User talk:Aecis/Messages 445-456

Deletion Review for Neuroracism
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Neuroracism. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Dysamoria (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC) comment self evident


 * what is self-evident is that although it probably wont be restored, since it is in fact hopeless, is that everyone there agrees you did not follow policy. "nn neologism" is not a reason for speedy. The result of that is an unnecessary Deletion Review. DGG (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Milhist coordinators election has started

 * The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates.  Please vote here by February 28! --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

EddieByrd
Did you bother to check the pages history?

Full of false, defamatory information and quotes no credible source(s).

It is a candidate for speedy deletion.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Aecis"

I read the article on qualifications, can YOU read? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Byrd.eddie (talk • contribs) 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

article eddie byrd
I second the notion for the articles deletion. I am the article's original creator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasoned (talk • contribs) 21:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cyprus
Thanks for that, looks like Tone and I added it at the same time. --Stephen 21:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

FoxyTag
Hi, I do not understand why you considered the FoxyTag article as ad. This article wasn't promoting FoxyTag, it was illustrating how trust engines can be used to manage virtual tags, and FoxyTag is given as an example. It is an academic project, not a commercial one. BTW, I saw also that their are links to other speed camera warning systems, like http://www.speedcam.co.uk/ in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_camera article. So, why these are not ads, if FoxyTag is advertisement??? Regards, Wikividivici (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Wikividivici

Darko Trifunović
Following the report on AN/I a few days ago of edit warring and BLP problems on Darko Trifunović, on which you commented, I've rewritten the article from scratch. Your views on the rewrite would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:19, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

RTwise
I don't know that I'd go so far as to say he has "good" points, though I am now understanding what his point is. I just think it's a non-starter, and I think he knows it is. Postmodern cultural relativism would seem to be antithetical to very nature of the project. -MasonicDevice (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey... How out of place am I with this guy on Talk:Muhammad/images? I think the points he's raising are interesting, but to implement them he needs to take it over to a policy page.  Whenever I suggest that he's in the wrong venue, he just wants to talk about how I deleted his comments a week a go or something (he was interweaving, and I couldn't figure out how to separated the two, so I reverted and left him a messgage).  At this point, his continued posting complaints about how wiki works on Talk:Muhammad/images is disruptive to the talk page. -MasonicDevice (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tibet news
You don't seem to disagree with my proposal here, so could you please put it on the template? Thanks. Herunar (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest you make up your mind quickly. It has been a day and though the change is not critical, it is after all on the main page. The other person involved in the present discussion has made the same suggestion I did - I see no reason for hesitation. Herunar (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: ANI
*wide eyes* ... Thanks for fixing that. That was one heck of a server glitch... Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

10 or ten
For this edit, please note MOS:NUM has recently been changed back to nine, so for now either 10 or ten is OK. Art LaPella (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Former States Category (Brazil Project)
I read your comment on the Brazil WikiProject discussion page about the former states of brazil, and think that a category should infact exist and would be interested in helping you with that.

Your comment, and what I responded on the original discussion page: I just came across the article Guanabara, and I noticed that there is no separate category for former/abolished/defunct/disbanded/disestablished Brazilian states. Should there be such a category? And if so, what should it be called? AecisBrievenbus 10:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be an excellent addition! Former States of Brazil would be an ok name. Also another thing to do would be to expand that guanabara article it is quite small for its importance. Tufts (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Tufts (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)