User talk:Granite07 - Knowledge (XXG)

3451:

beginning of the VDC article, which are not in quotes (and precede the section you mentioned), are identical to those on the CIFE web-site. It is therefore highly likely that either you copied them, or they copied you. I appreciate the fact that you have gone to the trouble to create a page to cover VDC, but it seems that significant chunks of it are simply taken from the CIFE site, with or without attribution. I am now aware that you are at Stanford (as per one of your postings), but I don't think that this would prevent complaints from arriving at Knowledge (XXG) from Stanford due to what could be considered "plagiarism". I agree that "plagiarism" is difficult to pin down, and I can see why you might argue that this is not the case with the VDC article, but it seems that this is not the first time that people have commented on this in your articles. Presumably your unwarranted ad hominem attack on me is due to your sensitivity from previous incidents. I would suggest that the likelihood is that you need to adjust your style in some way.

3197:. Is it because we need a break from writing our thesis, is it because we look for conflict on the Wiki to jump in, is it because we are a "nutter" and believe the great bambino in the sky will turn the world over, or are we a technical editor and are very irritated when the subject does not precede the predicate. Or do we just get off being an admin and telling other people what to do. These are all legitimate characters that float around Knowledge (XXG) in addition to the likely swarm of genius elementary school kids that are not taken seriously otherwise. I'd just like to know where they are "coming from" so I can try to address them appropriately and avoid miscommunication. talking about the scientific details of polar shift pseudoscience is not going to get anyone very far when the listener is only concerned with humanities consensus building and they edit since they like the social interaction. 3977:

in two locations). Please see the situation here. In many of my attempts at collaboration and discussion it has resulted in being told I did it wrong and I will be banned. I have a simple question, can cited and relevant content be deleted by another editor without discussing? This isn't new territory for Mongo, his talk page has several posts relating to it. I have dedicated my entire day to working this out and have tried my best to do what is right and fair and in the best interest of Knowledge (XXG). I have no animosity or any poor feelings about this process. It is the editorial process and it is working to my satisfaction. The arbitration seems to have worked fine.

2364:

myself, but I've collaborated with other users on their sandboxes). You can use this to perfect your paragraph. I understand you contributed with references, but none that you have indicated me to actually mentions the connection between Taylor and DDD. I didn't see anything on that vocab page strictly saying "DDD and Taylorism are related in such-and-such way". Again, I'm sorry if you got offended. But I don't appreciate the comment on my sense of humor being running out. If anything, it's my patience with certain people declaring that Knowledge (XXG) is written by 15 year olds as if it's a bad thing. --

3224:(OD) If I may interject here, you seem to be wanting more information on each editor so you can judge their backgrounds and motives, and treat them accordingly. That pretty much goes against the Knowledge (XXG) principle of assuming good faith, every editor should be treated equally and their ideas considered as such. Whether an editor has a background in a certain topic should be irrelevant, because we should be relying on reliable secondary sources and not personal opinions. WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so we're not going to start checking credentials at the velvet rope out front. 4027:, I agree with everything in the talk page. It looks good. There isn't much for me to add. I didn't see that discussion had gotten going. You are correct, this is exactly what we should do, " "The fire has raised again concerns about..." along with citations to that discussion being brought up specifically about this fire. Anything more than that -- unless this fire has something inherently special about it which makes it highly relevant to that issue -- I believe goes too far away from the article's subject." Let's do that and be done. Who makes the edit? You? MONGO? Someone else? 2005:. While you were certainly making good-faith efforts, you need to back most of the statements you add into the article with a reliable, third party reference. This is Knowledge (XXG) policy and there is no way to circumvent it without breaking it. I think Mostlyharmless is pissed off (a bit overly dramatic, if you ask me) that some of your claims are not supported by a third party reference, and this is indeed the subject of the case. As long as the text you contributed with doesn't link to a footnote reference at the end, Mostlyharmless has the right to remove it. -- 729:

researcher at Stanford University Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering with the Construction Engineering Management program and take my work very seriously. You are obviously much more knowledgeable about wikipedia protocol and etiquette so please provide some beneficial advice as to what you prefer as sources. I assume you are not opposed to the formatting changes only the content. Could you also be more specific as to which sources are not acceptable, most were from very respected institutions and researchers.

3021:, with all due respect, you're incorrect about the concept of edit warring on wikipedia. Five editors reverting your changes to a page isn't an edit war, it's an example of consensus. Consensus is strongly against you. The next step is to take the discussion to the talk page, which you've already done. You're proceeding about this the correct way on the talk page, but your report at the edit war board is not accurate, since there was no edit warring to remove your edits. 2957:. Please note that my edit to the pole shift article can in no way be considered as anything even remotely related to 3RR, and your decision to name me in a 3RR report was unjustified, ill-advised, and inappropriate. In future, I would hope that you demonstrate significantly better judgment than you did in this situation, and that you first take a moment to honestly consider if it is in fact your own actions that are the problem. Thank you. 4995: 1726: 1670: 1614: 1558: 1478: 1422: 1366: 1310: 1254: 1170: 1058:. Anyhow, my argument was not with what is said in the article, but with the "See also". If it's worth putting in a "See also", it's worth putting text in the article. There is apparently an opinion out there that Vitruvius and Mamurra were somehow related, or the same person: put it in the article. The great Wikipedian democracy will shoot you down if it's not true (and maybe if it is). But a reference to 695: 5073: 4834: 4554: 3280:

I work on (a) river channel planform change, (b) how that relates to the stratigraphic record and oil/gas/water reservoir connectivity, (c) sediment transport, and (d) regional models of lithosphere flexure and mantle flow due to loading by water and ice. (4) There is no positive conclusion that comes from demanding proof of reasonableness (this should be a given and is IMO not a sensible request).

3552: 4943:

describes how things are. 2. While you're clearly writing from a US perspective, it's not clear at all in what countries you believe Worker Standards Boards exist. Some of the international references are pretty tenuous examples - for instance, for those of us old enough to remember them, Wage Councils in the UK didn't function at all in the manner of your "Workers Standards Boards".

3114:(forget the handbasket). The only way I've seen to deal with this is to be big enough to just let things roll off of you, explain politely the issues you are having, and posit solutions. Note that this doesn't work with unreasonable individuals, but Doug Weller and RJ Hall are (in my past experiences with them) very reasonable; I'm sorry your initial experiences were less fortunate. 382: 3995:(2) The arbitration did not "work fine". You brought to ArbCom a matter that was manifestly unripe for their consideration, multiple experienced editors suggested that you withdraw it, and you're still making the Committee go through the process of turning you down, which they will. That's hardly "collaboration", that's digging your feet into the dirt and refusing to budge. 4732: 270:- are usually not subject to copyright. Therefore it is sufficient to rewrite a description in your own words. And please don't forget to provide the origin of the definition. In the case of ancient thinks it is good to have both the weblink reference and a reference to original ancient text. Weblinks are convenient, but unfortunately many of them do not live long. `' 3998:(3) The place for determining consensus on this issue is, and always has been, the article's talk page. You gave up on that much too soon. Currently, the consensus there is against you, but that can change as things develop. Answer the comments that have been posted there, and try to convince other editors that your position is the correct one to take. 2946: 515: 2919:, the later being I think the correct common name of this category of thing and the former made up and incorrect. Someone has replied by disagreeing, naturally. A wave of opinion may be needed to overcome the inertia of the old made up name. Could you please voice your opinion on this at the bottom of this section of the talk page: 4809:

I looked for Elon_Musk#Stanford but I don't see it: I can't find anything by other than his own word that he attended Stanford: it is doubtful he did at least as a PhD because that just isn't how it works (Master student on day one, PhD requires a qualifications exam after about two years if graduate

4152:

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Knowledge (XXG) is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the

3930:

you that withdrawing the case would be a good thing to do, because the chances of its being accepted are nil, and doing so will allow you to focus on discussion about the issue in question on the article talk page -- which, at this point, is the proper venue.Second, the majority of people so advising

3159:

But I don't see how any of this is relevant: I think that they acted in good faith. You stepped on the scene and started making accusations that they were acting in bad faith because the links were removed. I say (as do they and you), let's make the section so the see also links become relevant. Then

3091:

Good information, it is hard to burn bridges when there appears to be no bridge. Intuitive creative destruction solution. You appear knowledgeable about Knowledge (XXG), the concept has applications in context outside of the encyclopedia. I have a perspective of the Wiki outside of the frame you and

801:

Can I please restore the laborers page and I will correct the deficiencies over the next few weeks. Interesting enough I created the page so it is all my opinions and thoughts. I do want your help understanding what the expectation is for sources, web sourced, trade union sourced, government sourced,

5025:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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

4384:

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Knowledge (XXG) and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will

4283:

told me to communicate and collaborate with you. I had not pinged you again on the thread you asked me to leave you off of (your user name was ref with ] not ping). The ping is from a new thread for the wildfire template edit as you are the lead editor for wildfire--it was an entirely new topic. You

3976:

Thank you for your comments. Your time is appreciated all around. While I understand you feel the arbitration process is the wrong approach I do not know nor has an alternative been suggested (one was but when I tried to follow that advice I was threatened with being banned for asking for assistance

3279:

that they are not a worthless nutter or a bigot (because one's choice is either that or having their opinion discounted) will not end well. (3) In spite of what I've just said, I'll be nice and answer your question more fully than the interwebs (since I am a young guy who hasn't published much yet):

3152:

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying there. The admins at "Pole shift" provide a frame for seeing how Wiki works? You can request but not require background sharing; you seem to understand this. Doug, RJH, and I have our usernames be our real names (or an abbreviation the first and third cases);

2309:

is in an AfD debate. I don't care about marginalism, and novices not understanding it is wrong. You should focus on your paragraph rather than pointing fingers. Once it's ready and referenced (the latter is essential) you can add it into the article. Till then, use your sandbox to perfect it, or the

4501:

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only

4441:

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you

3128:

Your assessment seems correct though I do not agree with your conclusion. The editors you mention and others have provided an opportunity to explore the roles of Knowledge (XXG) admins and editors in a context that is clearly defined as a frame. This frame persists in a state that is constrained so

1961:

Uh, no. There was no person. It was a mistake by me. I was hurried, I looked at the history only quickly, I made a mistake. My bad. I just copied the code of your sig for aesthetic reasons, mistaking what was written by mostlyharmless with what you wrote. Once again, I'm terribly sorry for all this

633:

Please allow the laborer page to remain as is in its current condition. The difficulty in obtaining properly cited sources for a subject such as construction which is historically nonacademic and or undocumented is obvious. In the construction field knowledge is passed down through generations from

2363:

deal with Mostlyharmless as soon as he has the nerve to answer me. Don't worry about it, that personal attack was my business alone. If you don't know what a sandbox is, it's sort of a text page in you user's namespace that you use to perfect things. Most people use these (I don't have a sandbox

2178:

Nvm, I read the text you just wrote in the case page. It's still slightly hard to understand, and besides, people working really hard in a taylorist system isn't necessarily DDD. Might be demanding, might be dangerous, might be dangerous, but if not explicitly mentioned as DDD it doesn't belong in

637:

Unfortunately Knowledge (XXG) has a very good policy to edit uncited information. Please allow an exception in this case and in other construction pages in recognition of the special nature of the field. I assure you the information presented on the laborers page is accurate, precise, relevant and

216:

The best thing to in this case would be to create a user subpage and work on the articles there. You can create a user subpage by typing User:Granite07/_________, filling the blank space with a name for you work. As a rule, wikipedians do not edit in other wikipedians user space except for reasons

3792:

Your first step was to accuse me of gross violations of the Knowledge (XXG) community and threaten me with being banned, how is that productive discussion? Further, you compeletely ignored everything I discussed. We shouldn't be talking without a mediator, this is what they are for. I feel deeply

3397:

As filing party, I would prefer to have your decision as to whether we mark this case as closed (resolved) or withdrawn. Could you indicate whether or not you agree that the discussions on the talk page of the article have brought this case to resolution or not, or whether you prefer to withdraw?

2035:

Why is it fairly obvious? There probably is a good reason for this, but I want to know just in case a ref is needed. If people question it, you need a reference. If it's mentioned in another article, just use the reference used in the other article. People can always question statemements derived

645:

My personal experience, research and education in the construction field is not sufficient to provide cited sources as these are few and often created for inconsistent purposes. I assure you that if possible I will generate some cited sources myself if only for the reason of preserving content on

240:

The problems with ancient people is that first, information about them is scarse, second, often therea re two or more persons known by the same name. Therefore if you are not a real expert in ancient history, it is very easy to confuse them. Often the opposite is true. Some people were famous for

4646:

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it.

4183:

to learn more about resolving disputes on Knowledge (XXG). The English Knowledge (XXG) community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration,

3317:

Thank you Awickert for your good-faith, you have provided a through background as a response to a question, though this is not what the question is. I have posed the background||context question in multiple forms looking for one that conveys the message, apparently without success. The receivers

2995:

I firmly believe both accusations are valid, you guys are edit warring and are acting in collusion, even if it is not explicit but implicit through practice. Please do not start throwing veiled threats, it really does not look good. It is not clear if the editors disagree with the content or the

2259:

About the references, I meant of the three you mentioned in the case page (25, 26, 27). But I still don't see the connection between Taylor and DDD. Lean jobs, if I'm not mistaken, are jobs that take advantage of everything for more efficiency. DDD jobs are jobs with poor conditions and loads of

4942:

I'm reviewing the article for New Page Patrol. I see you've worked on this for a long time. A few observations that you might like to consider: 1. The article comes across as an advocacy essay, describing how you hope for Worker Standards Boards to be, rather than an encyclopedia article that

3446:

Thank you for your note that the VDC page contains significant correlation with the CIFE website. You may notice that the entire section VDC Project Model is in quotes. And, obviously the introduction is a summary of the page, which as previously noted is quoted in its entirety from (Kunz &

3137:

admins||editors, and alternative communication channels. The miscommunication due to limited background context sharing is likely an underlying contributor to all Knowledge (XXG) disputes. A counter to transparency argument is that the anonymity editors can assume helps provide a level paying

2667:

and a ]... I'm trying to figure out what these things are called and Knowledge (XXG) is my favorite place to look stuff up. Couldn't figure it all out from the current pages so trying to help straighten them out. Read your talk page. Sounds like you know lots about these machines. I sure don't.

3450:

I can assure you that I do not have a bot working for me and that every word was lovingly hand-crafted by a real human being, although I agree that the style was a little stilted, and perhaps I could have softened it. It was not my intent to insult you. It remains that the bullet points at the

2603:

First, you can only write about concept B what the source explicitly says a bout concept B (for example, in the case you mentioned, that B is included in A). But you cannot write about anything that the source does not say, including derived or deduced facts. I hope this answers your question.

2533:

Well, I didn't understand your questions too well, but if this answers them, the only thing you're allowed to do with references is to take text from them (a direct quote, often used in the blockquote form) or take ideas from them, while changing the sentence, still giving the same meaning, or

728:

You seem to have taken this an entirely different direction. I am sorry if you disagree with the edits made to laborer. What do you suggest we do for a solution that you find acceptable. I have not placed my own research into the laborer page as it is only a way to relax between work. I am a

3426:(which states that it was last edited January 2007). If the text has been copied, then you either need to rewrite it, quote it or in some other way attribute it. If you want to maintain the definition, then you may want to quote it, but the rest of the text should probably be rewritten. See 3066:

Telling others that they are acting in bad faith is very aggravating and will likely make more people upset with you. Also, please learn a bit about this place (and don't take this in the wrong way): admins are not "pseudo-editors"; they do all of the same article creation things as other

4643:, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Knowledge (XXG). 641:

It is your good judgment to allow this content since you have the authority to decide if information is to be preserved or censored. The link to the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) you deemed irrelevant is the organization representing nearly one million laborers

3028:

I offer this advice to you in full good faith, sometimes it's best just to do something else for a while. Consensus is against you here, so maybe it's best just to work on some other article for the time being. Or walk off from the computer completely. Sometimes it helps. Good luck.

3067:

Wikipedians. Even if you think that something is in bad faith, the tone of internet conversations has a strong positive feedback, so if you speak with respect and a positive attitude, (assuming there is a reasonable human being on the other end of the line) good things will happen.

217:

related to policy. You would be able to create and modify the articles in relative peace until you had a finished product you wish to place in the mainspace. This would allow you to work on you stubs in peace until you were happy with the finished product. That would be my advise.

3958:

Compeletely understand. You misread my post, it says editors. It does not say admin. I thanked the admin for their input. This is the post you are referring to, "Please be aware that several editors more or less have posted on my talk page demanding that I remove this arbitration

1232:

deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines.

805:

I also make edits to the heavy equipment page, it also does not conform, or any of the other construction pages. It does not seem realistic to delete the entire construction section of wikipedia. I understand my field is not the most academic but we do use a bit of math and CS.

4153:

Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

3923:

In a recent comment on the arbitration case you filed, you wrote that "admins" were "pressuring" you to withdraw the case. That's wrong on several counts. First, people are not "pressuring" you, they are experienced editors and observers of the arbitration process who are

3835:

You want a revised proposed text posted in the talk? Is that what you wanted this entire time? You could have just said that. I have done exactly what I have been told to. It is hugely inappropriate for anyone at an admin to tell an editor to remove an arbitaration request

1184:, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see 236:

I am sorry taht your first experience with wikipedia was somewhat unfortunate, as I see from this talk page. But I hope ou will not be discouraged, because your areas of interest are underrepresented in wikipeida (at least in comparison with pokemon and port actresses. :-)

3138:

field. I also assume a pseudoname as an editor and for all anyone knows I am an 8 year old uneducated homeless man or a nobel prize winner in the specific topic, it is the same. Do prisoners have access to Knowledge (XXG) editing, maybe one of these guys is Manson?

3024:

Consensus exists, and it's against you. There's no grand scheme of admins hanging together, or safeguarding certain articles. It's just a matter of multiple editors disagreeing with you. That happens to everybody sometimes, it's just the nature of this project.

3809:

You are not listening to anyone all of which have been relatively helpful. Numerous editors have told you the arbitration case should be withdrawn, other editors have told you the material you wish to include appears to be original research and or a violation of

3189:. Yes, I skimmed your two conference papers on river bed wander. and, I now see that there a few RJ Halls, I assume this one is the social scientist. the publications and professional context is irrelevant. When i asked for background I did not mean a cv, I mean 498:

1) Don't Wikilink to a re-direct. 2) Don't have two different Wikilinks to the same article. 3) Provide some research for which is the most common world-wide term. I have heard: "hammer hoe," "breaker," "hydraulic breaker," all three a lot more than "hoe ram."

3302:

This seems to be a situation where we've degenerated into wasting time talking about something totally unrelated to the subject. You may communicate with any editor any way you wish, as long as it is civil and in good faith. Good luck with that in the future.

3247:

and often reference Knowledge (XXG) principles. This presents yourself as someone with a context of legal definitions. Therefore the words I use when talking with you should be different that the words used when talking with Awickert. This is not some type of

3764:. Arbitration does not resolve content disputes...it examines editor behavior almost exclusively. The normal way these sorts of things are decided are to engage productively on the article talkpage and if there is a problematic editor, report instead to 1888:

Oh, I'm really sorry. I screwed up. See, there was no sig, so I looked in the history of the page and thought I saw it was you who wrote that, while it was MostlyHarmless. Once again, I'm really sorry, my bad, I'll correct it on both pages. Sorry again.

883:@Gscshoyru just reading the talk page posts, thank you for your advice: I have been using sandbox to develop pages as you suggested and possibly the best advice I ever received on wikipedia, thank you--maybe another 13 years and I will check in again 3252:

as you have spun it but simply forwarding the goal of good communication etiquette. This discussion is not about the page edits where secondary resources are important but the discussion page communication process. I am simply attempting to turn the

4107:

to the Camp Fire -- and post it to the talk page, then ping MONGO and see if they'll agree to it. I wouldn't get my hopes up, though. It's just that it's sometimes easier to get someone to agree to a concrete proposal than to a theoretical one.

2534:

summarizing, while not actually saying anything that the source does not explicitly say. If you have any further questions that you feel I wouldn't understand or be able to answer, I encourage you to browse (I can't expect you to read it whole!)

3447:

Fischer 2007). I realize the message you posted to my talk page is an automated posting since a human would not have failed to notice this distinction. Nice bot you have working for you! Granite07 (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)</quote: -->

2980:

I agree, and you might want to consider withdrawing your complaint - I'm hoping that it was simply the result of a misunderstanding of our processes - you should also withdraw your accusations against the editors who are disagreeing with you.

2067:

What's written in the case page (your last message) was not obvious to me. I'm not an expert, but it just seemed lik you were talking gibberish. And take into account that Knowledge (XXG) pages are meant for the general public, not experts.

3609:

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

1053:

As you say, nowhere does Mamurra appear in Vitruvius; as for Julius Caesar, it's very uncertain: Augustus was definitely his boss, as you put it — but of Julius all that can be said for sure is that Vitruvius says he admired the guy

1004:

located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!

4780:"Unsourced content--an editor reverted an earlier edit and claimed this content is sources in the body. It is not sources in the body. Elon Musk never attended Stanford, there is no verified record of their attendance at Stanford." 1879: 3647:

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in

241:

very nrelated areas, and sometimes one person use to be thought as two (especially when known by some aditioanl nicknames) util some text found from which it is clear that two are one. For this reason your small aditions, such as

126:

Sorry @mikka I'm just seeing this 13 years later: the content in those pages is from The Ten Books or Architecture, it so not from a website. The websites copied from the Ten Books. I cited to original source published in 1 BC...

4070:

What do we do if MONGO never responds? We can't make them reply? If after 24 hours they don't comment can we go with our consensus? Do I need to open another dispute resolution on the new topic of nonresponsive to consensus?

852:

you should look up kaizen, continuous improvement, it is a concept they teach here. I guess it is hard to reconform to different rules, but I can create large batches and update if you prefere rather than many small batches.

833:

If you want to improve the article properly, you can't leave it in the form it was, and slowly change it. That's just not proper. What you can instead do is make a subpage of your userspace and fix it up there. Put it, say,

1785:, there is a much easier way to do it than the AfD process: simply blank the page and then put {{db-author}} at the top. That tag asks for a speedy deletion G7 "author requests deletion or has blanked the page". Regards, 1850:

I'm gonna go ahead and move this discussion into the discussion section of the case page, if you don't mind, since it's getting confusing. And, FYI, "that makes no sense at all" doesn't exactly scream "constructive!".

3931:

you are not admins, they are rank-and-file editors such as myself. Here in this comment thread, for instance, only JzG is an admin. So, big-bad admins aren't trying to muscle you, your fellow editors are trying to

455:. Knowledge (XXG) gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Knowledge (XXG), the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an 5116: 4877: 4597: 463:

indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

3321:

that they are not a worthless nutter or a bigot". I could care less if they are either or more, some may argue we are all one or the other, or worse. It is simply context for language to facilitate communication.

2101:

OK, I get that you're discussing that to put it into words for us commoners. But, until you can do that and properly reference it, I would advise you to keep it in the talk page before adding it into the article.

3703:. 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 293:, which you may freely use (with proper reference), and even copy illustrations from it, because it is published in 1848 and hence no longer subject of copyright and which can be dowloaded as a pdf file from 5022: 3507:

Urban Dictionary doesn’t require definitions to be objective or factual. Lots of definitions are extremely subjective or provably wrong!...It wasn’t heavily researched or fact-checked...There are a lot of joke

2873:

Thank you for finding this. In some ways it throws a huge spanner in the works, as the device is so often known as "Hero's aeolipile", but it does vindicate my viewpoint that he didn't actually invent it.

2359:

Oh, so it was a joke. Look, sorry if any of the above offended you. Really, I am, I didn't mean to be so strict about it. I didn't even mean to format it as a reprimand, it just came out that way. And

5100:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 4861:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 4581:. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose 334:

on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

1740:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " 1684:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " 1628:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " 1572:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " 1492:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " 1436:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " 1380:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " 1324:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " 1268:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " 838:, where PAGENAME is whatever you want, and no one will change it there. You can fix it up there till it conforms, and then be bold and replace the current page with it, ok? How does that sound? 5086: 4847: 4567: 4089:--it's not a simple matter of counting noses. I don't believe you have a consensus right now, and I suggest you not make any changes to the article without a clear consensus to do so. You 1800:

No, someone has already done that for you, and the pages are gone; I just let you know how to do it, in case it should happen again that you want to get rid of a page you created. Regards,

634:

journeyman to apprentice. It is only today with the advent of Knowledge (XXG) that this knowledge can be widely shared across regions without the need to physically work with someone.

683:. So it is removed for those reasons. Knowledge (XXG) is not a dumping ground for information, it is an encyclopedia. As such, information must be cited by reliable, verifiable sources. 3275:(1) You (Granite07) may use any words you want with me so long as you write with clarity. (2) It is better to go in assuming everyone will be editing in good faith. Asking everyone to 294: 1747:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

1691:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

1635:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

1579:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

1499:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

1443:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

1387:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

1331:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

1275:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

809:

Ok, I do have a proxy connection to jstor and other sites for my day job here. I will find other sources, the laborers union is almost third party. They are not selling anything.

3048:

consensus before mediation. The edits fit a pattern of noncontributing admins reverting the same edit with little or no discussion in an attemt to circumvent edit warring rules.

2814: 2417:

Hi, sorry for not respondig too quickly (forgot to put up a notice about me being on holiday). Anyway, usingdeductive reasoning and deducing things from references is wrong per

3502: 3765: 642:

internationally, I believe this link is very relevant. The other information on the page though seemingly inconsequential is also very relevant to the field of laboring.

4752: 2655:

Hi! Are you working at Stanford University in Palo Alto? If so we are neighbors :-). I live near Gunn High School overlooking a playing field landscaping job that has two

2954: 3564:. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license. 949:. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. 3937:

you. You really need to take a breath, step back from your emotions, and think about the impression you're creating, which, frankly, is not a very good one at all.

3344:, and came to it through that angle. I have little to no knowledge with respect to cataclysmic speculation, though I have been reading a little bit on them lately. 1636: 350:

Yes please create the page, since the subject seems notable and constructive enough to create, go ahead. I do not know much about it so I can't suggest anything.

3576: 2476:

I guess we can be closing, since Mostlyharmless left the discussion (a bit of an overreaction, if you ask me). I'll wait for your answer and we'll close soon. --

1276: 1126: 425:, 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 4189: 3637: 798:

I have 6 more papers to grade tonight and with your help it has taken all day. I was only updating the laborers site between every couple papers as a break.

5049:

Too bad it was deleted, it was a good page and the history of the district too quite a bit it time to research, cite, and write concisely--it is now lost...

5029:

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit

5011: 4657:

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

4331: 3430:

for the guidelines. If, however, you are the original author, and CIFE has copied you, then you may want to contact them to make attribution. Best regards,

1444: 1138: 4947:

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with

2787: 2782: 1580: 1332: 1130: 2791: 1748: 1500: 1142: 319:

from Knowledge (XXG). This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

3657: 1692: 1388: 1134: 2774: 2619: 2557: 2491: 2436: 2421:, and is classified as original research. I hope that answers all questions as to why you can't place things you assume into the article. Thanks, -- 2379: 2325: 2275: 2233: 2194: 2154: 2139:

With commoner, I was actually referring to just me lol. Anyway, give me a link or tell me exactly where to find it and I'll proofread it for you. --

2117: 2083: 2051: 2020: 1977: 1939: 1904: 1866: 1835: 874:

improve. I've shown you how to make your own personal workspace, have fun, and try updating the current article when your fixed-up one fits policy.

4810:

study). Claiming anything else makes you sound like a lame poser: I deleted it in Musk's best interest so his kids are not embarrassed for him ...

946: 3567:

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

820:

ASCE is a recognized Journal, the most prestigious in my field in fact! Where else would I source from? It is what we all aspire to publish in.

5007: 3665: 487: 4327: 620: 79: 5139: 4899: 4619: 3728: 3466: 3156:

I'm also unsure of how you disagree with my conclusion. I don't make a conclusion, just a number of statements. What do you disagree with?

3129:

that there is a minimal number of external influences or internal biases to account for. Therefore the true issues are clear, these are,

1024:

If you say that the majority of 3D jobs pay well, "100k per year" as you claim, provide references. The same for anything else you write.

3591:, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter 312: 460: 452: 3911: 3519: 3382:

I'm not quite sure I understand your last comment about the sticking point to closing the case as resolved. Could you clarify? Thank

699: 527: 4522: 4465: 4405: 2703:

pages should be merged? Seems to me the latter is a good candidate for merging into the former. What do you think? Care to reply on

341:

for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

4161: 519: 476: 456: 359:@The_sunder_king sorry for 13 year delay... I don't read my talk page... Was this deleted and then created again by another user? 5002: 4986: 4317: 3465:

You are correct on all three points. The citations were in text and now are cited using the wiki format, sorry you missed them.

1001: 407: 4173: 3742:

Did you not see that an administrator placed a page protection template regarding the very controversial text you just re-added

3641: 3633: 586: 53: 5135: 4895: 4615: 4042: 3724: 3419: 564: 26: 5109: 4964: 4870: 4590: 4185: 4180: 3185:. I am not convinced by the evidence about anyone reasonableness, this will be seen and I would not classify my experience as 2996:

process. It is my understanding they simply want more information rather than that they object. So possibly they truly agree.

581: 435:

this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself.

38: 4507: 4450: 4390: 4052:

At this point you have one editor (me) who has opined that they can probably support such an addition, but you do not have a

3372: 2826: 486:. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at 72:

on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out

4701: 784: 4744: 3661: 3619: 2813:

for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

2179:

the article. Only one of your three references is valid, and it has nothing to do with Taylor (U.S. soldiers in Iraq?) --

1737: 1681: 1625: 1569: 1489: 1433: 1377: 1321: 1265: 1193: 471: 411: 165: 3560: 2949:

Constructive contributions to Knowledge (XXG) are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to my talk page has been

2612: 2550: 2484: 2429: 2372: 2318: 2268: 2226: 2187: 2147: 2110: 2076: 2044: 2013: 1970: 1932: 1897: 1859: 1828: 5015: 3715:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to

2306: 942: 711: 591: 58: 5121: 5030: 4882: 4602: 4305: 3720: 2967: 675:. Your own reasearch or knowledge is not a verifiable reference for knowledge. Nor do the refs you provide conform to 4748: 176: 3864:

You need to withdraw it. It will be rejected anywhere, due to the lack of any prior attempts at dispute resolution.

4218: 3626: 1820:

Hi, I'll be the mediator for the 3D MedCab case. Just to let you know, so discussion will be able to start soon. --

968: 4165: 3498: 2778: 1197: 169: 4313: 4260:

I asked you to stop linking my username in your posts. If you do not stop this I will file a complaint at AN/I.--

3077:

Don't mean to criticize, just to inform :-). Hoping for future productivity: life is too short for frustration,

945:. I do not feel that this article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at 571: 560: 33: 22: 4799: 4674: 3403: 3387: 2921: 2743: 1029: 438: 430: 389: 175:

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that

5097: 4858: 4790:

But, as far as I can see, the existing sources do support that claim. So I have opened a discussion thread at

4578: 3470: 1055: 598: 289: 284: 65: 3814:. My suggestion is you craft a better worded more neutral piece and recommend that at the article talkpage.-- 2770: 2762: 835: 4113: 4061: 4010: 3942: 2704: 2605: 2543: 2477: 2422: 2365: 2311: 2261: 2219: 2180: 2140: 2103: 2069: 2037: 2006: 1963: 1925: 1890: 1852: 1821: 747:

explain what sources are and aren't accepted, I suggest you read those. Oh, and welcome, and happy editing!

4697: 4321: 4157: 4030: 3427: 1189: 987: 602: 280: 161: 114: 69: 4975: 4931: 4921: 3905: 3516: 4086: 4053: 3716: 1533:

I tagged all your pages for speedy deletion. Since I'm not an admin, I can't do the actual deletion, but

983: 650: 614: 606: 249:

are of dubious nature, and I will think how to deal with this later (I am not expert in Romans myelf). `'

73: 4689: 3599: 1067: 4956: 3572: 2001:

I think Mostlyharmless may have a point in suggesting some of your contributions to the DDD article as

576: 48: 2036:

from thinking. Even though something may be obvious to one person, it may be ridiculous to another. --

1087:

are the same person, the Mamurra page notes he died in 45BC and Vitruvius presumably died around 25BC.

322:

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add

4529:

if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

4515: 4472:

if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

4458: 4412:

if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

4398: 4304:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

3673: 3503:

Knowledge (XXG):Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 37#Urban Dictionary is/is not a Reliable Source.

3308: 3229: 3034: 2986: 2859: 1109:

I noticed you just started a bunch of AfDs but didn't provide any reasons. Could you please add one?

830:

I know they aren't. But a source isn't verifiable if it isn't easily verifiable, so you can't use it.

401: 351: 342: 5080: 5050: 4841: 4811: 4561: 4357: 4285: 4241: 4072: 4034: 3978: 3960: 3837: 3794: 3692: 3683: 3592: 3532: 3323: 3262: 3198: 3139: 3097: 3049: 2997: 1188:

for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on

1088: 884: 854: 821: 812: 772: 758: 730: 654: 531: 422: 415: 393: 375: 360: 338: 160:

for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on

128: 101:

Please do not cut and paste texts from other websites without original authors' permission. This is

5040: 4795: 4764: 4756: 4670: 4005:, but not until you have exhausted the article talk page. You are nowhere near to doing that yet. 3882:

Hi, on this arb.com case you write that MONGO is an admin. He isn't. Please strike that statement,

3399: 3383: 3337: 2912: 2901: 1538: 1234: 1146: 1110: 1025: 530:

and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the

222: 202: 106: 102: 5093: 4854: 4574: 3900:. Your case will not be accepted, and nothing will come of it other than annoying other editors. 3712: 3696: 4278: 4109: 4057: 4022: 4006: 3953: 3938: 3349: 3293: 3165: 3119: 3082: 2833: 2700: 2688: 1762: