User talk:Vb

Welcome!

Hello, Vb, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Laura Scudder | Talk 16:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation of why you put continuous spectrum in category:scattering. I wouldn't mind if you do so again, but of course I'd prefer you to add a bit to the article in continuous spectrum on how it is connected to scattering. I trust anybody who has read Reed and Simon: I haven't come further than Chapter 6 or so in the first volume, and I am still confused by all the different kinds of spectra: (absolutely) continuous, essential, etc. Also many thanks for creating an account. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 8 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)

Hello there! I noticed that you created this article on Conical intersections here. Do you have a reference regarding the stability of DNA with respect to UV irradiation? I would like to read up on this more and learn about this. May I ask if you are a specialist in theoretical chemistry? --HappyCamper 06:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I think it's bad style and a bit of a shock to the reader to redirect from a very specific disambig (electron orbital) to a very general disambig (orbital). I've reinstated it, in a trimmed-down form. --Smack (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you are the person who created this, and I just wanted to say that the chart is excellent and a very helpful and concise way for a reader like me to understand at a glance all of the changes that took places involving the various components. Thumbs up!--StanZegel 23:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've carried out the requested tasks on MOND. Please review and comment/vote at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Modified Newtonian dynamics/archive1. Thank you for your kind cooperation. Loom91 17:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've just tweaked the article. I will read it through and think about it; but I think the important thing is not FAC - it is making sure the article is largely intelligible to the average reader who comes to it not knowing what an eigenvalue is. (It is irrational, I know; but you will get more respect in general, and I think at FAC, if you create your user-page.) Septentrionalis 16:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I will bow out. If you don't like (there are other examples}, which was a careful attempt to guard against the common error that there is only one eigenvector to a rotation, you probably won't like any other edit of mine. This will probably help you with FAC; they like bad writing as much as they like pretty pictures. They also like an evident PoV; but I hope you won't go that far. Regards, Septentrionalis 19:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article has some style related problems and image copyrights to be sorted out. I'll review on Saturday as I will be busy tomorrow. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review tomorrow, and if you reply to that, let me know, I'll review over the weekend then. I'll need the page size cut before I begin though. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get the time to review Belgium, so I'll I guess it will be over the weekend. I'm glad the page size has been reduced. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page, to keep the conversation in one place. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful criticism (especially pointing out tête de veau). I have amended the article as per your suggestions and hope it now meets your FA criteria. --Oldak Quill 12:30, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have everything now. --Oldak Quill 13:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not satisfied with the article as yet. I'll try and copyedit the text, which leaves me to review Belgium on Sun. is this ok with you?

The content is ok, User:tony1 is good at copyediting, I'm sure he could help you out. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll try to have a look over the next few days. Tony 01:35, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I still have a few sections to go. Tony 12:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind—I've pruned your opening statement on the FAC page. I think it's stronger now. Tony 05:55, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments here. I've made some changes to try and address your objections; if you have the chance, perhaps you could take another look at the article? Kirill Lokshin 12:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. You've recently been involved with working on get articles up to featured status, so I wanted to let you know about a new page, Wikipedia:Bounty board. People have put up monetary bounties for certain articles reaching featured status - if the article makes it, the bounty lister donates the stated amount of money to the Wikimedia Foundation. So you can work on making articles featured, and donate other people's money at the same time. If this sounds interesting, I hope you stop by. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 22:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the FAC comment for acetic acid, in my humble opinion, all your comments have been taken care off. Would you care to adjust your opinion, typically by striking out your Object? Wim van Dorst 20:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC).[reply]

Please see [1] and User talk:131.220.68.177. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:59, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is your point still not resloved? Do you still object to the FA nomination? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since you enjoyed History of the Jews in Poland, to which User:Halibutt has made substantial contributions, I thought you may enjoy this recent RfA, whoch seems to be in need of some comments.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 06:27, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx for the interest. Both Halibutt and Goodoldpolonius2 have replied to your comment - perhaps you may want to review their comments and your vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let me note quickly that I find your vote against User:Halibutt on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Halibutt deeply dispiriting. Halibutt's contribution to Wikipedia has been very extensive, running to thousands of useful edits. Casting a vote against his candidacy for adminship based on a single quick revert, without at least trying to familiarize yourself with his other contributions, is deeply unfair.

Please, invest some time in familiarizing yourself with his work, and cast your vote again. If you don't have time to do this, I would invite you to move your vote and comments to the neutral category, where in my opinion they belong. Balcer 17:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Through I'd invite you to take Balcer's advice, I think you have the right to judge him based on your only encounter with him if you are sure it is enough. I think that your problem stems from a technical issue: kosher bans, as Halibutt explained, was not a (purposly) anti-semitic law - which is not to say, as he himselfs admit, that there were no others. But the anti-semitism was not government-inspired - at least it was not specifically singled out from the set of anti-minority rights. Polish 'nationalistic, Sanacja' goverment was trying to force all minorities (Ukrainians, Jews, Bielorusians, etc.) to assimilate by making the life difficult for them - a shameful policy, and if you want to mention in the lead that it affected Jews as well, I am sure Halibutt would not object. But calling it anti-semitic is confusing the reader and obscuring the (not any prettier) thruth (that Polish government was persecuting Jews because they were one of minorities, not simply because they were Jews, like Germans did).

As for the Black Book, Halibutt was not the author of it, and asked for its deletion now - isn't in enough for a 'sin' of keeping this (never, ever used) page in one's userspace?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the whole anti-kosher absurdity here: Talk:History of the Jews in Poland#Rising anti-Semitism - kosher slaughter. Please take a look at it. Halibutt 21:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eventhough I still believe you voted against me because of lack of knowledge and not because of my merits or lack of those...

Indeed, it's not a big deal though it helps and saves much time. As to your support of my latest marking of a dubious statement as such - I'm glad to hear that. However, could you note that on the talk page as well? Halibutt 12:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, its now featured. I copyedited the text to a certain extent. I still don't think its "brilliant prose" (I wish Tony was here), but it's certainly better now. I may be exacting, but I am a perfectionist and in such a case you will find me "dogmatic". Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, i REALLY appreciate your support for the Walking Game page. Just so you know this is a 100% legitimate page that a bunch of us who don't even know each other made, we have all heard of the game and we wanted it to be recognized. If you could please maybe write one or two more things on the discussion page to help us out I would be infinitley grateful. Don Burns 00:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Blues shuffle. Your welcome. However, if you don't understand it my description isn't any more useful (even if more accurate) than the ones before. If I had a computer of my own I would add notation and a sound example, but alas.

Also, take a look at my recent work on walking bass. Lastly, what's wrong with riff? Hyacinth 12:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I notice you seem to know more about so-called 'direct quantum chemistry' than I do, (not difficult since I'd never heard of it before coming to this site). Perhaps you could write a short article about it, explaining how this is accomplished? Ed Sanville 01:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on getting blues all fixed up! It looks really good. Tuf-Kat 05:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you like John Mayer, huh? I still think the magazine cover is totaly silly - two rock musicians and a pop/folk singer who plays some blues? That said, I can live with it with the new caption - I think. CAN'T WE DO BETTER? What does that cover represent? Why is it there?

SECisek 18:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vb. In response to "NPOV is not attained yet; Heitler-London first quatum electro chemists? What the hell is that? Why not Schroedinger or Planck?) ...." I see your point, for that matter, why not Einstein?. I think an argument can be made in that direction, but, well, according to the article quantum mechanics Heitler-London pioneered the application of qm to chemistry, and this can be fairlty easily confirmed. This is a subject that should be taken up there (quantum mechanics) really if you have questions. Please fell free to rewrite the quantum electrochemistry page if you feel have a better way of presenting it, but I still do not understand why the neutral POV tag is there. Cypa 18:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Ce n'était pas bien difficile de deviner qui était la personne derrière le pseudo Vb :-). Je me suis inscrit un jour où j'ai voulu lire comment était traitée la guerre de 1948 sur wikipedia français et puis sur wikipedia anglais. C'est un vrai foutoir. Même ici, on est en pleine guerre israélo arabe... Salutations à la famille :-) et bonne chance pour ton nouveau boulot.

Alithien 18:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... ;-)

Ceedjee (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Statue_LeopoldII_Ostende_detail.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

Thanks for uploading Image:Bishopric_liege_flag.gif. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 11:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Cross section.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in a new project, WP:SPR. Karol 19:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Sherool (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vb! If you get a chance, could you take a look at Born-Oppenheimer approximation, and see if you can fix it up? Let me know what you think, thanks very much! --HappyCamper 01:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started a Featured article review for Nepal. You may be interested in commenting. You may also want to look at what is being considered a peer review of the article. --Descendall 06:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:350px-Belgium RegProv border.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. - Sherool (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 11:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you uploaded Image:Triangle on globe.jpg, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 07:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this was a mistake? --RobertG ♬ talk 16:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it happens to us all! I just wanted to check your account hadn't been hijacked! Best wishes, RobertG ♬ talk 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Template Barnstar
		Even though you designed Template:History of the Low Countries over two years ago, it is still helpful, and significantly improves and clarifies articles on the history of the Low Countries. Good work! Oreo Priest 21:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Taal Aktie Komitee.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let u know i think the "History of the Low Countries" template is awesome. Very handy! Thx alot for it! Bardman (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blues has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

According to my records, you have nominated at least one article (Blues) that includes a category at WP:CHIBOTCATS and that has been promoted to WP:FA, WP:FL or WP:GA. You are not signed up as an active member of WP:CHICAGO. If you consider yourself either an active or semi-active member of the project please sign up as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/members. Also, if you are a member, be aware of Wikipedia:Meetup/Chicago 3 and be advised that the project is now trying to keep all the project's WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FAR, WP:GAR, WP:GAC WP:FLC, WP:FLRC, WP:FTC, WP:FPOC, WP:FPC, and WP:AFD discussion pages in one location at the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago/Review page. Please help add any discussion you are aware of at this location.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help for the Introduction of this page. I didn'like by metonymy, so complicated. I changed the occasionnaly for the Liégois by allways. There is a source about that: allways vis-à-vis the Dutch speaking population and Liégeois vis-à-vis the other inhabitants of the Low countries (Stengers). I like 'self-governed' because it seems to me that it is very clear in English and in French we have no name of that or a clear translation auto-gouvernée but it is not very used (I saw this translation in a declaration in French of the Government of the Pays Basque). What do you think? I like your introduction more than the introduction of Speculoos. For the fact that the term Wallonia is universally used, you need only to read the international press. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC) PS: I also changed "French-speaking" by speaking romancelanguages because in the past there was only a small minority speaking French.[reply]

I think vis-à-vis has the same meaning in English as in French [2] and for the Liégeois, it is this meaning : they are only called Walloons (following Stengers) vis-à-vis the Dutch-speaking Liégois. Sincerely, José Fontaine (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the RCC FAC has grown lengthy and difficult to edit, with many signatures separated from the original commentary, I have pulled your original commentary out to the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Roman Catholic Church#Vb to hopefully make it easier for you to update the status of your concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vb. You have new messages at Buster7's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vb, you are only allowed one Oppose. You have two on the page. Can you please incorporate your second oppose in the section of the page where your first one resides? I will answer it there right away. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 20:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vb, to make it easier, can you change your second Oppose to Continued oppose, as that will make it more clear that you've already oppose once, without having to move it up in the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your vote at Roman Catholic Church. I am sorry to inform you that we failed FAC but will again be at peer review in a few weeks to sort things out. Hopefully we will make it through next time. We will be contacting all supporters and opposers of the article when we open the next peer review to hopefully get all issues addressed and hashed out before the next FAC try. Thanks again for your time and attention to this important article. NancyHeise ^talk 01:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the 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. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on User:Vb/Wallonia, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because User:Vb/Wallonia is a test page.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting User:Vb/Wallonia, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now re-written the lead for acid dissociation constant. The essential content of the lead is the same as before. The effect of this change will be that when chemists will read the explanatory material they will say to themselves, yes, I know that, but non-chemists will hopefully get the gist of what the article is about

I invite you to read it and then record your “vote”, e.g. “now support” or “still oppose”, at wp:Featured_article_candidates/Acid_dissociation_constant. I have assembled a list of names under Re-written lead, so that the responses will be collected together in one place.

Some minor disagreements will inevitably remain. These should not be a reason for opposition. Rather, put constructive ideas on the article’s talk page, so that the article can be further improved by the normal editing process. Petergans (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itub (talk) has proposed an alternative, shorter version of the lead at User:Itub/ADC lead. Petergans (talk) 10:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, your Wallonia page was nominated for deletion. As a preference to deletion, I moved the article to User:Vb/Wallonia, where you're free to edit it until it is up to the standard you want it. When it's done, you're more than welcome to copy the content across to the main space. Booglamay (talk) - 18:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much VB for your last message and all your remarks. I hope you continue to read this Walloon page: it is great to collaborate with a Fleming on such a topic! You a are open-minded... José Fontaine (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you could weigh in on Petergans recent behavior with the article that would be great. If you look at the history and the talk page, you should be able to get a good idea of what has gone on.--Jorfer (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert the European Flag? Don't you like the flag on itself or is there another reason? Can't see the problem here! Galoubet (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to the peer review. FYI, the word in English for univoque is unambiguous. Cheers, Oreo Priest ^talk 00:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Only after pounding through all of your comments in the peer review do I really see how exhaustive and lucid they are. My previous comment may have seemed lukewarm, but you really did a great job.

I've addressed all of them if you would like to respond. After working on the article for 8 hours straight, it's 5% shorter and noticeably better written, but I need a break. I'll finish the lead/intro merger soon. Also, the word is contradiction rather than contradistinction Cheers! Oreo Priest ^talk 06:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I've redone the intro/lead too, but I'm not completely satisfied with it. Would you mind looking over it and telling me what you think? Aside from that, I think the article's pretty much ready to be nominated for featured article, as soon as I can find the time an energy to work through the nomination. Cheers, 02:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Is VRT Toren an appropriate title for the article? Is there a French name? One of the sources says it carries BRTN and RTBF, so it makes me wonder. Oreo Priest ^talk 03:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for making those improvements to the Blues article - i've done a little copy-editing to spiff up the stylistics a little, and i think it reads well now. Sssoul (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you could comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Belgium/Brussels naming conventions, you're usually quite reasonable. Having said that, I'm not even sure whether you're Flemish or Francophone (or however you self identify), so knowing that might be helpful towards finding a consensus. Up to you. Oreo Priest ^talk 23:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we've almost reached a consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Belgium/Brussels_naming_conventions. Please comment on the proposal for double names and in the poll on which name should be first in the lead and infobox when there is no English name. Cheers, Oreo Priest ^talk 19:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you wrote Revolution Liégeoise a while back. I was thinking that maybe it should be renamed Liège Revolution or something, as Revolution Liégeoise is not really English. Thoughts? Oreo Priest ^talk 06:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vb! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 312 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Jean-Claude Lorquet - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have placed a POV tag in this article, but since 16-08-2007 neglected to show in what way the article is not neutral...--91.181.192.228 (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vb, I have made some changes to this article. I would like you to review my work in order that the POV tag and FACT tag can be removed.--Btsz (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Belgium for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

help a lot to understand your edits. Please do use them. You can even set your account options so that the software will remind you when you forgot to enter an edit summary, and I could explain how, if you wish. (I have accidentally reverted one of your edits because it looked like format breaking). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place on the most appropriate and helpful name for the article on the musical form the blues. It is currently named Blues. It was moved to The blues, then moved back to blues. A current suggestion is blues music. Wider consensus is welcomed. SilkTork *^YES! 13:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see this message in the Empire of Brazil FAC nomination page and answer it accordingly. --Lecen (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vb - Discussion appears to have been stalled on the Belgium FAR (WP:Featured article review/Belgium/archive3) for a while, although it looks like work has continued on the article. Would you mind returning to the FAR and giving an update on your opinion of the article's status? Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stalled again. If you think you've addressed concerns raised by other reviewers, could you ping them to revisit or to offer further comments? Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2011 (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) 13:06, 23 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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vb. 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]