User talk:Tivedshambo/Archives/2006d

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tivedshambo is away until after Christmas. Talk page archives Home page — Talk page — Talk page archives Articles in preparation — Favourite articles — My images — My articles — My toolbox

Please note, this is an archive. Please leave messages in User talk:Tivedshambo, not here. To make it easier to follow conversations, I have put my comments (sometimes copied in from other talk pages) in italics.

Contents 1 signing new articles 2 G. Chaldakov article - atherosclerosis 3 List of SMS abbreviations 4 Incorrect Talk page 5 Mega 6 Gwernol's talk page

[edit] signing new articles

When we write up a new article are we allowed to sign the article using four tildes (Bradgouthro 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)) or are we only allowed to use this in the talk pages?

Bradgouthro 17:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Only talk pages and other discussion pages should be signed. Articles are left unsigned. Hope this helps. — Tivedshambo (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] G. Chaldakov article - atherosclerosis

Hi, I have removed your autobiography tag, because I am not Chaldakov, you can see my profile. However I had the chance to listen some of prof. Chaldakov's lectures, and they have changed my vision of science. I have tried to clear the entry from unnecessary biography, and have focused on science, and his contributions on atherosclerosis. Everyone wants to be considered as important scientist, however it is impossible to run back the time. Even if there are now millions of scientists how work on atherosclerosis, they cannot be pioneers in the field, but just followers. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 19:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of SMS abbreviations

The article now has an introduction and is above an abominable standard, so there is no need for RfD. Rintrah 07:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Accepted, but I hope you understand why I Prodded it. — Tivedshambo (talk) 10:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Talk page

I have copied your comments from Talk talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format to Talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft, as the former is an incorrect talk page, which I will nominate for deletion shortly. — Tivedshambo (talk) 17:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The one you copied it into is also incorrect, as it is the main Talk page for the article, not the proposed guideline. The Talk page I created for the proposed guideline is the one that the standard proposal template points to. I guess one of us must be confused here. Crum375 17:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the page you're looking for is talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format. Talk talk:List of notable accidents and incidents on commercial aircraft/Guideline for inclusion criteria and format has appeared in mainspace, and now has a talk page of it's own. Yes, it's confusing, but I can move your comments and Zntrip's to the correct page if you like. — Tivedshambo (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess the problem arose due to the link created by the 'proposed guideline/policy' template. Yes, obviously it should to into the proper space, but not into the main article's Talk page. Thanks, Crum375 17:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going off-net for a few hours now, but I'm sure some friendly admin can try to unravel this ;-)  — Tivedshambo (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

And as of now I am still not sure where the page should go, assuming it can't stay where it is. The link you posted in your message on my Talk page just points to the proposed guideline page itself, not its Talk page. Crum375 17:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I got your message about going offline - I just hope no one is going to delete the Talk page without finding the best new home for it. Crum375 17:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mega

The article has much better sourcing than last time. -- Avi 13:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It is the notability that I am questioning, not the sources. — Tivedshambo (talk) 13:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I roiginally thought so too, but other than the small group size (of which I am not a member by-the-by) I have come to think that it is notable. Further, a group focusing on a level approximately 600 times more selective than Mensa, for example, is bound to be much smaller. I do not think a speedy is called for for G4, because this is fundementally a different article, and I do not think a speedy is called for notability. If anything, the standard AfD should be used. -- Avi 14:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gwernol's talk page

Hi, I'm not Gwernol but I don't have anything better to do at the moment so I thought I'd save him some work. When blocking IPs, admins have the ability to block registered users using that IP as well or just anons. My suggestion would be to put {{SharedIP|NAME OF COMPANY}} at the top of the IP's talk page so admins know it's a shared IP which is likely to have legitimate users. If you want I can put an additional notice at the top of the talk page to clarify that there are legitimate users on that IP and blocks to it should always be anon-only. -- Steel 22:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Any additional clarification you can give would be appreciated. — Tivedshambo (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added that extra notice. Hopefully that's sorted everything out now. -- Steel 22:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. — Tivedshambo (talk) 22:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)