User talk:Fixer1234

Feel Free to Say High or Leave Comments Fixer1234

Talk:Friedrich Nietzsche
Hello. Having seen your comments above mine on the page mentioned above, I thought you might want to take a look at this RFC: As I see it this is a really annoying agenda-based dispute that proceeds via attrition and it would be in the best interests of those who edit there if it could end soon. Here's hoping you agree. Regards, Alcmaeonid (talk) 04:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your kind words of support. There's still a lot more to be done! ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I wish that you comment on this if you could. Thanks for attention. -- Fernando S. Aldado (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply against edits for "Children of the corn"

Thanks for the help you provided me on me talk page, however I already have a sound understanding about whatever you referred to me. Omission against “corroboration"; articles "a", "an", "the”; “cite” have been committed deliberately, as I could not clap my eyes on the comprehensive article of "children of the corn". Consequently, there could not have been an imaginative construction at the fixed place, yet their omission is somewhat adjunct to what you committed in my talk page "If you have an questions about the changes I made to you edits" is dubious in accordance of the English grammatical rules.

This I refer to you not to a pick a hole in your coat, but to make you sure that certain things happen whether one intends or not! --Vikaszt (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:V
I'm contacting you because of your participation at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. In that context, please consider watchlisting one of the threads which is developing at Requests for arbitration. The specific thread is awkwardly captioned: '''Verifiability/Use English/Burdens in proxy battlefield article

I don't construe this as improper canvassing; however, I would expect you to form your own opinion in light of WP:Canvassing.

If you believe that reaching out to you was somehow improper, then don't contribute. Please pardon my mistake in posting this message on your talk page. Please do share what you think so that I'll begin to understand what it is that I've done wrong.

On the other hand, if you believe as I do that your arguably useful contribution to the development of this thread will be welcomed, then good -- no problem ....

Do whatever you think best. --Tenmei (talk) 03:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:V and third party
Please discuss the missuse of the term "third party" at WP:V. --Jc3s5h (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is correct depends on the meaning
Concerning this edit: One could say
 * There is a realm of facts that exists independently.
 * There is a realm of facts that exists independently.

and that would mean the realm exists independently; or one could say
 * There is a realm of facts that exist independently.
 * There is a realm of facts that exist independently.

and that would mean that the facts exist independently.

"exists" is correct if the first meaning is indended; "exist" is correct if the second is intended.

In some contexts this could be exploited for the purpose of disambiguating. But in this case I'm not sure it matters much. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentorship
Although I think that you are likely to be disinterested, I write to invite you to join others in becoming a co-mentor for me.

You may be unaware that the "Finding of facts" in the decision at Tang Dynasty explicitly encompasses a message on your talk page -- see User talk:Fixer1234#WP:V

Your experience will help remedy a deficit in the composition of a small group. The nascent status of a mentorship committee is clarified in the currently active thread at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Tang Dynasty. Hopefully, this mentorship experiment will prove to be more effective and less burdensome than previous wiki-mentoring schemes.

This is a time for hortatory concepts. Do you know this one?
 * "I am only one, but I am one. I can not do everything, but I can do something.
 * I must not fail to do the something that I can do."

If Helen Keller is to believed, then I am not alone in linking these words with Helen Keller. The salient question becomes this: Does precise attribution matter in the context of a teachable moment? No – not always, but often.

What can I say or do to convince you to agree tentatively?

Core policies are the tools at hand; and if you agree to help connect the dots, it could benefit more than me. In this search for a mentor deemed acceptable by ArbCom, I cite Wikipedia:Mentorship#Unintended consequences as a plausible context for discussing what I have in mind.

Your background causes me to share something already explained to another prospective mentor, "Among a prospective mentor's many burdens, the most difficult would involve (a) helping me discern why or when I should apologize or (b) helping me to explain why or when I will not apologize in a wiki-context" -- see diff. May I offer an on-topic writing sample? As you think about agreeing to join a mentorship committee, please review Patrick Lennox Tierney#Showa apology rebuffed.

Are you willing to look into this a bit further? I assume that time constraints will limit your participation; but perhaps you might consider making yourself available as a "non-public mentor", as an advisor to the co-mentors whose questions are likely to be different than mine?

If you please, contact me by e-mail or on my talk page. --Tenmei (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)