Revision as of 14:59, 28 December 2012

RfA candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
RfB candidate	S	O	N	S%	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report

No RfXs since 10:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC).—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Messages, etc

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2; 3;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

(Please add messages below under a new level-2 heading).

Primary sources strongly discouraged

Hi Nouniquenames, I just needed to mention: Please do not use a primary source, like "Sutureless prepuceplasty with wound healing by second intention: An alternative surgical approach in children's phimosis treatment", to "counter" a secondary source. I've seen this happen a few times now with your edits at circumcision. Also, please don't use a religious primary text to support any article content anywhere. If you're unclear about primary vs. secondary sources, I can try to explain it in some detail if you'd like. Appreciate it... Hope you and yours have a great holiday. Cheers... Zad68 05:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the same to you! I tried to explain at the talk page both what I did and why. Hopefully the differences in our views as to the content of the article will improve it. Also, I do appreciate you addressing me with your concerns about my edits. Thank you! --No unique names 05:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, SandyGeorgia and I both replied with the same comment about how your last revert put back content supported by primary sources, and it's not what we're looking for. You're at three reverts there... you're an experienced editor and appear to be grooming for an RFA, so you don't need a template, but I'd like you to consider undoing your last revert and listening to what we're saying about the primary sources. I'm heading to bed, catch you later... Zad68 05:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It might be hard to get 3rr due to the difference in the versions and the good-faith attempt at changing the form to better accommodate concerns. That said, edit warring never helped an article. Once I finish my talk page comment there, I'll self-revert. --No unique names 05:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for butting in here. Just wanted to say I am surprised to see you, Nouniquenames, participating in what appears to be a medical dispute. You have been holding yourself out to be a telecom expert and have been heavily involved in discussion and nomination of those types of articles for deletion at wikpedia. Is there something I am missing? Are you an expert in those two fields? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:24, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never claimed to be an expert in either. Being an expert is unnecessary to look at (and for) sources. Interestingly, I do have formal training in both telecoms and medicine. Not saying I'd call myself an expert, just that I've some formal training combined with work experience. More of both with medical than telecoms, in fact. --No unique names 14:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another easy one

Hi Noun. You mentioned in the past you would be willing to help out with AfC/Request Edits that are easy. I wanted to point out the proposed re-write on the Talk page of JMP (statistical software). Both because the COI issue is easy, since we are making it dramatically less promotional and because you may have an opinion on my use of images as you have in the past.

We plan to take it to GA, so this is a first draft. Even now I'm seeing it could use a sentence about User Groups and a slightly shorter lead, but this will all come out in a Peer Review as GA preparation. CorporateM (Talk) 14:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you have any questions, let me know. Many of the sources for this kind of technical topic is less mainstream, so I submit it with somewhat of an expectation of discussing the sources. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 14:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 14:33, 28 December 2012 edit CorporateM (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 40,011 edits →Another easy one: new section ← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:59, 28 December 2012 edit undo CorporateM (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 40,011 edits →Another easy one Next edit →
Line 36:		Line 36:

	We plan to take it to GA, so this is a first draft. Even now I'm seeing it could use a sentence about User Groups and a slightly shorter lead, but this will all come out in a Peer Review as GA preparation. [[User:CorporateM\|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM\|Talk]]) 14:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)		We plan to take it to GA, so this is a first draft. Even now I'm seeing it could use a sentence about User Groups and a slightly shorter lead, but this will all come out in a Peer Review as GA preparation. [[User:CorporateM\|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM\|Talk]]) 14:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

			:Thanks. If you have any questions, let me know. Many of the sources for this kind of technical topic is less mainstream, so I submit it with somewhat of an expectation of discussing the sources. ;-) [[User:CorporateM\|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM\|Talk]]) 14:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)