User talk:Argyriou/ArchiveB

Greek civil war

Removing cited material, arguing that this is "weasel word" is totally unacceptable. I added a UN report, I added scholars from both sides and you revert that, arguing what?! That it is weasel word!! Come on now! This is a totally unacceptable excuse! Both sided deserve mentioning in the article! And I was searching all day in Google Book to find all these sources, which you reverted with one click! I hope you know that such reverting is on the verge of vandalism.

Argyriou I lost relatives in the Civil War by the communists, but I'll not jeopardize Wikipedia's encyclopedic NPOV for this reason. I hope this is the case for you as well!--Yannismarou (talk) 11:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I've nominated Obama Republican and McCain Democrat for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:31, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun. I don't care, and probably won't show up to the AfD discussion. Argyriou (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:911tm

Template:911tm has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. - Noticed you in one of the template's previous afd's.Sloane (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homeowners Association Central link on Homeowners Association Website Page

Hello, you don't know me, but I wanted to take a moment of your time to get your opinion on a dispute I'm having with a wikipedia editor. if you visit the page on "Homeowners Association", and look at the discussion, the dissent is about a link I placed on the page to the website "Homeowners Association Websites Central." A certain editor "Wangi" not only believes that I have no right to place the link in the external links section, but further has accused me of starting bogus accounts as new users simply to add this link. I figure if I get some well known wikipedians to look at the situation, the link, and add their opinion to the debate, then at least I will know that the crazy accusations of user fraud will stop. Boy, who would have thought this would be such a hassle. Anyway the url for the link in question is http://www.athomenet.com/homenew/homeowners-association-websites-central.asp , and you can see the long history by looking at the history log on the homeowners association page.... Please, whatever your opinion may be, place it in the discussion area page in the topic of external links of Homeowners association central, and if you think the content is helpful, please add or undo wangi's deletion of the page. I will respect whatever your opinion is. Thank you: Edenrage (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Architecture

Hi Argyriou/ArchiveB! An article you have been concerned with has many issues and urgently needs improving. If you can help with these issues please see Talk:Victorian architecture, address the different points if you can, and leave any comments there.--Kudpung (talk) 01:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FC

A vandal named ikonoblast is trying to destroy the FC article. He tried two times (2007 & 2009) to delete it, but his intentions were exposed by other users. See his latest attempt to get the article destroyed here. 122.177.218.88 (talk) 11:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly give a shit. For a while, I was participating in AfD discussions, and this article came up. 3 years later, I don't really care - I've never contributed to the article, I don't really care much about caste in India. Argyriou (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add a reference to Piling Driver

A new word "piling rig" and its explanation had been added into the page "Pile Driver ". The source of "piling rig" is from http://www.constrequip.com/hydraulic%20piling%20rigs. It is suggested adding the source link into the page since we need to show some kind of respect to the original.Thanks for you comments in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles.luo (talk • contribs) 01:44, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

revision of soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering

Hi, I just wanted to touch base because I know you have done a lot of work on the geotechnical engineering page in the past. I am working on a rewrite of the soil mechanics article and then hope to better coordinate it with the geotechnical engineering page, including minimization of some redundant information. I made some changes to the history section of geotechnical engineering already. I am in the process of moving over a completely rewritten soil mechanics page right now. For the time being, a link to the soil mechanics rewrite before migrating can be seen on my user page. Let me know if you have serious concerns or suggestions. Blkutter (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it in a little bit. Thanks for stopping by, even though I haven't been active in years. Argyriou (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion request on MLM article consistency

I liked your approach on the List of multilevel marketing companies article. In particular, some edits you made on the AdvoCare article I created (of which I used the Herbalife article as a model). One of the issues I've seen as I have reviewed many of the articles on the MLM list, is how some are very promotional in setup and others have some issues with WP:Undue weight given by editors that seem to be interested in showing off criticism instead of the article being about the facts of the company. May I get your opinion on the USANA Health Sciences article, comparing that with articles like Herbalife or ACN Inc., Shaklee, etc. (or any others you wish from the Life of multilevel marketing companies article)? When I ran across the Usana article, I was taken aback by the emphasis on the 2007 criticism from Barry Minkow. Would appreciate your insight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leef5 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article, I think the "products" section should be expanded, to talk a little more about what they actually sell. I don't think there's undue weight being placed on the criticisms and legal issues. Argyriou (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, appreciate your opinion. Leef5 (talk) 01:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of landslides

Hi Argyriou, I was waiting until I had been through the entire list in the Landslide article before removing the lists there, but what you did was fine as I completely ran out of energy with the job unfinished. The only question now is 'what to do with the remaining parts of the list that you created'? I will get back to the task of checking and finding sources if I feel that there is someone else taking part of the load, as I've found it a particularly unrewarding experience. When I was sorting out the various lists of earthquakes RapidR pushed things along whenever I ran out of steam. So if you feel like taking up that challenge, I'll get back to work on it (of course if you'd like to do it all yourself I won't stand in your way :)). Mikenorton (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been consolidating (slowly) list of historic landslides into the previously-existing list of landslides. There are a bunch of landslides in the first which need some sort of citation, especially the 20th-century ones. I'll be adding in the remaining ones which have citations today. Argyriou (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Lincoln Highway,Old National Pike

<bseg>!!! re: Old Lincoln Highway|your post Hi Fabartus - while your dab-link at Lincoln Highway seems like a good idea, there is no article Old Lincoln Highway. Argyriou (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke too soon. Sorry. Argyriou (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Works that way... Now help fill in the blanks. Searches such as ["old lincoln highway"+Council Bluffs, Iowa] in google root them out, with a map pretty well. // FrankB 21:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albino

Hey there Argyriou dude would you please QUIT taking Albino info off Lee Presson page. I'm in both bands and we'd like some cross promo. It s ucks that Tom Beyers is on there as he and Lee hate one anothers guts. Tom took the whole lineup with him to Acme Swing Club because of drama with them and Leslie Presley. Lee probably hates having Tom Beyers name on his page, I don't know man but my band Albino would love to cross promote without you continually taking our information down saying it isn't legit. IT IS. www.myspace.com/albinoband check out the horn section you'll notice three of us there are in the Nails as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.92.105 (talk) 07:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not MySpace. It isn't about promoting your band. Meanwhile, why don't you look at Talk:Lee Press-on and the Nails, where I already posted why I did what I did. Argyriou (talk) 07:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atterberg Limits

Even though this is Wikipedia, I'll admit we're both right ;). There is the single point method (what I wrote) and the multi-point method (yours) do you mind if I put them both in the article? --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.199.242 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 February 2011

I hadn't realized the single-point method was actually allowed by ASTM D4318. I still wouldn't trust results from it, but I did restore it to the article, along with some other clarifications. Argyriou (talk) 04:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like your edit. I tend to get my phrasing mixed up anyway. Also, only 2 people in our lab run PI's. My boss, and myself. So we're experienced enough to do the single point method and get it right at 25 every time. With only 2 of us qualified, we have to do as much as possible to save time.

An Coimisiún le Rincí Gaelacha

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of An Coimisiún le Rincí Gaelacha, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.clrg.ie/en/history.php.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of An Coimisiún le Rincí Gaelacha

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on An Coimisiún le Rincí Gaelacha requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Shashwat986 → talk 05:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ground granulated

Argyrious, I should have said, please change it to unhyphenated if you're unhappy with it. It's no big deal with me, and I concede that overwhelming usage out there is without the hyphen. Thanks for raising this matter. $Tony (talk)$ 12:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Performance testing for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Performance testing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Performance testing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]