User talk:George Makepeace

Template:Infobox fluoride
Hi. I see you just created this infobox. But surely the element F is "Fluorine" - a fluoride is a salt of fluorine (just as a chloride is a salt of chlorine). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. We don't do infoboxes for ions. If you feel strongly about it, bring it up with WP:CHEMISTRY and WP:ELEMENTS. Apart from that, we do not make such drastic unilateral changes to pages. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I got Fluoride mixed up with Fluorine. I made the infobox last night and didn't realize my mistake until now - I'm glad someone fixed it quickly. Not a good start. --George Makepeace (talk) 21:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's okay. If you're interested in chemistry, why not pop by WT:CHEMISTRY & WT:CHEMICALS, where other wikichemists are? You'll probably encounter them editing chemistry articles too. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Shoelace knot for deletion
The article Shoelace knot is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Shoelace knot until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn by consent from nominator; 23 January 2011 (UTC). --George Makepeace (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Parallel light
That sentence at Lens (optics) wasn't as redundant as it seemed. A collimated beam is one where the rays are parallel to each other; they are not necessarily parallel to the optical axis. Conversely, an uncollimated beam can propagate parallel to the axis, by which we mean that the average direction of the rays in the beam is parallel to the axis (even if the individual rays are diverging). I put back the reference to collimated, but left out the use of "parallel" as a synonym, to avoid confusion.--Srleffler (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Srleffler, the idea behind removing 'collimated or parallel' was that I thought this was already implied by the fact that the light is a beam and only added confusion to the text. However, I now realize that you have a valid point; a beam is not necessarily collimated and your edit has cleared up the ambiguity that I created without introducing confusion again. --George Makepeace (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Relationship anarchy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Relationship anarchy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Relationship anarchy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of countries by financial assets per capita


The article List of countries by financial assets per capita has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The source of the figures is unclear. The ref gives Household net financial wealth but per capita, and does not give debt figures. This appears to constitute original research.

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. gadfium 04:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of List of countries by financial assets per capita for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of countries by financial assets per capita is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of countries by financial assets per capita until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.- gadfium 05:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Dispute Dispute
Be clear please.Now explain what i asked in talk.I don't realize where you don't see broad consensus.And i've 2 degrees, working in Credit Suisse.Just this sector research.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I replied to your question on the talk page. — George Makepeace (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem like reverting my edits also in other articles.Avoid something close to personal attacks.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * to Goliath Birdeater changed it to a less natural wording. I did not revert your edit as a personal attack; I just noticed it as I was reviewing your edit history prior to posting your final warning. Please be more careful with your deletions. — George Makepeace (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

You seem aggressive in talking.Tomorrow is another day.You didn't respect 3 rule.You should be blocked.I won't report you a gift.Disputed is something on whih 2 or mor people don't agree (no consensus).All people agree you can correct in righ tway that map (if there are mistakes).I'm for peaceful developing.Peace is in your name.Let's make it true.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not angry at you, but your edits are disruptive and you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what an accuracy dispute means. You must respect other editors opinions.

It seems you don't know the meaning of words. Dispute exists when 2 people don't agre.Nobody stops you in corrct mistakes in that map.Do you realize?I'm giving you an olive branch.Sign your editing.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "Dispute exists when 2 people don't agre". You and I don't agree, that means there is a dispute. Correcting the mistake on a map is not simple - even if I were to fix French Guiana in an image editor, how do I know there are not more mistakes, like there were with the data table in the article? In the mean time, it should be marked as disputed information. There's relatively little harm in adding a dispute notice compared with allowing false information to remain on Wikipedia without any warning. — George Makepeace (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree you can correct eventual mistakes on map so dispute doesn't exist. Don't look for something thta doesn't exist.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you can correct the mistakes; the mistakes are there so, by Wikipedia policy, they must be removed or at least tagged as dubious or disputed information. — George Makepeace (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I realize you don't know the meaning of dispute.Bostongarden1942 (talk) 05:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * George, the editor above is a sock account evading a block (see Sockpuppet investigations/Benniejets/Archive). Please feel free to remove this entire discussion if you choose.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 15:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Relationship anarchy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Relationship anarchy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Relationship anarchy& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  YT0  ☎ (she/ey) 20:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

"10.9mm" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 10.9mm. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 28 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

"4.5" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 4.5. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 12 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)