User talk:Mark.malewski

Aviation articles

You might find it easier to start with aclean template by using Template:WPAVIATION creator--Petebutt (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong aircraft

Presumably all the Convair 116 bits will be eradicated?--Petebutt (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Convair Model 200

Hi Mark, are you finished with your major work on Draft:Convair Model 200? To my somewhat-experienced wiki-eyes, it looks good enough to go to mainspace as -is, but I wanted to see if you had anything left you needed to work on first. I'll give you a few days to respond, and the make my own decision if I don't hear back from you. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I believe it should be good! We can always add some additional “polish” later, but it’s fine! Thanks! Mark.malewski (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:PCI Express

I'm not quite sure what all the kerfuffle is at Talk:PCI Express, as I haven't been able to sort through it all. However, speaking as an administrator: (1) It's a bad idea when an involved party closes a discussion thread, and (2) you appear to be applying a double-standard, allowing your own comments to be added to a closed thread but removing others. I might suggest you self-revert the closure and leave the discussion open until another editor closes it. Also, don't forget that WP:3RR applies to talk pages. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred - The original discussion was between Arkhandar and myself (concerning the original edits and removal of the GT/s and replacing it with Gbps, as well as various content that was removed (unintentionally) by Arkhandar. This edit was reverted, and I asked that we have this discussion on the PCI Express Talk Page.

@C.Fred - As for my comments, the discussion shouldn't have been closed, no consensus was reached and I didn't have time to respond (to the original discussion). When I did respond, Arkhandar kept reverting. At this time, a consensus has been reached, and the discussion was closed.

The discussion took place, it is now closed. The edits have already been made. Nothing more to discuss.

A consensus has already been reached, and the changes were made and agreed upon. No more discussion is needed. As for Digital Brain's education, I personally didn't ask for anyone's education. That is something that can be discussed on Digital Brains personal talk page. For this reason, it was reverted. If Digital Brain wants to discuss his personal education (for whatever reason, because I never asked for it, nor do I care). But this can be done on Digital Brain's personal talk page.

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Digital_Brains#PCI_Express_Talk_Page

This original discussion was between myself and Arkhandar. I thanked everyone for their input and their contributions to the discussion. We don't need to go "back and forth" over what their emotions and feelings are, as the talk page is strictly for factual content concerning the PCI Express Page. I am just asking that Digital Brains (and Arkhandar) please keep their emotions and feelings out of it.

@C.Fred - As for "formal education", I never asked for anyone's education (especially not Digital Brain's). If Digital Brain (or anyone else) wishes to discuss their own personal education, I ask that they do so on their own personal talk page, as a separate topic (on their own personal talk page). It's not a discussion to have on the PCI Express Talk Page. I didn't ask for anyone's education, and it's a separate topic and not part of the original "PCI Express Infobox" discussion. For this reason, I asked Digital Brain to please refrain from posting his education (or feelings and/or emotions) and to please take the discussion to his personal talk page, and if he wishes to have a discussion about his education (for whatever reason that may be, because I never asked for ANYONE's education) but if anyone wishes to discuss their education, it's best to do that on their own personal talk page, and stop making edits on the PCI Express page, or PCI Express Talk Page. Those edits are not constructive, and have absolutely nothing to do with PCI Express, or the PCI Express Info Box discussion.

The PCI Express Talk page discussion is closed, and please leave it closed. Thank-you!

Please stay off my talk page, and if you wish to have a further discussion, you can do so here on your own personal talk page. Thank-you! Mark.malewski (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Convair Model 200 has been accepted

Convair Model 200, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

~ Amkgp ✉ 18:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]