User talk:Sdedeo

archive contains earlier material from the talk page; August 2005 -- February 2006. Sdedeo (tips) 20:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

archive2 contains earlier material from the talk page; March 2006 -- June 2006. Sdedeo (tips) 23:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

archive3 contains earlier material from the talk page; June 2006 -- September 2006. Sdedeo (tips) 22:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

archive4 contains earlier material from the talk page; September 2006 -- January 2007. Sdedeo (tips) 23:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

archive5 contains earlier material from the talk page; January 2007 -- October 2007. Sdedeo (tips) 17:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please post new comments to the bottom of the talk page; I will almost always respond to comments on this page itself (makes comments easier to find -- I encourage you to do the same) so check back! Sdedeo (tips) 22:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General intelligence factor

Don't turn this into an edit war. Please explain your wikilinking of The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications, in contradiction to Wikipedia standards for links to an article which do not add content or meaning. Do you honestly think there will ever be a Wikipedia article with that title? And please start using appropriate edit summaries. Thank you. Ward3001 16:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted my deletion after finding a new article for the wikilink. What I find ironic and even mystifying, is that you wrote an essay for Wikipedia on resolving conflict, yet you decided to deal with this issue by making a personal attack ("grumpy person") rather than providing adequate edit summaries which could have avoided the confusion in the first place. Ward3001 17:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Ward; you were being grumpy, and I called you on it. Now that I've created the article, I don't anticipate further conflict. Sdedeo (tips) 17:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flagged revs

Thanks for your nice note. I hope the idea is dead, but I'm afraid that the next Seigenthaler-style hoohah will push it through. Anyway, nice to know that somebody besides Larry Sanger reads the blog! Casey Abell 19:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Theories

If you wish to amuse yourself (and possibly me) by sharing your hypotheses, you are welcome to email me as [my username] (all one word, no caps or spaces) at btinternet.com Myopic Bookworm (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:2005riot shooting.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:2005riot shooting.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) 04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Brattlebororeformer.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Brattlebororeformer.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stonewalldb.gif listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Stonewalldb.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

2nd nomination for deletion: Heim theory

Hi - an article you contributed to has been nominated for deletion. Feel free to comment. Thanks, Maschen (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Quis-ego for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Quis-ego 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quis-ego until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. —me_and 14:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of New Wittgenstein for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article New Wittgenstein 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Wittgenstein until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. DGG ( talk ) 23:53, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]