User talk:Marknen

Hi Marknen, and welcome to the Wikipedia. It's a fantastic place and I hope you decide to stick around. People can be a little abrupt sometimes here, but that's mostly because we tend to get our noses so buried in topics of interest that we forget to take the time to oil the social wheels now and then. Nevertheless, the 'pedia community is diverse and very friendly, and you can nearly always find someone to help out with anything you need to know.

It's great to see you have an interest in reptiles. We have a stong little group of expert bird people here, and several of us are not bad at mammals, but the cold-bloded taxa really need some work. I've been moonlighting a little in snakes and fish lately, but it's not an area I know a great deal about, though I'm trying to learn as I go along. (You might have seen my work on Australian copperhead and American copperhead yesterday.)

I better mention that there is some occasionally heated controversy here about naming conventions for fauna. So far as birds and mammals go, the situation is clear: we use the recognised common name as the article title, capitalised in the usual way (see WikiProject Birds for more detail). The situation with reptiles, alas, is unclear. I suggest that for the time being you capitalise them as you think best, but don't be too surprised if someone comes along and changes your work without explanation.

With binomial names and with groups of animals (e.g., "swans" or "Australian copperheads"), the conventions are clear: binomial names go in italics and only the genus name is capitalised (e.g., Agkistrodon contortrix), and the group name is in lower case.

Don't worry too much about this stuff just yet. The main thing is to go on doing something about the gaping hole we have in the reptile pages. Someone else can always come along afterwards and deal with the minor details, and you will pick things up as you go along. Eventually, you get used to seeing your beautiful prose changed all the time, but it takes a while. Enjoy the 'pedia!

Cheers -- Tony (Tannin 02:45 7 Jun 2003 (UTC))

The Rich Gossage correction wasn't much; you had put in the right year (1951), but had entered the day of his first game rather than his birthday. But thanks for the note! MisfitToys

Howdy, Marknen. I modified the Cornelius Van Til entry again, but I left your (missing) link for Bahnsen in there. I would prefer to take it out because I'm not sure Bahnsen deserves his own page (original contributions don't spring to mind, but I'm certainly not an expert in his writings/lectures/debates) and because it looks a little odd since I added a few extra "influencees" who fall into the same category for me. What do you think? --Flex 16:36, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Let's move this discussion to Talk:Cornelius Van Til.

Sign your name
Please sign your name when you leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Spinboy 02:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Users talks: Marknens
Hi. I've absolutely had enough of that silly and soulless discussion about whether one isolated link should be referred to as link or links. I also have very strong doubts concerning people who unconditionally believe in authority rather than questioning the things they are asked to do first. (See User talk:Neilc/External links, where I referred to that weird phenomenon as willing executioner syndrome).

Re-reverting "external link" (where there is only one) to "external links" as you did on the Robert Schlumberger page should be beneath anyone who has ever edited a Wikipedia article. It means (re-)introducing a mistake for the sake of uniformity or whatever it is I cannot even fathom. I have been told within a period of a few hours now that "Link s " is "cannonical" [sic] and "the standard". It's certainly not my cannon or canon, and it's not my standard either.

I'm still waiting for someone to refer me to a page where this has been discussed (other than User:Neilc's user page, where he/she expresses his/her personal preference).

I've said so recently at Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians: It has repeatedly happened that those introducing such changes very soon lose interest in Wikipedia and are never heard of again. It might actually be more interesting to use one's time writing an article.  14:47, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, you will find a somewhat lengthy reply on my talk page. All the best,  16:26, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

User Categorisation
You were listed on the Wikipedians/Ontario page as living in or being associated with Ontario. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Ontario for instructions.--Rmky87 03:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Joseph Pipa


The article Joseph Pipa has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Unsourced and gives no indication of meeting WP:BIO or WP:ACADEMIC

While all 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. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Joseph Pipa
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Joseph Pipa. 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(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Joseph Pipa. 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.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of James White (theologian) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James White (theologian) 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/James White (theologian) 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Victor Schlatter


The article Victor Schlatter has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Victor Schlatter does not meet WP:Notability (people) under basic criteria, or as either an academic or creative professional. This is unlikely to change, considering he is deceased. I can find no independent sources whatsoever that discuss Schlatter or his work."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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.