Template:Archive box collapsible

I just proposed Binomial regression for deletion and noticed that you were the only other editor with a significant contribution, so I thought I would warn you. (The contribution is in this series of edits.) My concern is that it is not well written (and has been that way for more than a year), and the material is better covered at the well edited Generalized_linear_model#Binomial_data. I guess that if that section became too cumbersome for that page, we could move it to its own page. Cheers, PDBailey (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll take a look. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to our discussion on the NPOV policy talk page, I have posted a draft revision for the Undue section and would value your feedback. Cheers, Jayen466 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to be bold and rewrite Calculus on the Simple English wikipedia (which I note at one stage you'd considered doing), but due to offline factors have had to put it on hold for a couple of weeks until I have more time. If you have a spare moment could you have a look at the section on differential calculus in the article and see if it could be better summarised (as a separate article exists for it)? If you have any other suggestions or improvements that would be great. Thanks. Orderinchaos 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look, and I'd say it seems a little not so simple, but I like the structure. There is a stand-alone differential calculus article there, but it is basically a copy of the section, with additional computational sections. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood (said otherwise, your judgement was too rash): these were the vandalism reversions I referred to: [1] - [2] - [3]. Plain vandalism - which is something different than the sockpuppet abuse accusation made by Jmcc150 on the talk page (which was inappropriate there and was reverted by me, indicating that the 196.205.143.209 edits on the project page had been treated as plain vandalism, but that it is inappropriate to jump to a sockpuppet abuse accusation from there without a CU report). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see -- the topic of Jmcc's post was about vandalism, but the post itself was misplaced, or something like that. My sincere apologies for the misunderstanding :) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Baccyak4H, We are looking for help on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and eventually ‘Featured Article’ status. So, I though I would invite you to take a look. Any help would be much appreciated. Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 02:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look if I have a few spare minutes, but alas these days I cannot guarantee too much attention. But regardless, thanks for the heads-up. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denbot (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have given the Judaism section a big expansion, included a lot more stuff like the Synagogue visits, Auschwitz, Good Friday Prayer, Pius XII's canonisation and hopefully made the section more encyclopaedic. (I think the section still gives to much weight to Williamson...the real issue between Jews and the Vatican is Pius XII) Tell me what you think! Gavin (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I agree with your analysis about those topics and that the main issue now is the prose is so disjointed: it looks like it was written by many different writers :-) I'll be in and out for a while and I'll keep my eyes on it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from [[:{{{1}}}]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Says on deletion page to notify you as original objector of this.

"Lives" is a genuine card game that may not be as well known outside of the country but noetheless is important to its players. Other such card games are referenced already in Wikipedia (e.g. Irish Snap) and article is rewritten from its initial version which was admittedly poor and amateur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.129.64.244 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the note. I know nothing of the topic, but the style of the article was similar to many that people write when they really aren't being serious. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not very democratic in my opinion. How can you comment on a card game when you know absolutely nothing about it. Do you live in Dublin? Do you know that this game does not exist? I would guess No to both. How can I get this back online?Cardsclub (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were about the article, and only that. Feel free to improve the article -- it is pretty evident what is needed to do that (third party reliable sources demonstrating its notability). Let my know if you do, as well as the discussants at the AfD. People's opinions can change with the article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articel has since been deleted thanks to you. I did improve it and it was still deleted. Can you re-post it back up. Do you want me to name articles on wikipedia without reference. Are you going to delete all these as well? Should keep you busy for a while I would guess. Let me know if you will put the article back up. 212.129.64.244 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete it, nor could I by myself, merely brought it to others' attention, and I do not have the authority to undelete it. If you find any article without references, you can put "{{references}}" at the top; Lives was deleted not only because it had no references, but also because neither I nor at least one other editor could find any mention of it online. This strongly suggests that no references exist, at least online, to use at all. If you believe that to be the case about an unreferenced article, than deletion is indeed a plausible suggestion.

But here is what you can do. Start writing the page User:Cardsclub/Lives, and include references to good sources. Newspaper articles about local Lives clubs, books about card games, "According to Hoyle" or similar which have chapters on the game, or similar, are good examples. Once you have that, drop me a line and I'll provide some feedback. (Don't think you need to ask only me. You can solicit any editor you want; not all may respond but most know what a decently sourced article looks like.)

I apologize that your first experience has been as rocky as it has been, just please understand that writing about a card game where people "die" and whose rules are made up by what sounded to be descriptions of one's nonnotable friends does not endear you to those trying to write a respectable reference work. So take a few moments to get aquainted with how the project works; you'll find your experiences here much more rewarding. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed your recent edits to Yanni-related articles and just wondered if you had an opinion as to the inclusion of this article for deletion? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, just on a gnomish whim there, so no big interest, but I'll have a look. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and appreciate your expertise, one way or the other. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		I hereby present you with this barnstar in appreciation of your efforts to improve the Greenwich Village article. Keep up the good work! JBC3 (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned this up and down graded to a PROD, but only because of the extensive filmography at IMDB. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. You actually ECed with me trying to do almost exactly what you did, per the creator's statement on the talk page. The online scavenger hunt thing got me going, but clearly there may be a salvageable bio here. Good job. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on adding references to the page.THD3 (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, saw it patrolling Newpages, clearly not speedily nonnotable but that type of content needs to be impeccably sourced. Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

A new editor has unilaterally made many drastic changes to the article Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics to which you have made contributions. I do not think that the changes are desirable. I do not want to start an edit war. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks. P0M (talk)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll have a look over the next few days. I will disclaim that I view "Introduction to..." type articles as editorial platypuses, as they seem in principle superfluous to the project (cf., Simple wikipedia). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. P0M (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a rewrite I have started.[[4]] It only concerns the material to be explained up to and including Heisenberg. It's still a little rough, and I would fix a couple of things except that I have to deliver somebody to an airport 45 minutes away and the lady wants me on her doorstep within the next two hours. (It's now 2:15 a.m.)

I would like to add one graphic element for each of the mysteries, starting with a helium light tube delivering (what appears to be) red light, a prism, and the bright line spectrum.

I wrote this all from memory, so I need to do some fact checking. When I wrote it a couple days ago I thought it looked pretty flat. Maybe it is not quite as leaden as I thought. Anyway, that is a question of style and editing for "snap." It is the ideas that were driving people like Heisenberg nuts in the early 1920s that we have to get across.

Thanks.

P0M (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]