User talk:Ahora

''User talk:Cahora redirects here. This is my main account.''

-

Infrastructure/ citing mainstream European sources
Dear Ahora

The WPC is one of Europe’s leading think-tanks dedicated to pension investment research.

I don’t see anything misleading, biased or “weasely” (??) in the article on Infrastructure you refer to.

++ Frankly, I’m not sure you've effectively taken the time to (fully) read the sources in question:

The first article quoted (published jointly in Turkey’s JTW/ and France’s Revue Analyse Financière) clearly mentions “[primary] commodities” (1st and 2nd paragraphs) and energy-related infrastructure assets such as “power generation” and “power grids” (9th and 11th paragraphs).

The second article quoted (Euromoney magazine published in London) mentions specifically “commodity-rich” sovereign institutions (paragraph 14) active in the field of “oil and other commodities”, and, more generally, “energy” and “energy infrastructure”.

Bottom line: The article in question states the (rather mainstream) perspective of a leading European think-tank, backed by refs to mainstream financial (Euromoney, RAF) and poli. sci. (JTW) journals.

Cordially,

BJA

--B.Andersohn (talk)

Calybium and cupule
Hi, I'm not sure that it is a good idea to move Calybium to Calybium and cupule. There is a hole in wikipedia where a disambiguation page for cupule should be. It is any small cup-shaped object. There is such a page in the French wikipedia, for example. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. You're right that "cupule" is not restricted to acorns' attachement. But isn't it sufficient to change cupule, which is now #redirectcalybium to a disambiguation page? (And Calybium must explain it.) Thanks for pointing it out. --Ahora (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've made a first attempt at that. It needs attention from an entomologist, and some more botany, but it's a start. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Good. I fixed Calybium. --Ahora (talk) 12:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Template:IncreaseNegative without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jim1138 (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Wasn't flagged as vandalism. Just noticed that you made a radical change and didn't leave an wp:edit summary explaining why and flagged as such. Lots of vandalism does occur that way. I saw your second changes with the summary. Thanks and happy editing. Jim1138 (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll be more careful. Thanks.--Ahora (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

TUSC token 7895b2cbb3e58e7734b16c09fddd18c6
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

A barnstar for you!
- Thanks. --Ahora (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Help:Link
I have a question about the following text, which appears in Help:Link, and which you originated with your [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Link&diff=prev&oldid=520077292 Revision as of 02:30, 27 October 2012]:

"Otherwise, readers are forced to use the specified connection method. If you don't specify the protocol, readers can continue to use the protocol to read that page."

Can you clarify what's meant by "the protocol" that "readers can continue to use"?

Overall, the section is clear, and I've adopted its advice (Thank You). Only that last phrase seems confusing, because of the dual uses of "the protocol" in that sentence. I could make an edit to say, e.g., "continue to use their default protocol", or "continue to use their browser's default protocol", or "continue to use the protocol of their choice", or "continue to use any protocol"; but I'm not really sure about the technicality of what determines the protocol used when none is specified.

Thanks. --Rich Janis (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CATRED listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect CATRED. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:CATRED redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 07:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

H:S listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect H:S. Since you had some involvement with the H:S redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

"Toolserver.org" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Toolserver.org. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)