User talk:Mathrick

. . . . . . . . ____
. . . .,,--` ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ` ' -,
. -`; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;¯\
.,; ; ; ;; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; \
(; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;`\
.\; ; ; ; ; ; __,,---,,__ ; ; ; ; ; ;}
. |; ; ; ; ; / . . . . . . . . }; ; ; ; ; /
. .\ ; ; ; / . ,.-., . . ,-., .\ ; ; ;/
. . . `| . . . .`` .\ . . `` . .| )`
. . . . .\ . . ,- .c _, `-, .|
. . . . .`| . . .oz##zo . `
. . . . . .|. \. . . ¯``¯. . ./
. . . . . / -, _ `.¯¯¯ . . ,\ ,
- .` . .\ . - . . `- ¯ /;;\ . .| `'--.,,__
. . . . . \ . . . . . \` \;;;;\` |. . . . . - . ```--_
. . . . . .\`-,`-., . \ .\;;/ ./ . . ./ ``. . . . . . .` `\
. . . . . . \ . . . . . . \|;;;\/. . . /. . . . . . . y/ . . ..\
. . . . . . .\ . . . . . . .\;/ . . . . . . . . . . /`. . -`. . . \
. . . . . . . .\. . . __ ./ . __ . _____ . y . . . `'. . . .-,
. . . . . . . . . ./``. . ``'" / . .|` \ . . . . . .```` . . .---.,, .\
. . . . . . . . . .\ . . . . . . |``| . .| . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
. . . . . . . . . -`` .`` . - .¯¯ ```-----,,,._______ . . . ./
\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .__ .-`. . . . . . .````
. ` ` \ . . . . . . . __ . . .- - - --` `. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . .`````` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . T A L K ' S . . . . . . C L O S E D. . . .

Wikipedia isn't here to publish information that hasn't already been covered in a reliable source. If there are no reliable sources (excluding the project's own webpages) that covers Waf, then it is considered original research and it is not notable enough for inclusion here. See Wikipedia's verifiability policy for further information on the standards for inclusion and how content must be verifiable. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See notability guidelines - particularly the "rationale" section: "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources." Simply saying that a user could Google for the information is not enough - reliable sources must be provided in the article. This is covered in WP:V. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I know or do not know about the topic is irrelevant. WP:V is policy, and it states:

| Information on Wikipedia must be reliable and verifiable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

If the article does not prove that the subject is notable, citing reliable source, then it fails inclusion criteria. Right now, the only reference provided is the website of the software. That really doesn't prove anything. I could easily write a program and create a website for that program, but it certainly wouldn't be Wikipedia material. The fact is, articles need other sources to prove notability.

Please note that I am not listing the article for deletion at this time. All I have done is tagged the article indicating that it doesn't provide sufficient sources. If you do not want to or cannot do this yourself, feel free to just leave the tag there for another editor to review and perhaps improve. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why did you move Kagetsu Tohya to Kagetsu Tohya without discussing it

please reply

Please read review comments in the "discuss" area. Also, I am not questioning whether the article is clear to yourself after your rewrite. However, it is not acceptable to most reviewers. I still suggest you put your article to your personal blog and have only a link in the restored article (and the "dependency injection" article as well) to express your different opinion. Thanks!

Voretus^talk 16:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you've seen this article, but would you stop by the AfD page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/SocialPicks to offer your opinion on whether the article subject is notable? Thanks. Dimension31 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for taking an interest in this article. I rv'd your edit partly as you had made a substantial change and marked it as minor, and partly as the change unbalances the lead. It has been a long term problem to get the balance right, so please keep cracking on! I will have a go now, feel free to bash it about of course! Springnuts (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. A little wholesale in dismissal of Matthew as 'credible' maybe ... ? However, the trouble with using "supposed" is that the article then falls down on the unhistorical side of the fence. So, I had another go - see what you think. The aim as ever is dispassionate NPOV - the extremists on either side will never be satisfied of course! Springnuts (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Danish and Norwegian alphabet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Numeral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Compartment syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swelling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thunderbolt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rostrum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mathrick, how do you feel about moving Old Frankish to Frankish language, as suggested in the RM? I think your opinion would be the difference between a move and a no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Freedom From Religion Foundation, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Juan Mendez and Steve Benson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit? The text could not be correct, since it's self-contradictory:

The scope of practice of osteopathic practitioners varies by country. In general, osteopaths are trained outside of the U.S., are not physicians, and are limited in practice to non-invasive manual therapies, and may provide nutritional, postural, and other health advice. Conversely, U.S. trained osteopathic physicians practice the entire scope of modern medicine.

If the text is trying to refer to the differing terms as used in the US for that reason, then it's structured wrongly and confusingly. The lead is for ostheopathy, and it shouldn't rely on information it has yet to introduce to be comprehensible. Either way, it needs rewriting. mathrick (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the problem is that there are no osteopaths trained in the United States, only osteopathic physicians. The wording in general osteopaths trained outside of the United States implies that some may be trained in the United States and that is simply not the case. If you wish to reword the sentence to make it clearer for a broader audience (this is the first I'm hearing of this particular sentence confusing anyone), be my guest. I'll be sure to take a look, but it's incorrect as it currently stands and was correct before (technically possible for someone to be an American-trained physician DO or MD and then decide to obtain additional training in Europe in an osteopathy program, but it needs to be clear that osteopaths and osteopathic physicians are not the same thing). If you can reword the sentence to suit your needs while still adequately conveying this point, then I won't object. Also, the rest of that paragraph goes on to explain the differences for anyone unfamiliar with the difference between osteopathic physicians and non-physician osteopaths. I can't say I understand where the confusion is coming from. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siping (rubber), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Density altitude, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page QFE. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent edit to the page Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. - BilCat (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Eli Thompson (skydiver), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BASE. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Storage area network, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caching. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]