User talk:Ajdlinux/archive1

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:
 * Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
 * Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Create a User page
 * Be bold
 * Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 09:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Participant alert regarding Wikiproject on Advertising
The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Username change and new account
This has been done for other requests following yours. It's obviously the same person. I suggested usurpation (I do not see how the user rename process can work otherwise). My guess is that the issue will be solved in a couple of days. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 14:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As requested, I have renamed you as User:Ajdlinux. You should now move your userpages to the new name. Warofdreams talk 10:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral removal of the history section in ABC article
Hi Ajdlinux

We have an unpleasant situation about to develop over this action by one "cyberjunkie" ("cj"), who decided all of a sudden that he'd move the entire History section of the ABC article to a new daughter article, without replacing it with a summary. The history section was almost entirely written more than a year ago.

Since this action on 12 September, the section has languished with no text at all under its title, save a link to the daughter article.The action has, in effect, gutted the article, leaving what appear to be insubstantial fragments without a core. It's must be odd to the newcomer to be denied a summary of the history and to move straight onto a chunky section on "funding and relationship with government" without knowing where how the institution arose.

Now, it's not that I disagree with him that the History section was written in greater detail than you'd normally expect in summary style. (A related issue is that the rest of the article may need to be fleshed out in the opposite direction to achieve satisfactory summary coverage of the topic—perhaps the optimal balance needs to be debated on the talk page.) What I do object to is
 * (1) his failure to raise the matter on the talk page beforehand, and
 * (2) provide replacement text with the summary style that he's using as his stated rationale for the removal.

The edit comment for the removal was "split (will summarise later)", whereas I'd have been pleased to see a summary written before the removal, for immediate replacement.

I've raised the matter on the talk page, and Cyberjunkie has responded negatively:

I think a total blank is worse than a long history. Please create a summary soon. Your action has resulted in damage to the overall article, IMV. Tony 11:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Whereas, I disagree. --cj | talk 12:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see that this is getting nowhere. I wonder whether you agree that he should either undertake to write a summary section in the near future (I suggest three or four paragraphs) or reinstate the text and raise the issue on the talk page.

I'd appreciate knowing your opinion. The ABC's talk page is here. Tony 13:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a test!
Hope this works. ajdlinux | user page | talk | contrib 10:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Again testing my sig :) ajdlinux | utc 08:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Here you go
I made a barnstar for your ****** page here. Uch iha  23  23:20, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Striking your vote
Hello Ajdlinux,

Thank you for your interest in the Wikimedia Board Election. The Election Committee regretfully informs you that your previous vote was received in error and will be struck according to the election rules, described below.

The Election Committee regretfully announces today that we will have to remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must have at least 400 edits by June 1 to be eligible to vote.

The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third party election partner) initially were wrong, and one of your account was eventually included to our initial list. There was a bug in the edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits. So large numbers of people were qualified according to the software who shouldn't be. The bug has been fixed and an amended list was sent to SPI already.

Our first (and wrong) list contains 80,458 accounts as qualified. The proper number of qualified voters in the SPI list is now 52,750. As of the morning of July 4 (UTC), there are 2,773 unique voters and 220 people, including you, have voted who are not qualified based upon this identified error.

In accordance with voting regulations the Election Committee will strike those approximately 220 votes due to lack of voting eligibility. The list of struck votes is available at https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/List_of_struck_votes.

We are aware of the possibility that some of the people affected may have other accounts with more than 400 edits, and hence may still be eligible to vote. We encourage you to consider voting again from another account, if you have one. If you have no other account eligible to vote, we hope you reach the criteria in the next Election, and expect to see your participation to the future Elections.

Your comments, questions or messages to the Committee would be appreciated, you can make them at m:Talk:Board elections/2007/en. Other language versions are available at Translation requests/Eleccom mail, 07-05.

Again, we would like to deeply apologize for any inconvenience.

Sincerely, Kizu Naoko Philippe

Jon Harald Søby

Newyorkbrad Tim Starling

For Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee

concerning my talk page
Please don't ever post on my talk page again. What authority do you have to say what I can or cannot do on my talk page? I understand reprimanding me about an article, but to revert an edit I made on my own talk page is incredibly rude. Thank you. 71.178.220.193 03:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)