User talk:Gruntler

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 on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Victuallers (talk) 09:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Honey, I Shrunk the Enron Section
Shrinking is OK. Amputation is not. In pretty definite violation of WP:PRESERVE, you threw out the bulk of the citations I'd come up with to support what I'd written. Those took a lot of work, and all are relevant.

Now, if you'd briefly paraphrased my extensive quote from "The Ascent of E-Man", you could have done some serious shrinking right there. And perhaps much of the rest could have been significantly reduced. But you actually *threw out* the cite for "The Ascent of E-Man". Why? If you left it as a footnote, the section would be a few characters longer. But for readers' purposes of making their own judgments about an essay Sullivan called a "glowing puff-piece", considerably better: readers could easily find the source mentioned and come to their own conclusions. (As it is, the title of that essay is not found in the writings of those critics who called it a puff-piece, and I haven't seen it linked either. Hm.  You can suppress information if you're Andrew Sullivan, but please: not on Wikipedia.

I will not revert your edit. When I get time, I'll go over it and restore as many (non-problematic) citations as I can, with much briefer development of the topic. Yakushima (talk) 04:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I know it's hard to shrink it, with all those refs -- and I do refs sloppily to begin with, so I didn't exactly make things easier. There's always the sandbox.  I'll stand back for a day and let you chew on it, then take up any issues I might have with your changes on the Talk pages (or perhaps more safely, here). I'm bogged down in amplifying and providing citations for the actual pro-market (SHOCK, HORROR*) stances of the supposedly ultra-leftist Paul Krugman, in the section on New Trade Theory.  So I'm busy anyway. Yakushima (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
It seemed like we were starting to work together, and I was looking forward to it, but I just can't keep going with Paul Krugman. I've left thank-you notes on Rd232's talk page, and LK's as well. I think you deserve one, too, for putting up with me. Yakushima (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC at WT:ECON
I've reformulated the proposed guidelines based on your and other's comments. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and further comment there. Thankyou, --LK (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

construction equipment theft
Nice beginning on re-writing the article from an objective standpoint. Now that this isn't one of the many "faux articles" designed around spam links, I'm going to withdraw my nomination for AfD based on your hard work. Regards. -- Oliver  Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 00:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Parity
Thanks for participating in the debate about deleting Fowler-Noll-Vo hash function. I think you convinced me that the cure for article bloat is a crash diet, but not the editor's ax. I've since cut down Jenkins hash function by removing references to a dead external source. In the interest of parity, do you think we should leave MurmurHash dead or bring it back in abbreviated form? Phil Spectre (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

BSCCO
Thanks for your hard work cleaning up the BSCCO, Bednorz, and Muller articles! Kudos to you! Brownsteve (talk) 05:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words! Gruntler (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

HTSC
Thanks for making me think, for which I'm having less and less time recently. Please keep in mind this problem of mine and do not hesitate to drop a message. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 06:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

MurmurHash again
Since you were involved in the FNV AFD, you would probably be interested in this one. Phil Spectre (talk) 00:22, 15 November 2009 (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) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (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) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!