User talk:Wisq

Link: Cold War → Sixteen known nuclear crises of the Cold War

I am not ignoring the VfD process. Even if that article were to survive, it would not belong in the list of related articles in Cold War, which is a list of only the most important, broad related entries. It is not a list of any Cold War-related topic. If it were, the list would be longer than the entire article. Please remove the link. 172 15:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Each of the other articles listed in that section is a list of historical events that helped form and shape the Cold War. Similarly, the article in question, dubious as it may be, is a list of points where (according to the authors) the Cold War nearly broke into worldwide nuclear destruction. It's fairly related, I believe.

That being said, I actually agree with you to some degree. I don't know enough about the Cold War to say how believable or dubious the information is, but regardless, we should not be including controversial or suppositional (e.g. nuclear threat "implied") data based on only a single anti-nuclear biased reference. I would prefer that the list be substantiated or properly "NPOV debated" (all sides presented), but that seems unlikely, so I am marginally in favour of deletion or merging into the relevant "group" related page (either Veterans Against Nuclear Arms or David R. Morgan), rather than Cold War related page.

In the case of delete or merge, I would also advocate removing the link, and I'm sure most everyone else would agree. I was simply concerned because I had been watching an edit war going on for a while, largely between only two people. My third (non-expert) opinion was that we should let VfD take its course, erring on the side of inclusion for now, and take appropriate action when an outcome is decided upon. I made that clear through my edits.

I know some of my edit summaries have probably come off a little harsh, but I guess that's because I was a little annoyed at all the back and forth editing, and also had limited space to make my objections clear. I do feel that the community needs to have its say and then action be taken, rather than the other way around — since in the end, the community is the deciding force in the matter, individual efforts notwithstanding. -- Wisq 21:01, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Keep a (special) watch on Monty Hall problem and talk page?

69.180.7.137 (talk · contribs) has been vandalizing the talk page and looks like he's likely to violate the 3RR on the article itself (he's already been warned about it.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

help clean up former "problems" section of terrorism.

of course the heading "problems" had been pretty unhelpful, but my new revisions could use a good second opinion, especially a bit of copyediting. care to land a hend? terrorism (first section).

thanks!

87.97.36.84 22:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Sorry message on wrong page - I've deleted it now. (should be User:Ashton Brood) see talk page history for details. sorry.HappyVR 20:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of romaji

If you read all of the discussion on the PS3 page before you commented, maybe you would have noticed I referenced the Japanese article on "Latin alphabet", one of it's names is romaji. I must confess I find it slightly irritating when people with little to no knowledge of the language write dead sure comments about what they think is the correct definition. Mackan 13:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single-system image

Hi. I see you spent some time editing the Single-system image page. Since it's such a scappy little thing I've been playing around with a partial rewrite, adding a citation and so on. It's at Talk:Single-system image/Rewrite If you're still interested could you let me know what you think. HughesJohn (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was feeling WP:BOLD so I've put up my new version of the single-system image page. Hope you like it. HughesJohn (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping of Plot in Saints Row 2

I have just spent fifteen minutes rewriting and cropping the plot section for Saints Row 2. Please see WP:PLOTSUM and WP:NOTGUIDE for details and do not make lengthy plot sections - they are not encylopaedic. VG Editor (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Only known" precedent for INTERCAL

Hi, Wisq. I was reading the INTERCAL article, and I saw that in the Introduction section it states, "the only known precedent is a machine instruction in a Soviet mainframe computer BESM-6, released in 1967, that is effectively equivalent to INTERCAL's 'select' operator." I noticed there was no citation for the claim that this is the only known precedent, so I tagged that phrase and started hunting through the article history. I found that the information about the BESM-6 was added by an anonymous editor on 23 November 2004 [1], and you were the one who inserted the "only known" phrase on 25 April 2005 [2]. Do you have any references to support the claim that this is the only known precedent? If not, we should change the wording of that sentence. —Bkell (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2010 (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) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Wisq. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]