User talk:PhiRho
|
== Abbreviations on Board of European Students of Technology ==
Hey PhiRo, could you explain why you removed the abbrevation of the VUB? This page is really packed with universities, and I'd like to keep it as condensed as possible. --Buschaot (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Benjamin Van Camp
[edit]
A tag has been placed on Benjamin Van Camp requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pumpmeup 09:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just went to check this out as it looks like a classic case of systemic bias. Because people are constantly putting up articles about themselves or their friends for a laugh or for self-promotion, any unreferenced article about somebody an American 15-25-year-old won't have heard of is liable to be deleted almost as a matter of course. From the edit history I'm guessing that the article was deleted and you posted it again. There are a couple of things you can do to prevent somebody deleting it a second time: one is putting in subheadings to make it obvious that there is notability (separately listing awards, honorary doctorates, positions held, publications, etc.), another is putting in a couple of references or links to secondary sources, a third is putting in links *to* the article from other articles on wikipedia. If the article is put up for deletion again, tag it
{{hangon}}(which will bring up the message "The speedy deletion of this page is contested.") and mention on the talkpage that the subject meets at least 4 of the 6 notability criteria for academics (and for all I know all 6). --Paularblaster (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Ghent University
[edit]Just reverted your edit to this article. You seem not to be aware that (in the sense in which you are using the term) the Catholic KUL is as "pluralist" as the Secularist VUB (to claim otherwise is pure POV); and in the sense that the (State) University of Ghent uses the term, neither is "pluralist". --Paularblaster (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Just answered your queries on my talk page --Paularblaster (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Sandbox
[edit]I see from the history log of the VUB article that you undertook numerous edits over the course of the last few days. It's easier (less disruptive for the article and less time-consuming for you) to create a page named User:PhiRho/Sandbox and do the work there, then move the finished article to the page it should be on. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
[edit]Hi Phi Rho. There were several reasons I removed links:
- Isolated years - there's no benefit to linking these. Years should be linked when they're part of a complete date, as it allows readers' formatting preferences to work (see WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking for a fuller explanation), but this doesn't apply to standalone years. And if a reader did follow the link (which isn't likely) they would find that the article about the year is just a ragbag of miscellaneous information unlikely to be of any relevance to someone interested in the Vrije Universiteit Brussel
- Ordinary English words, such as blue, white, advice, course, tuition, student - a reader of this article isn't going to want to follow a link for more information about the colour blue, for example
- Isolated months - no reader is going to follow a link for July, for example
- Centuries - same comment as for months and years. What would any reader gain from following the link to sixteenth century?
- Duplicate links - it's only necessary to link once per article in general - particularly for generally familiar terms like 'Brussels'; and it's definitely recommended not to link the same term twice in rapid succession, as with [[Flemish Community|Flemish]] - see WP:MOSLINKS#Internal links. Colonies Chris (talk) 20:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well I still think it's overlinked (e.g. ordinary words like student, industry, motto (twice), course, Belgium twice), but I'm happy to leave it to your judgment at this stage. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
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) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)