User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2009

The other day i was googling for a code sample that could calculate exponential moving average but couldn't find it; so i put in the C source code so that anyone searching for it could find it, its unfortunate the you think that C souce code is not useful. I presume that you dont understand C. Martinkv (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Pibgorn (Webcomic)
You have made some excellent changes to this article, much appreciated - specifically in the reference area. I noticed you deleted the external link to the "unofficial" tribute page (subsequently restored by another fan). Even though it's an unofficial page, named such only because it was not created by the artist, it's the only one there is... and full of information that I would normally have liked to see here on Wikipedia. It was actually created in order to preserve much of the info that didn't survive Wiki's content guidelines. Brooke knows it's there, and appreciates its presence... If you have Wiki concerns - perhaps we could call it something else - please let me know... I'm open to solutions. ccdesan (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We not only have content guidelines, but also external linking guidelines. The concern is that it's a fansite, which disqualifies it from external linking on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management
Same old story at IIPM. Sock puppets are back in full force, now that the semi-protect has expired. I've made another RFP for the page. Please help in undoing the sock puppets' mischief. Thanks. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Somalia
Hi Amatulić. You offered a third opinion at Talk:Somalia stating that three editors were involved, but I wasn't involved in the dispute, so only two editors were involved. I noticed the dispute, and like you, offered an opinion. Having looked at your views I wonder if you are missing the main point of the issue. Ultimately it is not about whether CE or AD, or neither, is correct, but about whether the change from one notation to another is in breach of policy. In my view it is. Maybe you could comment also. WizOfOz (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again Amatulić. Just passing by and wondering if you have any view on the matter mentioned above. No worries if you haven't. WizOfOz (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've been away for a few days. I left a comment to the effect that WP:NPOV concerns and that the article is about a non-Christian country constitutes sufficient "substantive reason" to change the to BCE/CE format, therefore I believe this isn't a policy violation. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Amatulić. Thanks for your additional comments on this matter. WizOfOz (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Human rights in the United States, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks, Rockstone35 (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There isn't any mediation case existent that I can see. Looks like the page has been deleted. What happened? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

SUL
See question at CHU/SUL.  — Rlevse • Talk  • 01:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:OPP
OK, sorry for the delay. What other projects are you on (with OP work). I take it you've dealt with dozens of open proxies, tor, and zombies; are familiar with nmap and testing OP use; and know commonly exploited ports. Not much else too it, I just want to be able to see some the contribs somewhere.  Aar on Sc hulz  08:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And I apologize for my own delay. I've been swamped with other things.
 * I have dealt with open proxies, tor, and zombies in my efforts to protect my home network, and am familiar with nmap. However, I have not done any OP work on other Wiki projects.
 * If my work and home life demands keep up the way they have been, I may have to withdraw from Wiki activities altogether for a while, so for now you can disregard my request. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axlq (talk • contribs) 2009-02-07


 * Thanks, I lost track of how many times I reverted. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion request
Thanks for responding. At the time I made the request, the disagreement was between me and another editor over one issue, but it soon became more complex. I appreciate your taking a look. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

What a pity..!!!!!
Pophet Muhammad PBUH, himself during in his life time has forbidden His and others images. So, wikipedia at this juncture isn't offending a persons, pesonal rights? Can some one upload my image without my consent? then how come the artist who drew image of Prophet and wikipedia join hands in depicting prophet? what logic is this? I feel in my personal view, wikipedia in the name of Neutrality is trying to westernize Islam by particularly publishing the comments from some selected muslim users. Read the link which you sent, regarding talk. people have decided to westernize Islam. Byt for ever that can never happen. - Wasifwasif. I am not going do add you in my watchlist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasifwasif (talk • contribs) 03:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you read the Qu'ran? If you did, you would discover that the Qu'ran does not forbid depictions of Muhammad. Nobody is "westernizing" Islam. And yes, if someone had a public domain picture of you, they can upload it without your consent. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but Can you refer to any source that ALLOWS depiction of Muhammad. If not prohibited, It's definitely not encouraged in Islam. I know those guidelines are for those following Islam, but it's always good to respect all religion (and the views about their preachers). In past there have been severe oppositions at different scenes about depicting image of Muhammad. I think if someone want to have neutral views, those incidences will itself convince you removing the images from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.206 (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You might find this source enlightening. It happens that figurative art like those images were produced by Muslims. They have historical significance, and they add encyclopedic value to the article (which is a biography about Muhammad, not an article on Islam). Encyclopedia articles should be encyclopedic. The depictions are respectful. Eliminating encyclopedic content simply because it offends someone is definitely not neutral.


 * It is a personal choice to be offended. Wikipedia isn't responsible for personal choices people make on a subject. There is plenty of other content on Wikipedia (listed at Talk:Muhammad/FAQ) that others would find offensive. Such material exists in Wikipedia for the same reasons that the images of Muhammad exist. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

BE
You wrote "In conclusion, much as I consider British English to be archaic and outdated" on the discussuion page for The Pirate Bay Trial. Now, in contrast to all else you wrote there, this seems fairly unreasonable. Would you care to elaborate? Floker (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

IIPM nonsense
Sockpuppet investigations/Mrinal Pandey. I'm not going to protect the page for a little while, so that other socks will may identify themselves. DMacks (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good plan! I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for your vigilance.
 * You know, some of the sockpuppet changes to the article would actually be OK by me, if it wasn't being done in such a wholesale fashion with other changes that are inappropriate. The way they do it makes it hard to respond in any way but reversion, however. I'd like to see some discussion, maybe not down to each individual word and punctuation mark like over in Talk:Intelligent design, but it's frustrating never to see any proposals on the talk page for additions or deletions. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Touch Less Mouse
(diff) (hist). . m Mouse (computing)‎; 17:10. . (-510) . . Amatulic (talk | contribs) (Undid good faith edit by MorbiusStevens (talk) - see WP:CRYSTAL. Write on it when it exists.)

I am currently writing software for the device, and have a pre-production model to enable me to do so. I am under the impression that others have received the units. I am using one right now as I type. When I first received it, I plugged it in the USB port and a message pops up expressing "New Device Found", then a message popped up with"Phase Space Motion Mate",the computer then prompted me to insert the driver disk. The thing works. That was about a month ago. I can not reveal the detail about the software I am developing,but the unit exists and is identical to the pictures. I've been telling anyone who will listen about this thing because I see it as something truely revelutionary, so much so, that I took the time to update the Wiki. Why not send them a note and see if they'll send one to you? I think they send them out for reviews and development. At any rate I meant no harm. MorbiusStevens (talk) 23:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds impressive. Thanks for the response. I reverted your edit because I felt it violated the WP:CRYSTAL policy in that it seemed to describe something still under development that might turn out to be vaporware. Given what you wrote above, go ahead and restore your edit, taking care not to make it sound promotional, and include a good reference. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Typos
Incorrect spellings are to me typos; but I take your point and will try to keep them to pages relating to Europe, where European (English) English would be most appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Englishman in Provence (talk • contribs) 2009-03-26 21:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of Captûre Wines Article
Discussion moved to User talk:RonaldMcWendys/Captûre Wines. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Award for being swell

 * Thank you. It's gratifying to be appreciated. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Moneyvidya article deletion
Dear Amatulić, I got your messages on my talk page. I do have some concerns though. Let me go point by point-

1)"paste text from other web sites" ADX-The link I provided as a reference (http://www.moneyvidya.com/blog/technical-essentials-directional-indicators-and-the-average-directional-index-adx/) was from Moneyvidya.com's blog which is the author of the article. I added the reference on behalf of Moneyvidya.com so I don't think there should be a copyright issue involved here. Further the article was added as it went beyond the analysis already existing on the wiki page and I thought it would contribute. There are numerous locations where the article is posted on behalf on moneyvidya. Should I add the article from an official moneyvidya id to make it relevant ? I was using my personal id.

2) External Links- I take your point for adding external links. Henceforth will post the links on talk page before adding directly. What prompted me to add the links was the presence of several blog sites in external links such as http://niftyrsi.blogspot.com/2009/03/nifty-rsi-calculation-in-excel.html on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_strength_index. The intention was again to contribute and not to gain page hits as I know these links are not crawled by Google or other search engines.

3) Moneyvidya page-This one is the most important. I felt that I wrote the page about moneyvidya.com in a completely neutral and informative way.http://www.moneyvidya.com is a genuine stock picking community providing the users a chance to make stock picks and help others by their experience and knowledge.The company is definitely verifiable. Do let me know how to go about registering the name on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saurabh.nova (talk • contribs) 09:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To answer your points:


 * 1) Per the official policy Copyright, pasting text from other sites is prohibited without appropriate copyright releases on that site. The warning I put on your talk page should have been clear enough. Other instances of text pasted from other web sites, especially non-authoritative ones, should be deleted accordingly.


 * 2) Blogs and community sites are not considered reliable sources per the official policy Reliable sources and should not be used or quoted. The exception is when a blog or forum is an "official" site of the article subject, such as a blog owned by a person who is the subject of a biography article, or an official forum for a video game. Otherwise, community sites are discouraged per External links. Thanks for pointing out the blog link on Relative Strength Index. I have deleted it.


 * 3) Moneyvidya fails all the criteria for inclusion: Notability, Notability (organizations and companies), and Notability (web). Furthermore, you seem to have a conflict of interest; please read Conflict of interest.


 * In conclusion, I doubt there is any way for a non-authoritative, non-notable community site to meet the requirements for inclusion as an article, let alone an external link. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Winery Notability
Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine/Archive_10 for comments from the Wine Project. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate external link (Bill Whittle)
You recently added a note to my talk page regarding adding spurious links to the article Bill Whittle. I was in fact reverting the unexplained removal of apparently referenced comments. On reflection, the source is pretty poor, being a blog. However, is Bill Whittle himself some sort of authority on the atomic bombings? He's little better than a blogger himself. Hohum (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I placed that note because, as far as I could tell, you originally added that link in this edit. While blogs are not useful as references, it's appropriate to link to Bill Whittle's blog, since he's the subject of the article.


 * The question of whether Bill Whittle is an authority is something that a Wikipedia article should'nt express a viewpoint. It is enough to say that his writings on the subject have attracted attention.


 * Nevertheless, I am skeptical that Bill Whittle even deserves an article here. He's a blogger on a barely-notable media outlet (Pajamas TV) that will soon discontinue supporting blogs. The article doesn't quite pass WP:BIO. I wouldn't object if it were nominated for deletion. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I previously re-added that after it's previous deletion (a few weeks ago?), and tried to NPOV what was previously a bunch of POV comments referencing both sources. :shrug: Bit of a storm in a teacup really. I also have the IP editor who apparently called for your opinion making odd accusations on its talk page. Such is wikipedia. I think nominating for deletion would fail since there is probably a current spike in interest about what he said - so someone who cares more can fight that battle. Thanks for your comments though. Hohum (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion wrong move?
Thanks for helping with my case. But you mentioned that Third Opinion is for disputes between 2 editors. Can you let me know I should have taken this, for next time? Thanks! --Dario D. (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose of a 3rd opinion is to invite someone to cast a tie-breaking vote in a dispute between 2 editors. If the dispute is broader than that, you can use WP:RFC to invite others to provide viewpoints in hope of seeing a consensus emerge. Other than that, see WP:DISPUTE for more information. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

my response
Hi

I answered at the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:West_Herzegovina_Canton#Third_opinion --Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 05:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice work
It was very ambitious taking on the drafting of a cohesive notability proposal for wine topics. You really took the lead on this and it is shaping up nicely. Great job. AgneCheese/Wine 21:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your assistance in improving it. I couldn't have done it all alone, and I wouldn't have even attempted it without having the text you originally wrote in WP:WINEGUIDE. Please, make further improvements as you see fit; I am not sure what more I can add beyond clarifications based on talk page comments.


 * In particular I think the Tourism section needs some discussion. What I put in there for now is nothing more than a boilerplate reference to the general notability guideline. Looking at the three wine trail articles you identified on WT:WINE, I don't feel comfortable retaining any of them. The German one has the most detail but it is completely unreferenced and might fail the criteria for inclusion as I currently wrote it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think some outside "non-wine" opinion would be helpful re: notability of tourist routes. Why don't we nominate the three for AfD and see what consensus emerges. AgneCheese/Wine 22:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

see also this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:West_Herzegovina_Canton#verdict

--Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Situation
Where do we go from here? I'm losing patience for the symbol controversy, as Aradic is stubborn and continues to babble on incomprehensibly stalling the development of the article. PRODUCER (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding West Herzegovina Canton: I suggest developing the article further regardless of the presence of the symbols in the infobox. I'd like to see the symbols appear in the section that describes them, but the article text is so short right now that the graphics may mess up the flow.
 * I also suggest WP:RFC to get other people to comment and form a consensus. The problem is that other editors will have to rely on you and Aradic to interpret non-English sources. Both of you have provided sources but I can't assess them because I can't read them, and it is unlikely that other editors on the English Wikipedia would be able to read them either. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I'm fine with a section that describes them, the article is a mess and Aradic's pictures are certainly not helping, one is even obstructing the lead section. As for the translation, Google translates the entire page good enough for you to get the gist of things. PRODUCER (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

@PRODUCER: --Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Before accusing me (or anybody else) read this article: Psychological projection
 * there are other methods of work on wikipedia. No just reverting.

Another example of PRODUCER's vandalims: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Herzegovina_Canton&diff=297356617&oldid=297339582

--Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 15:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like that change is more accurate, according to this statement in Muslims by nationality: "After the 1990s, most of these people, around two million, mostly located in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the region of Sandžak, declare as ethnic Bosniaks."
 * Please review the official guideline Assume good faith. Both of you are making good-faith edits to this article. Both of you need to keep that in mind, and stop making groundless accusations of vandalism. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it does not change the fact that they did not declare themselves like that in 1991.--Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Aradic is at it again  PRODUCER (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

HI !

Could you take a look again at the talk page?? Especially the section verdict. PRODUCER keeps reverting everything including the sourced and not disputable --section "holidays"--Añtó&#124; Àntó (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

LoL he's back to returning the symbols, there's not point in reasoning with him. PRODUCER (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ear candling
I am posting here as I have seen you edit the discussion page for this article (I am also posting a similar message to that page). An IP editor has blanked sections from this article that contain cited observations. I reverted the edits under the impression that the IP was possibly vandalizing the article. After messaging the IP they have contunued their blanking, but are including edit summaries. This implies a certain amount of good faith, so I am loathe to revert without some outside opinion. If you could check on this situation and offer an opinion it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time  Tide  rolls  19:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Deleting well-sourced material isn't what I'd call good faith. Those edits attempt to push a point of view. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

re: your message
Hi Amatulić, I've left a reply to your message on my talk page -- User:Marek69. 21:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wine cats
We've got a bit of a minefield going on currently with wine cats (mostly centered on Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_18). The heart of the issue is the singular/plural overlap categories of Category:Wine/Category:Wines, Category:Italian wine/Category:Italian wines, Category:Wine by country/Category:Wines by country, etc. As the CfD folks like to point out, the distinction exist for broad overview cats (like Category:Opera) versus list cats for individual specific examples (like Category:Operas is for individual specific operas). The Category:Ancient wines is getting caught up in this mess because it has the plural usage, which technically means it should be for individual specific wines (something that could be solved with a rename). You may want to take a look at the CfD and your thoughts would greatly appreciated over at WikiProject Wine/Category tree where we are trying to hammer out some project wide consensus on how best to tackle our messy category structure. AgneCheese/Wine 05:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh. I wasn't aware of that conflict. All that brouhaha over a silly 's'. Oh well, I guess if there's a convention to follow, we may as well follow it. I say, create/rename the categories as needed and be done with it, no point arguing. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish it was that easy. The Wine Project has unwittingly stepped on some toes of the category crowd. Tomas started the simple housekeeping by removing places where the plural cats were applied incorrectly to articles. Obviously as he removed the inappropriate cats, some of the plural categories were emptied and summarily deleted. That raised the ire of the category crowd which brought us to the AfD. Despite being shown repeatedly where they are having difficulties identifying what is the difference between wine regions/producers and quality level designations, one editor in particular seems to think he personally knows best how to categorize wine articles despite where several wine project members have disagreed with him. I have to admit, I am shocked at how much drama innocent housekeeping has started. AgneCheese/Wine 05:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Date autoformatting
I have just seen your post at the talk page of Ohconfucius. You say, inter alia:

"In fact, autoformatting is implied as desirable in WP:MOSNUM."

I believe the styleguides do the very opposite. More importantly, the community has voted against the use of autoformatting, and in a huge (500+) turnout earlier this year, voted against the concept of autoformatting. There are several serious technical issues in using your autoformatting date tag, and there is no consensus to do so. I must ask that you desist from adding it to articles unless you can demonstrate such consensus. Tony  (talk)  08:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I recall this argument from some months ago. Answer: There is no consensus. I saw the discussion about it. There was no consensus, for or against. I must ask that you desist from removing it (if you are) from articles unless you can demonstrate such a consensus.
 * Look again at WP:MOSNUM and explain how autoformatting isn't desirable. As I said, the only mention about it implies that it's undesirable only in the case of linking. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * date does not auto-format, it merely formats, which means we may as well use the output format in the first place. Is this what you are looking for?  Rich Farmbrough, 06:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC).


 * You are correct, I misunderstood the function of date. As to your question, I don't understand why you made a copy of the stevia article in your userspace. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It has the dates in the format you were putting them into. Rich Farmbrough, 02:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC).

Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell‎
My addition of the the categories on Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell‎ was the the result of undoing two edit by a novice editor User:Lovecostarica. Take a look at the page, these categories are appropriate even if my edit summary for their readdition was lacking.--OMCV (talk) 04:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Relative Strength Index
I would prefer it if you did a better job researching things before you acted. Go to http://onlinetradingconcepts.com/TechnicalAnalysis/RelativeStrengthIndex.html and notice the graphs, there are 4 of them. Notice how they all look similar to the graph on the Relative Strength Index wikipedia page. It looks like it did come from that site, but you removed it because it says it has no citation. This site would help users of wikipedia who are looking for more in depth coverage of the relative strength index, and for the link to be removed disallows the users from finding more in depth research. The link should be reinstituted. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.36.189 (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was looking at the wrong picture when I deleted the link. Regardless, there is no need to put that link in the article. The link doesn't really add anything to what the article already says, it doesn't distinguish itself from many other articles about RSI. Also the link is given credit in the graphic, so you are incorrect in saying that removal of the link "disallows" users from finding more information. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why the Cardwell Techniques with the RSI link was still left? The fact that it was left and the others deleted questions your intellectual consistency. The onlinetradingconcepts link has been on this page for years and hasn't had any problems except for you. I'm curious about the arbitrary logic you use and why just your opinion matters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.23.28.224 (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have a conflict of interest regarding that site?
 * Have you read the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly Spam, External links, and (considering your aspersion above), Assume good faith?
 * Onlinetradingconcepts is no different from any number of similar sites, and is ad-supported. There is no compelling reason for Wikipedia to single out that site for exposure to an external link. It doesn't matter how long it's been there; we can't keep track of all the spam that makes its way into articles. When it's noticed, it goes. Note that I am not the only editor reverting you.
 * Cardwell Techniques is mis-placed in that article as an external link. The article devotes some paragraphs to it, therefore it should be a cited reference. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somerset Spectator (2nd nomination)
You may want to look at Articles for deletion/Somerset Spectator (2nd nomination) since you participated in the previous AfD. - Eastmain (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Indian Institute of Planning and Management
wikipedia is a knowledge bank/open encyclopedia and it has nothing to do whether something is good or bad. It looks like you are trying to emphasize your ideology on the reader with your recent edit/reverts on The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. There is already a section for Accreditation in the article and every information is provided as per Wikipedia standards. Onef9day (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no ideology, and I have no idea what edit you are referring to. Also, see WP:AGF. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Use of 'likely'
I checked in my (British-English ) dictionary after you reverted. 'It will likely rain' is definitely poor grammar in British-English, but is more accepted in the U.S., although still considered colloquial. I compromised by changing 'will likely' to 'is likely to' rather than my original 'probable'. Hope that is OK. I have not challenged 'projected' vs 'expected' as that involves a more difficult question. Regards I love SUV&#39;s (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edits look fine to me. I agree, "is likely to" is better than "will likely". ~Amatulić (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Usage of word 'controversy
Hi Amatulic, I have to disagree with your contention that the word 'controversy' is neutral. Please see links, and. If you do reply, it'll be nice if you can on my talk page as I'm not watching yours. Thanks▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ  ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 16:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have replied on Talk:The Indian Institute of Planning and Management.
 * Give the guideline you reference, I see your point that the word is not considered a neutral one. However, even if it has a connotation of 'scandal', the word is still being used correctly in the context of the guideline. Controversies existed, plain and simple. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * We're having a related discussion on Talk:The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) advertising controversy if you'd like to chime in there as well. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)