Hey there! Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like this place--I sure do--and want to stay. If you need help on how to title new articles check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and The FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump or The Reference Desk! Happy wiki-ing! Alexandros

Let me also welcome you to Wikipedia and add my thanks for your edits to the various beekeeping articles. I did just revert one of the edits you made on Africanized honeybee. You changed [[Almond]]s to [[Almond|almonds]]. I assume you were fixing the capitalization error which no one else seems to have caught. While that change works, the piped link can be confusing for future reader/editors. The easier way to fix it was to change [[Almond]]s to [[almond]]s.

Wikipedia's mark-up language automatically extends the link to all subsequent letters in the word. Thus, Almond, Almonds and Almondine all link to the same place (though the link does not extend for Almond's because of the apostrophe). You can confirm that by floating your mouse over the link briefly. Second, while capitalization is important for Wikipedia links, they turned that requirement off for the first letter. Almond and almond both link to the same place though aLmond does not.

I hope I'm not being too forward sharing a tip that took me a while to figure out. Thanks again for your help. Rossami (talk) 14:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You are making a lot of good changes to Karla Homolka. Are you going to update Paul Bernardo? He was convicted for life of the crime but the story is only detailed on the Karla Homolka page. - Tεxτurε 19:04, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just noticed an edit you made (edit to [[1]]). I think you should check it. "Whom" is not a correct replacement in all cases for "who" .

"The person who wrote the book" (as an example) is correct. "The person to whom I gave the book" is correct (who is also acceptable). In this case, your change doesn't seem correct, as the "who" isn't the recipient of an action. Hope that's understandable. Cheers. DavidH 21:17, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Saw your response; not absolutely convinced, because I'd parse it this way:

"The aircraft company described the employee as the one who did something" rather than "the one to whom something was done."

This, I suppose, is one reason why so many grammarians now accept "who" in all cases; even people who study language and write for a living (as I do) can become confused. Also, I'm an American writer, and it just isn't drilled into us to use "whom" except in phrases such as "to whom am I speaking?" DavidH 21:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanx for the clean-up of the Operation Anthropoid!;) szalas

Thanks for your cleanup to the [[James Dean] article.  :)

Monkeyman^(talk) 03:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was talking about this:

This guy is seriously messed up -- it's obvious just from listening to the song lyrics. They're so angry and mean-spirited. Of course, if somebody abandoned you on the top floor of a flooded, uninhabitable home, you might be fucked up, too. --Rhombus 21:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From here. I took it off of the page. If you want to say stuff like that, go to a music forum. Arnesh 11:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This guy is seriously messed up -- it's obvious just from listening to the song lyrics. They're so angry and mean-spirited. Of course, if somebody abandoned you on the top floor of a flooded, uninhabitable home, you might be fucked up, too." isn't exactly "open discussion".
The policy doesn't lean towards comments like that, which don't help the article further along at all. You think that comment really helped the article? When it comes to this, I think it is best put as:
They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. or "Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues."

Also, did that comment do any of this at all? (Did you even read WP:TALK...?) Arnesh 21:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I just don't see how that comment can help the article. Also if a comment is "uncivil", you may remove it. WP:CIVIL and WP:CIVIL#Removing_uncivil_comments. My point is, that comment was unnecessary and offensive. It didn't do any of this at all.

Did it:

• Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you and you get a proper understanding of others. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why. Giving an opinion helps in convincing others and reaching consensus.

• Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal.

• Be positive: Article talk pages should be used for ways to improve an article, not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article. However, if you feel something is wrong, but aren't sure how to fix it, then by all means feel free to draw attention to this and ask for suggestions from others.

• Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their own different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how the different points of view obtained from secondary sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral and objective (which may mean including conflicting viewpoints). The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material. (For an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the m:Wikibate proposal.)

• Deal with facts: The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification. This includes asking for help to find sources, comparing contradictory facts from different sources, and examining the reliability of references. Asking for a verifiable reference to support a statement is often better than arguing against it.

• Share material: The talk page can be used to store material from the article which has been removed because it is not verified, so that time can be given for references to be found. New material can sometimes be prepared on the talk page until it is ready to be put into the article.

• Discuss edits: The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits. If one of your edits has been reverted, and you change it back again, it is good practice to leave an explanation on the talk page and a note in the edit summary that you have done so. The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale.

• Make proposals: New proposals for the article can be put forward for discussion by other editors if you wish. Proposals might include changes to specific details, page moves, merges or making a section of a long article into a separate article.

In that link you sent me to WP:TALK#Others' comments, it says you may remove comments if they are uncivil. I don't know why you want to keep your comment in so badly, don't you agree that it was simply an unnecessary opininon that didn't help the article? That's why I removed it in the first place. Either way, I'm just tired of this arguement, we've carried this on for so long... Arnesh 13:11, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rhombus! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | watch Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | watch

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 08:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for improving my translations over at FRA law! I consider myself pretty good at english, but it is not my native language and translating is no easy task. Please keep an eye on the article, more crappy english is coming ;) Plrk (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rhombus. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Andrew Potter, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: the target of this redirect does exist. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it? The article to which "Andrew Potter" redirects says nothing about Andrew Potter at all. In fact, last year I had to correct a circular redirect on the target page. The point is, "Andrew Potter" should point to an article about Andrew Potter, and not to an article about a book he co-wrote which tells nothing about the person himself (would you redirect "Stephen King" to "Cujo"?). The problem is that the redirect hides this: there is no article about Andrew Potter. --Rhombus (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, many apologies for not answering before. About then, I let my watchlist build up to the point where I was missing things, and your must have been one that slipped by.

I don't agree about this redirect. As far as the procedural bureaucracy goes, G8 would only apply for "redirects to invalid targets such as nonexistent targets, redirect loops, and bad titles." In this case, the target was a valid one as it mentions the subject (though you were quite right to take out the circular link back from the article). If you wanted to get rid of the redirect, you would need to take it to WP:Redirects for discussion.

But, procedure aside, I think Wikipedia is better with this redirect than without it. Nobody has thought Mr Potter worth an article, but Wikipedia does have some information about him, i.e. that he co-wrote this book, and the redirect points any enquirer to that information. 355 people followed that link last month. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 09:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen both translations used. I think the best one is the one more related to what was intended rather than dictionary accuracy, but nevertheless. A question that was bugging me, that perhaps you can help with.

If you translate "your fault -> eure schuld", how do you translate "your guilt -> ?" thanks, --Stor stark7 ^Speak 10:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hej hej, ok, tack.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 23:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Tagesthemen-smile.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was used on Ulrich Wickert, but has been replaced with a free image (on commons). This version was non-free version copied from the de-wiki. If you need further file details, just drop me a note. Skier Dude (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happened to notice that reporter/editor from Sun Media Brian Lilley accuses fellow reporter Andrew Potter of writing his own Wikipedia article. (This doesn't appear to be true). I noticed you've been following this article and edited it some, so thought you'd be interested: http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/cbc/andrewpotterdoesntknowsquat/ --kt 12:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kathleen5454 (talk • contribs)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Central pontine myelinolysis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Equilibrium and Serum

Parathyroid hormone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dalton

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rhombus, I'm reaching out to you because you previously made some edits to the "Decline of the landline phone" section of the landline article. I've recently posted some outreach at Talk:Landline about that section, as the unsourced mention of Verizon there seems unreasonable to me. As I mention in my Talk page note, I'm an employee of Verizon, and so don't make any edits myself. If you have time, do you think you could take a look at my request and, if my request seems reasonable to you, remove the language I mentioned?

Thanks so much, VZBob (talk) 20:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This has been done. VZBob (talk) 14:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you are removing this information from articles ([2]) saying that it is "not relevant and not encyclopedic". Could you clarify why? Episodes include interviews with investigators, survivors, the pilots and flight attendants and other related personnel, as well as re-enactments of the accident. I think it goes into a lot of detail and should be included, but I'm interested in your thoughts. Melonkelon (talk) 21:36, 19 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) 22:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rhombus. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rhombus. 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]

Hello, Rhombus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rhombus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]