User talk:Whosasking

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi. Whosasking 04:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing the copyright infringement + rewriting the article for Cerberus Capital Management. I am not sure how it got in there...

Killerdark 23:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Whosasking 00:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Waste homeostasis

Thanks for merging Waste homeostasis with Rebound effect (green marketing). However, you neglected to move the full content including the refernce to the Macleans article over to the latter article. Please complete the merge without loss of information. Thanks. --Jrsnbarn 22:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Whosasking 01:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you should dispense with the Harvard style reference. (I have gone back and kept it.) It would be more helpful if you could reference some of the material you have added with footnotes in the same manner. Fact checking is much easier when the references are in the context of the artice rather than embedded in a bibliography. --Jrsnbarn 04:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NATLFED

I've unilaterally rewritten the page on the National Labor Federation, a contentious political group for which very few people seem interested in, and for which most of the edits seem decidedly for or against the activities of the group. I hope we can start a discussion about the scope of the article (and resolve my question of whether the rewrite was an improvement or not). The discussions in the past have been more arguments about the facts rather than discussions about the encyclopedic aspects of it.

I might venture the opinion that the facts about the group (and what we can quote people saying about the group) inform people about it more effectively than exaggeration. This blog, on a reading of the NATLFED page in February], calls it "possibly biased." I believe we can do better.

Leave comments here, if you wish. Whosasking 03:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Satellites

From the articles I looked at, it appeared as if enough satellites were non-NRO (i.e., Air Force) that a separate category was warranted. Paul 02:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. My editing style is somewhat quick-and-dirty, i.e. categorize a billion things in five minutes. Sourcing all that would be a pain although I find that having more specific categories makes articles more navigable and thus clarifies the subject matter. If I have some time it would be a worthwhile thing to work on. Best, Paul 04:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Would you be interested in joining the Wikipedia Crime Project?

I have seen that you like to contribute to serial killer articles I am trying to organize a task force on this subject under Wikipedia:WikiProject Criminal Biography. If you would be interested in joining contact me. Thanks, Jmm6f488 20:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Sorry, you'll have to count me out. Whosasking 20:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent work!

Just saw this edit - very good! Keep up the good work. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DTO logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:DTO logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] carbon-14

I thought that we had arrived to an agreement some time ago. See the discussion around the paragraph"Yes. The wiki article is not a lab manual. Readers who want to do their own measurements can read the details in the NIST site. Also, this article doesn't need to overlap with info in the radiocarbon dating article. Jclerman 22:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)"

[edit] your natlfed edit

Thank you for removing the two links that were in violation of wiki guidelines.

BTW, I've placed on my user discussion page a link to your CHA article that is not another encyclopedia. You might consider adding a link in the references section! It's too bad I wasn't around when the article was deleted by wiki -- I would have fought to continue it!

Wishing you the best, karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NATLFED article sources on my user-talk page

Thank you for providing the short synopsis on each article source on my user page. I've added a little more on a second line to most of them. karl m {{User electrical engineer}} (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)