User talk:Granite07

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Rigadoun (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Copyrights
Please do not cut and paste texts from other websites without original authors' permission. This is copyright violation and against the law. pseudisodomum and Isodomum are deleted therefore. Sorry. Please read more in Copyrights `'Míkka 01:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry @mikka I'm just seeing this 13 years later: the content in those pages is from The Ten Books or Architecture, it so not from a website. The websites copied from the Ten Books. I cited to original source published in 1 BC... Granite07 (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Publius Septimius, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template   to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Short stubs relating to Vitruvius
The best thing to in this case would be to create a user subpage and work on the articles there. You can create a user subpage by typing User:Granite07/_________, filling the blank space with a name for you work. As a rule, wikipedians do not edit in other wikipedians user space except for reasons related to policy. You would be able to create and modify the articles in relative peace until you had a finished product you wish to place in the mainspace. This would allow you to work on you stubs in peace until you were happy with the finished product. That would be my advise. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Various ancient Romans
I am sorry taht your first experience with wikipedia was somewhat unfortunate, as I see from this talk page. But I hope ou will not be discouraged, because your areas of interest are underrepresented in wikipeida (at least in comparison with pokemon and port actresses. :-)

The problems with ancient people is that first, information about them is scarse, second, often therea re two or more persons known by the same name. Therefore if you are not a real expert in ancient history, it is very easy to confuse them. Often the opposite is true. Some people were famous for very nrelated areas, and sometimes one person use to be thought as two (especially when known by some aditioanl nicknames) util some text found from which it is clear that two are one. For this reason your small aditions, such as Publius Septimius and in Melampus are of dubious nature, and I will think how to deal with this later (I am not expert in Romans myelf). `'Míkka 17:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Isodomum
In such cases it is very easy to avoid copyright violation. Definitions and desciptions of facts that do not contain opinions, speculations or literary fantasies and other works of writer's creativity - are usually not subject to copyright. Therefore it is sufficient to rewrite a description in your own words. And please don't forget to provide the origin of the definition. In the case of ancient thinks it is good to have both the weblink reference and a reference to original ancient text. Weblinks are convenient, but unfortunately many of them do not live long. `'Míkka 17:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It is more useful to collect such small definitions into larger articles, such as Ancient Roman masonry or Classic European masonry or something else; I am not an expert here. BTW, these definitions may be found in A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, which you may freely use (with proper reference), and even copy illustrations from it, because it is published in 1848 and hence no longer subject of copyright and  which can be dowloaded as a pdf file from  here. `'Míkka 17:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Common arrangement of work sections
A tag has been placed on Common arrangement of work sections, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this. The sunder king 20:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes please create the page, since the subject seems notable and constructive enough to create, go ahead. I do not know much about it so I can't suggest anything. The sunder king 21:07, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

@The_sunder_king sorry for 13 year delay... I don't read my talk page... Was this deleted and then created again by another user? Granite07 (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Nonsense of Le fin de mond
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Le fin de mond, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Le fin de mond provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Le fin de mond, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 19:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:6a00cd972a7baa4cd500d4144ef84b3c7f-500pi.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:6a00cd972a7baa4cd500d4144ef84b3c7f-500pi.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 23:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hydraulic hammer/Hoe ram
1) Don't Wikilink to a re-direct. 2) Don't have two different Wikilinks to the same article. 3) Provide some research for which is the most common world-wide term. I have heard: "hammer hoe," "breaker," "hydraulic breaker," all three a lot more than "hoe ram." WikiDon 05:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. ''Also, many of your citations do not conform to WP:V or WP:RS. And please put comments to users on their talk pages -- not their user pages. '' Gscshoyru 22:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~ ; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Dear Sir
Please allow the laborer page to remain as is in its current condition. The difficulty in obtaining properly cited sources for a subject such as construction which is historically nonacademic and or undocumented is obvious. In the construction field knowledge is passed down through generations from journeyman to apprentice. It is only today with the advent of Wikipedia that this knowledge can be widely shared across regions without the need to physically work with someone. Unfortunately Wikipedia has a very good policy to edit uncited information. Please allow an exception in this case and in other construction pages in recognition of the special nature of the field. I assure you the information presented on the laborers page is accurate, precise, relevant and correct. It is your good judgment to allow this content since you have the authority to decide if information is to be preserved or censored. The link to the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA) you deemed irrelevant is the organization representing nearly one million laborers internationally, I believe this link is very relevant. The other information on the page though seemingly inconsequential is also very relevant to the field of laboring. My personal experience, research and education in the construction field is not sufficient to provide cited sources as these are few and often created for inconsistent purposes. I assure you that if possible I will generate some cited sources myself if only for the reason of preserving content on Wikipedia. Once again, please preserve the laborers page. 128.12.170.194 01:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Granite07 01:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. Your own reasearch or knowledge is not a verifiable reference for knowledge. Nor do the refs you provide conform to WP:V or WP:RS. So it is removed for those reasons. Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for information, it is an encyclopedia. As such, information must be cited by reliable, verifiable sources. Gscshoyru 01:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Gscshoyru 01:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Continuation of Dear Sir
You seem to have taken this an entirely different direction. I am sorry if you disagree with the edits made to laborer. What do you suggest we do for a solution that you find acceptable. I have not placed my own research into the laborer page as it is only a way to relax between work. I am a researcher at Stanford University Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering with the Construction Engineering Management program and take my work very seriously. You are obviously much more knowledgeable about wikipedia protocol and etiquette so please provide some beneficial advice as to what you prefer as sources. I assume you are not opposed to the formatting changes only the content. Could you also be more specific as to which sources are not acceptable, most were from very respected institutions and researchers. Granite07 02:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What we prefer as sources? There are nice policy pages on them. WP:V and WP:RS explain what sources are and aren't accepted, I suggest you read those. Oh, and welcome, and happy editing! Gscshoyru 02:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read those and as best anyone could tell the sources used on laborer conformed Granite07 02:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This source -- http://www.laborerslocal185.com/scope_of_work.htm -- is not third party, see WP:SOURCES (part of WP:V). Nor is this: http://cedb.asce.org/cgi/WWWdisplay.cgi?8302072. And you can't link to stuff on jstor, like this: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0515%28198003%2918%3A1%3C1%3ALUEOWG%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6, as since it costs money to access, we can't verify it. Gscshoyru 02:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have 6 more papers to grade tonight and with your help it has taken all day. I was only updating the laborers site between every couple papers as a break.

Can I please restore the laborers page and I will correct the deficiencies over the next few weeks. Interesting enough I created the page so it is all my opinions and thoughts. I do want your help understanding what the expectation is for sources, web sourced, trade union sourced, government sourced, and academically sourced, I used all four.

I also make edits to the heavy equipment page, it also does not conform, or any of the other construction pages. It does not seem realistic to delete the entire construction section of wikipedia. I understand my field is not the most academic but we do use a bit of math and CS.

Ok, I do have a proxy connection to jstor and other sites for my day job here. I will find other sources, the laborers union is almost third party. They are not selling anything.

Granite07 02:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

ASCE is a recognized Journal, the most prestigious in my field in fact! Where else would I source from? It is what we all aspire to publish in. Granite07 02:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I know they aren't. But a source isn't verifiable if it isn't easily verifiable, so you can't use it.
 * If you want to improve the article properly, you can't leave it in the form it was, and slowly change it. That's just not proper. What you can instead do is make a subpage of your userspace and fix it up there. Put it, say, User:Granite07/PAGENAME, where PAGENAME is whatever you want, and no one will change it there. You can fix it up there till it conforms, and then be bold and replace the current page with it, ok? How does that sound?
 * And I think I may have been very wrong about ASCE. Oops. Sorry 'bout that, that source is fine. Gscshoyru 02:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

you should look up kaizen, continuous improvement, it is a concept they teach here. I guess it is hard to reconform to different rules, but I can create large batches and update if you prefere rather than many small batches. Granite07 02:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but your changes currently don't improve, because of source problems. Therefore, they shouldn't be added until they

do improve. I've shown you how to make your own personal workspace, have fun, and try updating the current article when your fixed-up one fits policy. Gscshoyru 02:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

@Gscshoyru just reading the talk page posts, thank you for your advice: I have been using sandbox to develop pages as you suggested and possibly the best advice I ever received on wikipedia, thank you--maybe another 13 years and I will check in again Granite07 (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

FYI- use Arg-2
I fixed up your merge proposal links on the pages concerned so they go to here. In the links, just add the talk section as the second argument as detailed in merge/doc, or define "|discuss=" with wikilink to the section. Happy New Year! // Fra nkB 23:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 3D's
I have nominated 3D's, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/3D's. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.  U z EE   (Talk • Contribs) 02:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. 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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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) 06:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Provide references
If you say that the majority of 3D jobs pay well, "100k per year" as you claim, provide references. The same for anything else you write.Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Vitruvius, Mamurra, Julius Caesar
As you say, nowhere does Mamurra appear in Vitruvius; as for Julius Caesar, it's very uncertain: Augustus was definitely his boss, as you put it — but of Julius all that can be said for sure is that Vitruvius says he admired the guy (I praef. 2). Anyhow, my argument was not with what is said in the article, but with the "See also". If it's worth putting in a "See also", it's worth putting text in the article. There is apparently an opinion out there that Vitruvius and Mamurra were somehow related, or the same person: put it in the article. The great Wikipedian democracy will shoot you down if it's not true (and maybe if it is). But a reference to Mamurra can only mystify people if in neither article is anything said about the other! Bill (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not likely Vitruvius and Mamurra are the same person, the Mamurra page notes he died in 45BC and Vitruvius presumably died around 25BC.Granite07 (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AfDs
I noticed you just started a bunch of AfDs but didn't provide any reasons. Could you please add one? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * More specifically, the AfDs are for Articles for deletion/Nymphodorus, Articles for deletion/Sarnacus, Articles for deletion/Pollis, Articles for deletion/Theocydes and Articles for deletion/Nexaris. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Nymphodorus
A tag has been placed on Nymphodorus requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nymphodorus
An editor has nominated Nymphodorus, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sarnacus
An editor has nominated Sarnacus, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pollis
An editor has nominated Pollis, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Theocydes
An editor has nominated Theocydes, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nexaris
An editor has nominated Nexaris, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion
I tagged all your pages for speedy deletion. Since I'm not an admin, I can't do the actual deletion, but WP:CSD (author requests deletion/blanked page) applies. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fuficius
An editor has nominated Fuficius, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Agesistratus
An editor has nominated Agesistratus, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Pyrrus
An editor has nominated Pyrrus, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Charias
An editor has nominated Charias, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

How to delete your own article
If you want to delete an article that you have written, there is a much easier way to do it than the AfD process: simply blank the page and then put at the top. That tag asks for a speedy deletion G7 "author requests deletion or has blanked the page". Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, someone has already done that for you, and the pages are gone; I just let you know how to do it, in case it should happen again that you want to get rid of a page you created. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

DDD medcab
Hi, I'll be the mediator for the 3D MedCab case. Just to let you know, so discussion will be able to start soon. -- 20:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna go ahead and move this discussion into the discussion section of the case page, if you don't mind, since it's getting confusing. And, FYI, "that makes no sense at all" doesn't exactly scream "constructive!". -- 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC) P.S.:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-19 Dirty, Dangerous and Demeaning


 * Oh, I'm really sorry. I screwed up. See, there was no sig, so I looked in the history of the page and thought I saw it was you who wrote that, while it was MostlyHarmless. Once again, I'm really sorry, my bad, I'll correct it on both pages. Sorry again. -- 19:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And that video is hilarious, BTW ;) -- 19:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, no. There was no person. It was a mistake by me. I was hurried, I looked at the history only quickly, I made a mistake. My bad. I just copied the code of your sig for aesthetic reasons, mistaking what was written by mostlyharmless with what you wrote. Once again, I'm terribly sorry for all this trouble. -- 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

About your contributions
I think Mostlyharmless may have a point in suggesting some of your contributions to the DDD article as Original Research. While you were certainly making good-faith efforts, you need to back most of the statements you add into the article with a reliable, third party reference. This is Wikipedia policy and there is no way to circumvent it without breaking it. I think Mostlyharmless is pissed off (a bit overly dramatic, if you ask me) that some of your claims are not supported by a third party reference, and this is indeed the subject of the case. As long as the text you contributed with doesn't link to a footnote reference at the end, Mostlyharmless has the right to remove it. -- 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is it fairly obvious? There probably is a good reason for this, but I want to know just in case a ref is needed. If people question it, you need a reference. If it's mentioned in another article, just use the reference used in the other article. People can always question statemements derived from thinking. Even though something may be obvious to one person, it may be ridiculous to another. -- 23:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What's written in the case page (your last message) was not obvious to me. I'm not an expert, but it just seemed lik you were talking gibberish. And take into account that Wikipedia pages are meant for the general public, not experts. -- 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I get that you're discussing that to put it into words for us commoners. But, until you can do that and properly reference it, I would advise you to keep it in the talk page before adding it into the article. -- 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * With commoner, I was actually referring to just me lol. Anyway, give me a link or tell me exactly where to find it and I'll proofread it for you. -- 23:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Nvm, I read the text you just wrote in the case page. It's still slightly hard to understand, and besides, people working really hard in a taylorist system isn't necessarily DDD. Might be demanding, might be dangerous, might be dangerous, but if not explicitly mentioned as DDD it doesn't belong in the article. Only one of your three references is valid, and it has nothing to do with Taylor (U.S. soldiers in Iraq?) -- 23:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Feedback above. -- 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * About the references, I meant of the three you mentioned in the case page (25, 26, 27). But I still don't see the connection between Taylor and DDD. Lean jobs, if I'm not mistaken, are jobs that take advantage of everything for more efficiency. DDD jobs are jobs with poor conditions and loads of work. There is only a loose connection, which has no room in the article. -- 00:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's about as good an argument as WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is in an AfD debate. I don't care about marginalism, and novices not understanding it is wrong. You should focus on your paragraph rather than pointing fingers. Once it's ready and referenced (the latter is essential) you can add it into the article. Till then, use your sandbox to perfect it, or the discussion page. -- 00:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, so it was a joke. Look, sorry if any of the above offended you. Really, I am, I didn't mean to be so strict about it. I didn't even mean to format it as a reprimand, it just came out that way. And I'll deal with Mostlyharmless as soon as he has the nerve  to answer me. Don't worry about it, that personal attack was my business alone. If you don't know what a sandbox is, it's sort of a text page in you user's namespace that you use to perfect things. Most people use these (I don't have a sandbox myself, but I've collaborated with other users on their sandboxes). You can use this to perfect your paragraph. I understand you contributed with references, but none that you have indicated me to actually mentions the connection between Taylor and DDD. I didn't see anything on that vocab page strictly saying "DDD and Taylorism are related in such-and-such way". Again, I'm sorry if you got offended. But I don't appreciate the comment on my sense of humor being running out. If anything, it's my patience with certain people declaring that Wikipedia is written by 15 year olds as if it's a bad thing. -- 20:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry for not respondig too quickly (forgot to put up a notice about me being on holiday). Anyway, usingdeductive reasoning and deducing things from references is wrong per WP:SYN, and is classified as original research. I hope that answers all questions as to why you can't place things you assume into the article. Thanks, -- 22:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess we can be closing, since Mostlyharmless left the discussion (a bit of an overreaction, if you ask me). I'll wait for your answer and we'll close soon. -- 22:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I didn't understand your questions too well, but if this answers them, the only thing you're allowed to do with references is to take text from them (a direct quote, often used in the blockquote form) or take ideas from them, while changing the sentence, still giving the same meaning, or summarizing, while not actually saying anything that the source does not explicitly say. If you have any further questions that you feel I wouldn't understand or be able to answer, I encourage you to browse (I can't expect you to read it whole!) WP:OR and/or WP:RS. Please tell me when you feel we should close the case. Thanks, -- 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * First, you can only write about concept B what the source explicitly says a bout concept B (for example, in the case you mentioned, that B is included in A). But you cannot write about anything that the source does not say, including derived or deduced facts. I hope this answers your question. Second, I'll go close the case now. -- 16:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi
Hi! Are you working at Stanford University in Palo Alto? If so we are neighbors :-). I live near Gunn High School overlooking a playing field landscaping job that has two scrapers, a motor grader, a sheep's foot dozer, a backhoe and a ... I'm trying to figure out what these things are called and Wikipedia is my favorite place to look stuff up. Couldn't figure it all out from the current pages so trying to help straighten them out. Read your talk page. Sounds like you know lots about these machines. I sure don't. Thanks for helping create this section of Wikipedia! --Roger Chrisman (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge Front loader and Loader (equipment)?
Do you think the Front loader and Loader (equipment) pages should be merged? Seems to me the latter is a good candidate for merging into the former. What do you think? Care to reply on Talk:Loader (equipment) --Roger Chrisman (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Engineering equipment
Is power shovel another name for front shovel? If yes, let's redirect front shovel to power shovel. Please comment on Talk:Engineering_vehicle. Thanks, --Roger Chrisman (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Schedule (Construction)
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. jonny - m t  12:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

DDD Classification and US-centricity
When you have a spare moment, I would appreciate your opinion on my comment on the DDD talk page. Centrepull (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Aeolipiles, etc
Thank you for finding this. In some ways it throws a huge spanner in the works, as the device is so often known as "Hero's aeolipile", but it does vindicate my viewpoint that he didn't actually invent it.

Had you thought of modifying De architectura to make reference to it?

EdJogg (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Move (rename) engineering vehicle to heavy equipment
Hi Granite07, I opened a request to move engineering vehicle to heavy equipment, the later being I think the correct common name of this category of thing and the former made up and incorrect. Someone has replied by disagreeing, naturally. A wave of opinion may be needed to overcome the inertia of the old made up name. Could you please voice your opinion on this at the bottom of this section of the talk page: Talk:Engineering vehicle? Thanks! --Roger Chrisman (talk) 18:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to my talk page has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please note that my edit to the pole shift article can in no way be considered as anything even remotely related to 3RR, and your decision to name me in a 3RR report was unjustified, ill-advised, and inappropriate. In future, I would hope that you demonstrate significantly better judgment than you did in this situation, and that you first take a moment to honestly consider if it is in fact your own actions that are the problem. Thank you. Ckatz chat spy  07:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and you might want to consider withdrawing your complaint - I'm hoping that it was simply the result of a misunderstanding of our processes - you should also withdraw your accusations against the editors who are disagreeing with you. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I firmly believe both accusations are valid, you guys are edit warring and are acting in collusion, even if it is not explicit but implicit through practice. Please do not start throwing veiled threats, it really does not look good. It is not clear if the editors disagree with the content or the process. It is my understanding they simply want more information rather than that they object. So possibly they truly agree. Granite07 (talk) 08:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Good faith edit war explanation
In regards to this edit, with all due respect, you're incorrect about the concept of edit warring on wikipedia. Five editors reverting your changes to a page isn't an edit war, it's an example of consensus. Consensus is strongly against you. The next step is to take the discussion to the talk page, which you've already done. You're proceeding about this the correct way on the talk page, but your report at the edit war board is not accurate, since there was no edit warring to remove your edits.

Consensus exists, and it's against you. There's no grand scheme of admins hanging together, or safeguarding certain articles. It's just a matter of multiple editors disagreeing with you. That happens to everybody sometimes, it's just the nature of this project.

I offer this advice to you in full good faith, sometimes it's best just to do something else for a while. Consensus is against you here, so maybe it's best just to work on some other article for the time being. Or walk off from the computer completely. Sometimes it helps. Good luck. Dayewalker (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, but I disagree. The evidence points to admins (pseudo editors) trying to rush consensus before mediation. The edits fit a pattern of noncontributing admins reverting the same edit with little or no discussion in an attemt to circumvent edit warring rules. Granite07 (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Telling others that they are acting in bad faith is very aggravating and will likely make more people upset with you. Also, please learn a bit about this place (and don't take this in the wrong way): admins are not "pseudo-editors"; they do all of the same article creation things as other Wikipedians. Even if you think that something is in bad faith, the tone of internet conversations has a strong positive feedback, so if you speak with respect and a positive attitude, (assuming there is a reasonable human being on the other end of the line) good things will happen.
 * Also, as a minor note, "et" is "and" in the language of the Romans. So it is "X and et al." Or, since "al." is "alia", or "others", you can write in English and say "and others".
 * Don't mean to criticize, just to inform :-). Hoping for future productivity: life is too short for frustration, Awickert (talk) 08:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good information, it is hard to burn bridges when there appears to be no bridge. Intuitive creative destruction solution. You appear knowledgeable about Wikipedia, the concept has applications in context outside of the encyclopedia. I have a perspective of the Wiki outside of the frame you and other wiki-editors have become comfortable with. Can you elaborate on the strong positive feedback note, what does this mean in relation to language. Granite07 (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What I mean is that once one person gets pissy, the whole thing goes to hell in a Hummer (forget the handbasket). The only way I've seen to deal with this is to be big enough to just let things roll off of you, explain politely the issues you are having, and posit solutions. Note that this doesn't work with unreasonable individuals, but Doug Weller and RJ Hall are (in my past experiences with them) very reasonable; I'm sorry your initial experiences were less fortunate. Awickert (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Your assessment seems correct though I do not agree with your conclusion. The editors you mention and others have provided an opportunity to explore the roles of Wikipedia admins and editors in a context that is clearly defined as a frame. This frame persists in a state that is constrained so that there is a minimal number of external influences or internal biases to account for. Therefore the true issues are clear, these are, see also edit rules, good-faith admins||editors, and alternative communication channels. The miscommunication due to limited background context sharing is likely an underlying contributor to all Wikipedia disputes.  A counter to transparency argument is that the anonymity editors can assume helps provide a level paying field. I also assume a pseudoname as an editor and for all anyone knows I am an 8 year old uneducated homeless man or a nobel prize winner in the specific topic, it is the same. Do prisoners have access to Wikipedia editing, maybe one of these guys is Manson? Granite07 (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure what you're saying there. The admins at "Pole shift" provide a frame for seeing how Wiki works? You can request but not require background sharing; you seem to understand this. Doug, RJH, and I have our usernames be our real names (or an abbreviation the first and third cases); try Google, though my stuff is all outdated and spotty.
 * I'm also unsure of how you disagree with my conclusion. I don't make a conclusion, just a number of statements. What do you disagree with?
 * But I don't see how any of this is relevant: I think that they acted in good faith. You stepped on the scene and started making accusations that they were acting in bad faith because the links were removed. I say (as do they and you), let's make the section so the see also links become relevant. Then let's just drop the issue; it's been enough of a time sink. Awickert (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You conclude that (for all it matters) Doug Weller and RJ Hall are very reasonable and that [my] your initial experiences were less fortunate. I am not convinced by the evidence about anyone reasonableness, this will be seen and I would not classify my experience as less fortunate. Yes, I skimmed your two conference papers on river bed wander. and, I now see that there a few RJ Halls, I assume this one is the social scientist. the publications and professional context is irrelevant. When i asked for background I did not mean a cv, I mean why do you care specifically why are you editing this page. Is it because we need a break from writing our thesis, is it because we look for conflict on the Wiki to jump in, is it because we are a "nutter" and believe the great bambino in the sky will turn the world over, or are we a technical editor and are very irritated when the subject does not precede the predicate. Or do we just get off being an admin and telling other people what to do. These are all legitimate characters that float around Wikipedia in addition to the likely swarm of genius elementary school kids that are not taken seriously otherwise. I'd just like to know where they are "coming from" so I can try to address them appropriately and avoid miscommunication. talking about the scientific details of polar shift pseudoscience is not going to get anyone very far when the listener is only concerned with humanities consensus building and they edit since they like the social interaction. Granite07 (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(OD) If I may interject here, you seem to be wanting more information on each editor so you can judge their backgrounds and motives, and treat them accordingly. That pretty much goes against the Wikipedia principle of assuming good faith, every editor should be treated equally and their ideas considered as such. Whether an editor has a background in a certain topic should be irrelevant, because we should be relying on reliable secondary sources and not personal opinions. WP is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so we're not going to start checking credentials at the velvet rope out front. Dayewalker (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Similar but not exactly. You (Dayewalker) use certain words, such as, interject, judge and often reference Wikipedia principles. This presents yourself as someone with a context of legal definitions. Therefore the words I use when talking with you should be different that the words used when talking with Awickert. This is not some type of discrimination as you have spun it but simply forwarding the goal of good communication etiquette. This discussion is not about the page edits where secondary resources are important but the discussion page communication process. I am simply attempting to turn the mirrors of justice. With Awickert we are passing the sands of time. Granite07 (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) You (Granite07) may use any words you want with me so long as you write with clarity. (2) It is better to go in assuming everyone will be editing in good faith. Asking everyone to prove that they are not a worthless nutter or a bigot (because one's choice is either that or having their opinion discounted) will not end well. (3) In spite of what I've just said, I'll be nice and answer your question more fully than the interwebs (since I am a young guy who hasn't published much yet): I work on (a) river channel planform change, (b) how that relates to the stratigraphic record and oil/gas/water reservoir connectivity, (c) sediment transport, and (d) regional models of lithosphere flexure and mantle flow due to loading by water and ice. (4) There is no positive conclusion that comes from demanding proof of reasonableness (this should be a given and is IMO not a sensible request). Most importantly, I'm unwilling to be involved in a situation where we don't just deal with the content and instead let drama spiral out of control. Awickert (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a situation where we've degenerated into wasting time talking about something totally unrelated to the subject. You may communicate with any editor any way you wish, as long as it is civil and in good faith. Good luck with that in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Awickert for your good-faith, you have provided a through background as a response to a question, though this is not what the question is. I have posed the background||context question in multiple forms looking for one that conveys the message, apparently without success. The receivers (listeners) have repeatedly misinterpreted this request as some form of "[proving] that they are not a worthless nutter or a bigot". I could care less if they are either or more, some may argue we are all one or the other, or worse. It is simply context for language to facilitate communication. Granite07 (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As my background with respect to pole shift: I'm familaiar with Milankovitch cycles and True polar wander, and came to it through that angle. I have little to no knowledge with respect to cataclysmic speculation, though I have been reading a little bit on them lately. Awickert (talk) 07:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

edits
User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim

Mediation
I'm not quite sure I understand your last comment about the sticking point to closing the case as resolved. Could you clarify? Thank -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As filing party, I would prefer to have your decision as to whether we mark this case as closed (resolved) or withdrawn. Could you indicate whether or not you agree that the discussions on the talk page of the article have brought this case to resolution or not, or whether you prefer to withdraw? -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Virtual Design and Construction
There are significant chunks of text in the article on Virtual Design and Construction (created December 2007), that match that on the CIFE homepage (which states that it was last edited January 2007). If the text has been copied, then you either need to rewrite it, quote it or in some other way attribute it. If you want to maintain the definition, then you may want to quote it, but the rest of the text should probably be rewritten. See Plagiarism for the guidelines. If, however, you are the original author, and CIFE has copied you, then you may want to contact them to make attribution. Best regards, Muchado (talk) 06:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note that the VDC page contains significant correlation with the CIFE website. You may notice that the entire section VDC Project Model is in quotes. And, obviously the introduction is a summary of the page, which as previously noted is quoted in its entirety from (Kunz & Fischer 2007). I realize the message you posted to my talk page is an automated posting since a human would not have failed to notice this distinction. Nice bot you have working for you! Granite07 (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that I do not have a bot working for me and that every word was lovingly hand-crafted by a real human being, although I agree that the style was a little stilted, and perhaps I could have softened it. It was not my intent to insult you. It remains that the bullet points at the beginning of the VDC article, which are not in quotes (and precede the section you mentioned), are identical to those on the CIFE web-site. It is therefore highly likely that either you copied them, or they copied you. I appreciate the fact that you have gone to the trouble to create a page to cover VDC, but it seems that significant chunks of it are simply taken from the CIFE site, with or without attribution. I am now aware that you are at Stanford (as per one of your postings), but I don't think that this would prevent complaints from arriving at Wikipedia from Stanford due to what could be considered "plagiarism". I agree that "plagiarism" is difficult to pin down, and I can see why you might argue that this is not the case with the VDC article, but it seems that this is not the first time that people have commented on this in your articles. Presumably your unwarranted ad hominem attack on me is due to your sensitivity from previous incidents. I would suggest that the likelihood is that you need to adjust your style in some way. Muchado (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct on all three points. The citations were in text and now are cited using the wiki format, sorry you missed them. 128.12.170.114 (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Urban dictionary
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit at Chav because it was sourced to Urban Dictionary, which is not a reliable source per WP:USERGENERATED. There was also a discussion about it a few years ago found at Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 37. Seen there, the site's owner was quoted as saying that ''Urban Dictionary doesn’t require definitions to be objective or factual. Lots of definitions are extremely subjective or provably wrong!...It wasn’t heavily researched or fact-checked...There are a lot of joke definitions.'' Apparition11  Complaints / Mistakes  18:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure tell yourself that; just admit my edits to chav were to close to the truth for you.Granite07 (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Concow Plantation Grading.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Concow Plantation Grading.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Careful
Did you not see that an administrator placed a page protection template regarding the very controversial text you just re-added here. Where is your talkpage discussion? I recommend you self revert.--MONGO (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Your last effort of arbitration was also declined here. Arbitration does not resolve content disputes...it examines editor behavior almost exclusively. The normal way these sorts of things are decided are to engage productively on the article talkpage and if there is a problematic editor, report instead to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Arbitration is the last resort.--MONGO (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first step was to accuse me of gross violations of the Wikipedia community and threaten me with being banned, how is that productive discussion? Further, you compeletely ignored everything I discussed. We shouldn't be talking without a mediator, this is what they are for. I feel deeply hurt by your unwarranted and continued attacks Granite07 (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are not listening to anyone all of which have been relatively helpful. Numerous editors have told you the arbitration case should be withdrawn, other editors have told you the material you wish to include appears to be original research and or a violation of WP:SYN. My suggestion is you craft a better worded more neutral piece and recommend that at the article talkpage.--MONGO (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You want a revised proposed text posted in the talk? Is that what you wanted this entire time? You could have just said that. I have done exactly what I have been told to. It is hugely inappropriate for anyone at an admin to tell an editor to remove an arbitaration request Granite07 (talk) 22:32, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Case
You need to withdraw it. It will be rejected anywhere, due to the lack of any prior attempts at dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 20:07, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi, on this arb.com case you write that MONGO is an admin. He isn't. Please strike that statement, Huldra (talk) 20:36, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

You should really stop litigating this at WP:ARC. Your case will not be accepted, and nothing will come of it other than annoying other editors. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In a recent comment on the arbitration case you filed, you wrote that "admins" were "pressuring" you to withdraw the case. That's wrong on several counts.  First, people are not "pressuring" you, they are experienced editors and observers of the arbitration process who are advising you that withdrawing the case would be a good thing to do, because the chances of its being accepted are nil, and doing so will allow you to focus on discussion about the issue in question on the article talk page -- which, at this point, is the proper venue.Second, the majority of people so advising you are not admins, they are rank-and-file editors such as myself.  Here in this comment thread, for instance, only JzG is an admin.  So, big-bad admins aren't trying to muscle you, your fellow editors are trying to help you.  You really need to take a breath, step back from your emotions, and think about the impression you're creating, which, frankly, is not a very good one at all. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Compeletely understand. You misread my post, it says editors. It does not say admin. I thanked the admin for their input. This is the post you are referring to, "Please be aware that several editors more or less have posted on my talk page demanding that I remove this arbitration request."Granite07 (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Your time is appreciated all around. While I understand you feel the arbitration process is the wrong approach I do not know nor has an alternative been suggested (one was but when I tried to follow that advice I was threatened with being banned for asking for assistance in two locations). Please see the situation here. In many of my attempts at collaboration and discussion it has resulted in being told I did it wrong and I will be banned. I have a simple question, can cited and relevant content be deleted by another editor without discussing? This isn't new territory for Mongo, his talk page has several posts relating to it. I have dedicated my entire day to working this out and have tried my best to do what is right and fair and in the best interest of Wikipedia. I have no animosity or any poor feelings about this process. It is the editorial process and it is working to my satisfaction. The arbitration seems to have worked fine. Granite07 (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * (1) Please stop making remarks about MONGO. Comment on edits, not on editors.
 * (2) The arbitration did not "work fine". You brought to ArbCom a matter that was manifestly unripe for their consideration, multiple experienced editors suggested that you withdraw it, and you're still making the Committee go through the process of turning you down, which they will.  That's hardly "collaboration", that's digging your feet into the dirt and refusing to budge.
 * (3) The place for determining consensus on this issue is, and always has been, the article's talk page. You gave up on that much too soon.  Currently, the consensus there is against you, but that can change as things develop.  Answer the comments that have been posted there, and try to convince other editors that your position is the correct one to take.
 * (4) If that comes to nothing, your next step is dispute resolution, but not until you have exhausted the article talk page. You are nowhere near to doing that yet. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I agree with everything in the talk page. It looks good. There isn't much for me to add. I didn't see that discussion had gotten going. You are correct, this is exactly what we should do, " "The fire has raised again concerns about..." along with citations to that discussion being brought up specifically about this fire. Anything more than that -- unless this fire has something inherently special about it which makes it highly relevant to that issue -- I believe goes too far away from the article's subject." Let's do that and be done. Who makes the edit? You? MONGO? Someone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Granite07 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * At this point you have one editor (me) who has opined that they can probably support such an addition, but you do not have a WP:CONSENSUS in support of it, so no edit should be made at all, by anyone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * What do we do if MONGO never responds? We can't make them reply? If after 24 hours they don't comment can we go with our consensus? Do I need to open another dispute resolution on the new topic of nonresponsive to consensus? Granite07 (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CONSENSUS --it's not a simple matter of counting noses. I don't believe you have a consensus right now, and I suggest you not make any changes to the article without a clear consensus to do so. You could write up something -- a short, sourced paragraph specific to the Camp Fire -- and post it to the talk page, then ping MONGO and see if they'll agree to it.  I wouldn't get my hopes up, though.  It's just that it's sometimes easier to get someone to agree to a concrete proposal than to a theoretical one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No, please do not ping me...I have the article watchlisted.--MONGO (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Camp Fire arbitration case request
In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

Disputes among editors regarding the content of an article should use structured discussion on the talk page between the disputing editors. However, requests for comment, third opinions and other venues are available if discussion alone does not yield a consensus. The dispute resolution noticeboard exists as a first point of call for disputes that are not resolved by discussion, and the Mediation Committee provides formal mediation for advanced content disputes.

In all cases, you should review Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact a member of the community if you have more questions. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, the arbitration process was valuable. It looks like through that process there is a proposal for a solution. No, there isn't a consensus, it was just Ken. It is what it is. Too bad. Best regards. Granite07 (talk) 04:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Last warning
I asked you to stop linking my username in your posts. If you do not stop this I will file a complaint at AN/I.--MONGO (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Glad to comply. Sorry for the misunderstanding. told me to communicate and collaborate with you. I had not pinged you again on the thread you asked me to leave you off of (your user name was ref with   not ping). The ping is from a new thread for the wildfire template edit as you are the lead editor for wildfire--it was an entirely new topic. You won't be pinged again. Granite07 (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of construction trades, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roofing ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_construction_trades check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_construction_trades?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you bot; I will fix thatGranite07 (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 16:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 15:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely, RMaung (WMF) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cadwork informatik AG, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Industrial ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Cadwork_informatik_AG check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Cadwork_informatik_AG?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Hello, I'm DIYeditor. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Elon Musk, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —DIYeditor (talk) 04:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You also made this edit, with the edit summary: "Unsourced content--an editor reverted an earlier edit and claimed this content is sources in the body. It is not sources in the body. Elon Musk never attended Stanford, there is no verified record of their attendance at Stanford." and this edit with the edit summary: "Uncited content; the cited source is uncited." But, as far as I can see, the existing sources do support that claim. So I have opened a discussion thread at Talk:Elon Musk. Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I looked for Elon_Musk#Stanford but I don't see it: I can't find anything by other than his own word that he attended Stanford: it is doubtful he did at least as a PhD because that just isn't how it works (Master student on day one, PhD requires a qualifications exam after about two years if graduate study). Claiming anything else makes you sound like a lame poser: I deleted it in Musk's best interest so his kids are not embarrassed for him ... Granite07 (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Ways to improve Worker Standards Board
Hello, Granite07,

Thank you for creating Worker Standards Board.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"I'm reviewing the article for New Page Patrol. I see you've worked on this for a long time. A few observations that you might like to consider: 1. The article comes across as an advocacy essay, describing how you hope for Worker Standards Boards to be, rather than an encyclopedia article that describes how things are.  2.  While you're clearly writing from a US perspective, it's not clear at all in what countries you believe Worker Standards Boards exist. Some of the international references are pretty tenuous examples - for instance, for those of us old enough to remember them, Wage Councils in the UK didn't function at all in the manner of your "Workers Standards Boards"."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of San Jose City Council District 6 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article San Jose City Council District 6, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/San Jose City Council District 6 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Too bad it was deleted, it was a good page and the history of the district too quite a bit it time to research, cite, and write concisely--it is now lost... Granite07 (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)