User talk:Lumos3
|
|
Welcome
I am very happy to see another business specialist making positive contributions to our 'opedia. There are currently a little more than 700 business and economics articles. However, we are weak in Human Resource Management. Your expertise will be appreciated. The following is a set of lists that will show you the current state of the 'opedia.
- list of information technology management topics
- list of management topics
- list of computing topics
- list of marketing topics
- list of Internet topics
- list of economics topics
- list of finance topics
- list of accounting topics
- list of human resource management topics
- list of business law topics
- list of production topics
- list of business ethics, political economy, and philosophy of business topics
- list of business theorists
- list of economists
- list of corporate leaders
- list of companies
When you write an article, feel free to add a link to your article in any appropriate lists. This will help people find your articles. mydogategodshat 08:27, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)
| Contents |
London commuter belt
Hi. I noticed you've added to this article some things - great. Unfortunately, some of them seem to be actually part of Greater London, and therefore are inconsistent with the list's introduction, which defines the LCB as excluding this area. If we added places that used to be part of the LCB, but are now considered 'London', this list would grow enormously, and there would be no reason why not to include Croydon or even Southwark. Any thoughts? Morwen 20:00, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
Camu Camu
Hi Lumos3. I agree with the action to use Camu Camu instead of CamuCamu, but wonder why you did not use the "Move this page" feature which would have preserved the history with the article. WormRunner 22:56, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Reference
Hi there,
I noticed you changed one of the references on the Bureau des Longitudes page to correspond with the correct citation of a book. The reason that this reference was not cited in the correct format of a book originally is that the reference wasn't the book itself, but instead a lecture by the book's author. I'm not sure how this would be properly cited. Any input would be appreciated.
Cheers
Acegikmo1 00:00, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
You've got mail!
This is my standard reply on these classification systems. They are first of all for the benefit of the public so that they can objectively compare all the various CAM articles with each other. Next, the infoboxes are here to make the science people happy. Let them have their way on this one. This will put an end to the edit wars. Anybody truly interested in orthomolecular medicine will ignore these classifications anyway. Your benefit will come from being able to fully articulate the orthomolecular medical viewpoint. Perhaps you should be restructuring the article so that some of the sub-topics can be supported with evidence? Have you fully articulated the orthomolecular medical viewpoint in the article? Just let the public decide what they will do with the information contained in this article. -- John Gohde 03:21, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket
I see you have recently contributed to the article cricket. May I invite you to a new WikiProject to improve the quality and depth of cricket articles on Wikipedia. It's located on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket. I'm taking the approach of let's see who's interested and let's see which bits we want to improve/expand to begin with. Once we know that, hopefully we can work together to improve Wikipedia's cricket coverage. jguk 16:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
- Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
- Multi-Licensing Guide
- Free the Rambot Articles Project
To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:
- Option 1
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
OR
- Option 2
- I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
- {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}
Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Ram-Man&action=edit§ion=new)| talk)
Astrology
An attempt is being made to remove all content on astrology from the articles on the planets. If you have time, please review the entry on Jupiter and put it on your watchlist. ShutterBugTrekker 17:20, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
New Age
Thank you so much for noticing the vandalism on New Age. This may be the first time it has happened. I check the article often but this anonymous 218. . . individual escaped my scrutiny. If the person can be traced to other vandalisms we all know what to do. BF 08:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm stunned at another major rewrite of New Age! The 218... person had their work saved in New Age/Revised and only 4 changes were made since. However, I find that people love to change the intro on New Age, and if let alone will proceed to make further changes, leading ultimately to what we tried to avoid when you 'saved' the article from that rewrite recently. I know everyone is free to edit any page, but how can a cited article be used for reference when people are changing content away from the longtime meaning and intent? I'm beginning to lose interest now that these recent white-out overwrites have occurred. I should have requested the page be protected right after it was cited. BF 17:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But guardian angels need some time off too! The article looks fine, now. The recent picayune "enhancements" are more of the same— editor's personal taste, preferences, choice of style— rather than adding new information and new ideas. This recycled past to do with the article makes one wonder about in-house fighting, edit wars, and inappropriate behavior by random forces who need to retain those who blindly live in "The Matrix". The Diane Brandon Metaphysical Gnostic quote was white-outed; she personally gave permission to use her website, and now it's just a link-to. Would you request the article be locked down for several weeks, until the dust settles? I know doing this might imprison the text. However if someone really wanted to edit during that time they could ask for the 'keys' BF 16:13, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
sigh... makes an angel wish for Aquarius' Spring appearance over Giza 95 yrs early. the magdalene's also working overtime since the da vanci code. ok ok back to work! BF 18:33, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I accept your style Lumos now that only some great lines were left I wrote originally remain. It is *your* article now. This is only about tastes and preferences. When I began the article you weren't here. I am happy you guard New Age and I hope you read all the old talk archives, so you can understand what happened from the beginnings. As far as citing, I will ask that the citing source be able to find the exact article cited, back in time. When someone happens to check the cited source and click onto Wiki, a history link showing the article 'at the time' would be helpful someplace within the article so the curious reader will see the state in history and understand why it was worth citing. BF 01:55, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Votes for Deletion: February 15, 2005
Three VfD's are taking place on key Project of Alternative Medicine articles.
I am contacting you because you have in the past made edits to Terms and concepts in alternative medicine. And, I would hate to see all your efforts to improve this article be wasted because other editors voted to delete it.
I need you to vote to KEEP the following.
Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_terms_and_concepts_used_in_alternative_medicine This article is extremely important to our project.
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of miscellaneous topics related to alternative medicine
And, vote to REDIRECT the following.
Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Philosophy of alternative medicine
Please vote in favor of the Project on Alternative Medicine today, before it is too late.
- -- John Gohde 15:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Character set damage
You're apparently using editing tools which mess up some characters. Maybe you're using Microsoft tools with Smart Quotes enabled. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Solar_power&diff=prev&oldid=15179692 (SEWilco 16:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC))