty girl, I think I meant to say WP:FUC; it is the first criteria listed there. To be honest, I also learned this rule when I was warned about adding a FU image to an infobox (see User_talk:Kudret_abi#Replaceable_fair_use_Image:HargitayInLawAndOrder02.jpg). --Kudret abi^Talk 04:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for correcting many of the weakest parts of my re-working of the Herräng Dance Camp article... I know some of your edits were essentially regressions, but despite it all I hope you feel the article is in a lot better shape now than it was a month ago. Thanks again! Utopianheaven (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking the initiative to fix the mess that I just wanted to avoid! I replaced the owners of the HDC since most people think only the Harlem Hot Shots own and run the camp, which isn't true. Otherwise I only made some minor edits. Personally, I think you did a great job of removing a bunch of unnecessary details. I like details so sometimes I go overboard with adding them, but the current edit is a definite improvement over the mess it was previously. If you feel like expanding it, there's a lot that could be added...  ;) –panda (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I already checked your source and it doesn't support text you added. As for external links, there is no "official site". Can you provide the line from website where it says that it is official website of the prize? -- Vision Thing -- 18:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

This thread is being moved to the appropriate forum. –panda (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

DPandaOPande (talk) has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!

I realize that you have had some disputes and edit wars, but still you have good edits and are overall productive. Make sure to have a nuetral point of view and keep your cool. I wonder if you are a distant cousin? Hug da panda.DPandaOPande (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)DPandaOPandeReply

Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Your upload of File:3GreenPersons.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

• Another one of your uploads, File:BWscissors.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:59, 5 March 2014 (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) 16:21, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me…are you here?--Panda Panda Panda Panda Panda Panda Panda (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Panda. A request has been made via Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations (or meta:SRUC) to usurp, or "take over", your username because another user would like to use it to edit. The changing username guideline allows a username that is not being actively used to be usurped if the user is given an opportunity to object and does not do so.

If you do not object to being renamed to a new username in order for another user to use the name you currently have, please log in and post a reply here saying so (you may also tell us what username you would like to be renamed to, or we will provide you with a generic one) or use Special:GlobalRenameRequest.

If you do nothing: the request may be filled shortly, and your account will be moved to a generic username. You may request that it be moved to a new username of your choice at any time.

If you object to being renamed: please log in and make an edit to this page clearly stating that you object to usurpation. Any objection on your part will prevent usurpation.

Please note that even if your current username is usurped, you can still edit and your data will not be lost; your preferences, watchlist, and other user settings will be transferred to a new username.

Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panda Panda Panda Panda Panda Panda Panda (talk • contribs) 08:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Killer Diller (1948 film) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails the requirements of WP:NFILM - IMDb is not an acceptable or reliable source.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Dan arndt (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Killer Diller (1948 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Killer Diller (1948 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Dan arndt (talk) 23:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

cheese is very nice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.189.84 (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply