User talk:Defenestrating Monday

Welcome, and thanks for adding to the Conard article. Do you go to Conard?  Λυδ α  cιτγ  21:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice name
Hey, nice name. You ought to create a user page. Al e  thiophile 1   2  3  02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree you have a really cool name. [defenestrates you for the heck of it] Welcome, and happy contributing. ~Crazytales | 56297 23:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Favor
Hello I noticed you made some editions to the article Iraq Spring Fighting of 2004 before and if you are interested in the Iraq war I wanted to ask you a favore. I think that this article Iraq Spring Fighting of 2004 needs to stick. But a user CJKing has nominated it for deletion. I think that it should stick because it shows the inital uprising of the Mahdy army and the fight for Anbar that was in the same time frame. I draw paralels with the Tet offensive so Ithink like the Vietnam war article has the Tet offensive Iraq should have this. So if you would add your vote for deletion or to keep. But I would apreciate if you would back me up on this.Top Gun 21:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support on Iraq Spring Fighting, also I am discusing with another user to change the name of the article to something better, what do you think of The Mahdy and Anbar Uprisings. Thank you.Top Gun 06:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Iraq Spring Fighting of 2004
Hey, just wanted to let you know that I've changed my mind about this article being deleted. I'm going to vote keep now. I've seen you on that article since it's on my watchlist, and you're doing a great job. Keep it up!!-- C  J   King  04:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

tags
I explained the problems I had with some recent edits you made.

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 21:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I got the reply you left on User:Geo Swan. You probably already know this, and just made a mistake -- but if you leave a note for someone on their talk page, User Talk:Geo Swan, in my case, they get a message telling them, they next time they get a new page from the wikipedia.  If you leave it on their User page it might be a month or more before they see it.  Someone left one for me on December 7th, and I only saw it when I saw yours.


 * I would really prefer you made a personal effort to address the concerns I raised about your edit.


 * No offense, but, if you feel the original wording carries the wrong tone, but you can't back up that feeling, and you edit the wording to bring it in line with what you feel is correct anyway, well, no offense, isn't that a classic case of a lapse from a neutral point of view? Isn't that a classic case of an editor writing from their personal point of view?


 * I do my best to aim for a neutral point of view. I won't claim to succeed 100% of the time.  I've been thinking that the relatively few challenges I get impliess I am doing a pretty good job.


 * When I get a challenge, and I respond with an attempt to initiate a civil dialogue I get three basic kinds of responses.


 * 1) The other party takes my reply seriously, and makes a civil attempt to respond as fully as possible. This is the best outcome, and can lead to a real improvement in the article, and happiness all around.  Here is an example.
 * 2) The other party folds, doesn't take the initiative to give a serious reply, and cite specific passages they have a problem with, and just fade away. Until recently I interpreted that as those people deciding my contributions were NPOV after all.  But maybe I just exhausted them?
 * 3) The other party goes postal, and starts stalking me, and/or abusing the wikipedia's maintenance tags. I have had half a dozen critics fall to this level.  They all turned out to be sockpuppets.


 * I'd really prefer if you made a personal effort to address my concerns, rather than looking for a surrogate. The wikipedia is going to be read by non-experts.  It won't make me happy if someone else who has done their homework and I agree on a wording, if that wording still strikes those who, like yourself, haven't looked into the issues as fully, still strikes them as carrying the wrong tone.


 * And, of course, I went to considerable effort to draft my reply to you...


 * Cheers! --  Geo Swan 01:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. Your talk page is on my watchlist. Reply here, or on the article's talk page, as appropriate, and I will see it.  Cheers!  --  Geo Swan 01:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ratiocinatio


The article Ratiocinatio has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Better suited for wiktionary which has a definition for ratiocination.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Vrac (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)