Try Reword to make direct in-article edits of short phrases, in three steps: 1) Highlight 2) Reword 3) Submit. To find out how, click here.
I'm not currently active. M
Thanks. It's probably too early to say, but it seems to have quietened down. -- JD554 ( talk) 06:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
To be frank I think it's a lost cause. Either I'm naive or most of the detractors of this idea are overly paranoid. To suggest that a vandal (who I assume is normally a 13-year old kid who is bored with his homework) would register, make the requisite ten edits, wait 10 days, then vandalize a page about 16th century pianists seems far fetched, but what do I know? Your idea is well thought out and makes sense but I don't see anyone changing their minds, sorry. J04n( talk page) 08:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to
Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an
edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to
Timeline of file sharing. Thank you.
-
Garrett W. (
Talk /
Contribs /
Email)
20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
... as is the case here.An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit.
Thanks for starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines/List - this looks like a useful thing to do (though I'm not clear what exactly you're proposing we do with the list - perhaps it depends on what you find?). Sorry, I don't have time for IRC at the moment, maybe in a week or two; but if you discuss on the talk page I can drive by and see/comment if I have time. So could you link the list from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines (and possibly list yourself as a participant)? cheers, Rd232 talk 01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for the advice about where to leave requests to bots, following my proposal at Wikipedia: Village Pump. All the best, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I saw you post, "This isn't just my opinion - the recent usability study results back this up." This sounds very interesting; can you tell me where I can find this study? - GTBacchus( talk) 05:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, as I said, I'm not partaking in that discussion any further with you. I'm given confidence by Melodia's "trolling" comment a few paragraphs above my latest contribution, that I'm not alone in my opinions, and that the proposal is likely to be resolved-defeated quite shortly (from looking at the numbers, and the weight of the respective arguments, and WP:SNOW) without any further input from me.
For the record, I find your attitude a frustrating (perfectly plausibly, you're not trying to irritate, but you do nonetheless, and while you're trying to help Wikipedia, I'm concerned that you're not), and do urge you, for the good of the project, to consider what other people are saying to you, even those who don't agree with some of your views. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 08:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You'll probably want to also take a close look at file sharing as some of the same info reverted from Timeline of file sharing has creeped in over there. Since you appear to be active on that page as well, I'll leave it to you decide what is appropriate to delete. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 18:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a closer look at the articles tomorrow and see if I can help end this dispute. I don't think you've reached the level of edit warring yet, but I would advise against making any more reverts for the time being. If this does keep up, you'll probably have to file an RfC, like you said, but if Deathmolor decides to start undoing my changes too, he could easily get into 3RR territory fast. there is also the possibility of bringing this to ANI if he is clearly being disruptive, but I wouldn't recommend it at this time as it is currently basically just a content dispute with some minor uncivility. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I just left Deathmolor I very stern warning about his legal threats and in general disruptive behavior. (and another user also did at virtually the same time). If he continues this behavior he will certainly be blocked (although not by me since I'm not actually an admin). -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI: Users are perfectly within their rights to blank most comments from their talkpages. — Travis talk 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Please be advised that the removal of other editors' comments on article talk page is against WP policy and generally considered vandalism if it occurs repeatedly and intentionally, as you have demonstrated. Kbrose ( talk) 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I really like it. I'd go as far to say as it's the most visually appealing signature I've ever seen on the project. However, it's a little large, and it disrupts the flow of text (leaving extra space between the line above and the line including the sig). This could be solved by just making it a little smaller. hmwith τ 13:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
In response to your undoing of my RFC tag correction on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Simplify_policy_RfC. In order for it to be properly listed, it needs to be formatted the way I have formatted it. As a result of changes in the mechanisms of the bot, instead of a sentence being entered as the one being sent to the RFC listings, the sentence is inferred based on the location of the tag. If there is no sentence with datestamp underneath the tag, then no description can get sent to the RFC listings. If I can find a way to get around this for the few situations that warrant it, then I will try to implement it. — harej 05:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I should have listed that under G4. A series of sockpuppets have been recreating this article over a period of weeks. Thanks! Fribbler ( talk) 17:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hiya M, I like your signature & was wondering whether you minded if I borrowed it? Is this too similar or not? Cheers! dottydotdot ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC).
Hello. I see people like your signature, and it does look nice, but there is a problem causing Opera 9.64 (latest version) to add large chunks of whitespace both to the right and to the bottom of the content on all pages where it's used—it seems both the width and height are exactly doubled. I can't quite penetrate the intricacies of the syntax, but do you know what might cause this? IE, Firefox and Chrome don't have this problem. — JAO • T • C 12:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Little notice: Template talk:File sharing protocols
Greetings, Old Death ( talk) 08:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from further attempts to instigate edit wars or tempting other editors to simply keep reverting edits you have a bias against, such as you did here. Kbrose ( talk) 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks a lot for the notice and for trying to restore my edits :) I must say, however, that those were just one of those random edits I make wherever I find something that I feel I can improve; not something I care deeply about, so I'd rather not start a discussion on the subject. Besides, I wasn't entirely sure of the technical correctness of my edits. I do feel there are some categories the article should belong to -- perhaps not the specific ones I added, but something more than what it currently belongs to. For example, Kbrose wrote that P2P is not a network architecture, but an application architecture; well, first of all, the category is called "network architecture", not "network architectures", so I still feel it might belong there; On the other hand, perhaps a "application architectures" category could be added, or something similar. Feel free to suggest these edits or make them yourself, but once again I'd rather not do it myself (I have been lately too busy to even check my watchlist, so you see why I am not willing to expand my attention span even further :) ) Anyway, thanks again for your attention :) Cheers, Waldir talk 09:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You objected to David Levy's ad hominem remarks. FWIW, I have asked for input: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Personal remarks. -- Una Smith ( talk) 22:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The criteria for speedy deletion:
end sandbox M 18:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
So the other day I had something of a confrontation with a grumpy old timer at the office where I work. He was with the company for as long as I have lived! He was going like "yeah yeah, you want to do this and that, but I've seen it all, and guess who gets to pick up the pieces once you leave/get fired/etc. so many years down the road? There's no way I'm going to let you just do your job!"
He was being all agressive and intimidating about it too.
And, well, in my discussion with you, I feel like we're getting into a similar situation, with myself in the role of that guy, and I don't WANT to be like that guy. :-P
So let's see what I can do about that.
First of all, I want to say how much I appreciate your patient attitude and diplomatic approach to discussing your changes with myself and others. That should help a bit, at least.
Second - as I think we have to cover a lot of ground - it might be handy to talk using some real time communications system, so that we can go back and forth. Would you have access to (in order of preference) irc, skype, msn or aim?
I hope to hear back from you soon!
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 19:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a bad idea. Yes, this causes more people to give barnstars. Unfortunately, it will soon become a pain in the ass if editors start giving out batches of these. Barnstars should not ask more from an editor. They are an award, not an invitation to a game. M 21:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, You are an exprienced editor and I excepted that you at least discuss it with
author (Me!) or on
WikiProject Wikipedia Awards talk page before any action, and if the community decision was that this award is a bad idea then I'll make another image for it. I hope you don't mind that I temporary reverted your edit in template page, but I'll not add it to
Barnstars page until the final decision by community.
Now about the award: The
Pay it forward barnstar was made to promote
WikiLove. to make
users friendly with each other, same as all other
Wikilove templates, If you think the template's image should not be a barnstar, well that is discussable. Why this a bad idea if more people give barnstars to each other? we have many
Barnstars, general ones, topicals and wikipedia-space barnstars, all of them are different in shape, mean and value. Barnstars are not just an award, they are for making an stronger and friendlier community, and the one I made will specially designed for this aim (making an stronger and friendlier community). Regards.
■ MMXX
talk
04:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think the clause would be better off without the qualifier at all. That is, stop at "This excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, coherent non-English material, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes". You're right that the "sometimes we do" language is really a reference to G3 and is unnecessary to the G1 clause.
My concern was based on the assumption that the clause has to stay in (just because changing anything on that page is hard) and if it must stay in, then it needs to clearly mirror the "blatant" language below. I'll try pulling it out and let's see if we get reverted. Rossami (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Despite our dustup over G9, I just wanted to stop by and tell you I think your changing of the descriptions to list the criteria section and number in the same form as we use them is a great idea!-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! and I'm enjoying that discussion as well :) M 18:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. At Template_talk:Policy#RfC:_Changes_made_should_reflect_consensus you stated that
: Just now I removed a deletion of a CSD by someone who seemed to have a good contribution record, a few hours ago someone added "info pages" as being neutral and having strong "tie-in" or somesuch. This does nothing to stop reckless editors from trying to change policy page. The only ones it seems to stop are the careful ones, as clearly evidenced by how carelessly our policies are written.
— M
I wanted to know why you removed the infopages from the policy page. I took the text directly from {{ infopage}}. Smallman12q ( talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Happy editing!
M, I want to apologize to you for the way I behaved the other day, when I asked you not to post about the policy template on my talk page. I was irritated by something else that day, something unconnected to you or the policies, and it made me short with you, which I very much regret. It's clear that you're doing good work, trying to create a structure within which the policies and guidelines can be consistent and coherent, which is a mammoth task, and one you're to be congratulated for taking on. I won't always agree with you on specific points, but I do very much respect the overall effort, and I don't want to make it harder than it needs to be. I'm very sorry I reacted the way I did. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you are now edit warring on WP:NOT while there is an RFC about the edit in question underway. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi M! I have to admit that I am very impressed by your "Reword" script, which I believe has the potential to completely alter the way we edit wiki pages. (Dare I use the phrase " paradigm shift"?) I have unfortunately found that it is too disruptive to have it constantly enabled, as I often select text for different reasons than to paraphraze it, especially outside of mainspace. I was wondering if you have considered adding functionality to either: automatically disable the script outside of mainspace, or some other way to quickly disable/enable it without updating monobook.js. Anyway, great work! Regards, decltype ( talk) 14:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you like it! Yes... I've found this to be a problem too, copy-pasting is a pain but I'm much too lazy to turn it off (usually triggering the box elsewhere and then copy-pasting does the trick...). What did you think of the alertbox that popped up to confirm your edit? That was the interface I used before, rather than the fancier box (which is a bit buggy sometimes). The fancy box is nice, but might be too obtrusive, and I like simple things. I was thinking of doing one of the following:
Or some combination of these. Which would you prefer to use? Is the as-you-select word-chopping useful? And may I ask which browser you're using? M 15:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, fixed - you now have to hold down control while releasing to have an alertbox pop up, otherwise nothing will happen. It reloads the page after you're done. I don't know what happens if you select too many words, I think it just chops the summary off. Also, there's no feedback that you actually selected editable text (it can't yet edit refs, or I think bold, and that sort of thing). The changes across punctuation are due to people putting two spaces after their periods - html ignores anything over one consecutive regular space, so it can't to find the singlespaced version in the source wiki text, to allow for replacing. M 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
What are the quirks? I'm very open to criticism and suggestions here; the more information I have, the easier it is to find effective ways to improve this. The small details are especially important. By the way, if instead of click-dragging to select characters, you doubleclick-drag to select words, things may be a bit easier (I just looked this up, myself). I was actually thinking of having it mark insertions and deletions with del. and ins. - especially deletions, which are often left with an arrow pointing to nothing. M 01:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll work on adding a little hover, or maybe a changing cursor or something to indicate that the selection is good or bad. I think you should be able to select this or also this or also this just fine, as long as you select the entire word (or not - I'll check why this is). Usually it's the bluelinks in the form of [Alphabet|abc] that trip it up, due to capitalization (though a bunch of those should work too). M 01:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I have tested the latest version a bit on IE7. I made a small adjustment to some code that was causing the script to fail (complaining that 'console is undefined'). If you know why this is, perhaps you can make a better fix. I tried it on links and formatted text and it worked just as expected, except failing, as you indicated above, on capitalized links (not just piped links). The coloring of the page is a nice indicator for whether it will fail or not. Finally, I found a subtle bug while testing it on the article Goran Svilanović, in that it won't accept any selection except the article title itself. decltype ( talk) 13:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
LOL, I was going to write "<---" and triggered the signature. Anyway, I was writing this with your version. Couple of questions: Why did you change "\n" to two newlines instead of one? But IIUC it's customizable. As for the summary, I don't want the default summary when I'm (ab)using the script to reply to messages, as it clutters the history. All I want is, say, "re (using REWORD)", when there's a custom edsum. What do you think? (I suppose that could be made customizable with a flag) decltype ( talk) 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, some more comments: I can't get it to recognize "¤" for summaries. This is how I am importing it into my monobook:
importScript('User:M/reword.js');
rewordComment = "¤";
rewordReplace("\\n","\n");
Any ideas? Another, more serious problem, is that it seems to be marking every edit as minor. This needs to be changed, since the script is powerful enough to perform many non-controversial tasks, including tagging pages for speedy deletion. Regards, decltype ( talk) 02:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Your reward script doesn't seem to work in IE8 -- Tyw7 ( Talk • Contributions) 11:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I am going to re-order your hit list so I hope you don't mind. No wording is being changed at this point. The order is important because someday, your list may be an official WP policy list. User F203 ( talk) 15:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
WP policies and guidelines are all scattered. They are also not clearly indicated by name if they are a policy or guideline. One has to go to the exact page to see it. For example: WP:BLP1E. There is no indication in the abbreviation if it is a policy or not.
One way to fix this is to codify everything like laws. For example, the abbreviation for WP:NOTNEWS could be optionally written WP:NOTNEWS G3.12. G would be guideline. 3 would be section 3. In section 3, there would be several subsections, number 12 being notnews.
However, this would run into some opposition. If there is no consensus, disorder is the consensus. So I think I will not even propose this idea. The best we can do is to put the guidelines and policies in one place.
This is not bureaucracy. For example, user names that resemble companies are often suddenly blocked. This is bad treatment of people. According to the rules, a user name such as Microsoft is not allowed. However, the rules are scattered all over the place that even I don't know where they all are. Putting them in one place (but not numbering them) is a great idea. User F203 ( talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You have accused other editors of "repeated personal attacks [1] I have requested difs [2] which as you have not yet responded, in spite of having subsequently posted on that page, I believe you may have missed. Please provide the difs asked for, or strike your accusation. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 14:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
In the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#NFT_Straw_Poll you mentioned:
"as a recent RfC has made very clear, the only things admins may delete without discussion must fall explicitly under existing criteria"
Have you got a link to that Rfc? It would be very helpful to another discussion I'm having at the moment. Thanks! AndrewRT( Talk) 22:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The Hello Barnstar | ||
This is to say hello to a fellow Wikipedian User F203 ( talk) 19:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)) |
The OTRS policy poll you've started should properly be held on the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page. At the very least, it needs to be notified there and on WP:AN.
Please move it to the Village Pump.
Continuing to try and force discussion only on the policy talk page, after multiple warnings that it's the wrong venue, is approaching disruptive. I really don't want to shut down discussion on this topic but you HAVE to notify properly and really, really should make sure that it is in the right place (Village Pump).
Please take appropriate corrective actions.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 22:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your great improvements to the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page. Thanks to you, the page is far more readable and concise than what it previously was. MuZemike 02:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
You got new messages under the section reword. -- Tyw7 ( Talk • Contributions) 09:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
That should not be an issue. Do what many of us have done, register a free anonymous gmail account. That's what i use; not my ISP based e-mail :) -- Avi ( talk) 14:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to let you know that I'm in the process of moving from Indiana to California and that's going to put me out of commission for about a week. I'm sorry that this is going to stagnate our discussion. :-( Thanks for your patience on these things, and I'll try to stay up to date as much as I can. causa sui × 04:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Noticed
WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 36#Single user page warning template too late:
You can already use say {{
subst:db-a7-notice}} for {{
db-a7}}, all those redirects with the criterion abbreviation should exist. If you're manually tagging something for SD with, say, {{
db-foo}}, and {{
db-foo-notice}} doesn't exist, just create a redirect and you're set.
Cheers,
Amalthea
22:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I have requested your editing be reviewed here. NonvocalScream ( talk) 20:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
M, as I said earlier, I very much appreciate your efforts to streamline and copy edit the policies. But this can't extent to making substantive changes over multiple objections. You saw in the template RfC that people do not want editors rushing in to change policy without discussion, yet still you are arguing that they do, and adding that to policy pages (or removing the advice to be cautious). Please start another RfC if you feel the first RfC wasn't representative, but you shouldn't simply ignore the mutiple objections. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
When you mention another editors contributions in an unfavourable way on a public noticeboard as you did here & here, you must notify the editor so they can comment if they wish. Failing to do so is both extremely discourteous and undermines any assertion of acting in good faith that you may wish to make. I have notified David on your behalf for these instances but I suggest you let them know of anywhere else that you have listed this. Spartaz Humbug! 06:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I note that you added a link to Google Scholar in the 'References' section of Language fragment. Was this your intention, or did you have a specific paper or book in mind? I skimmed the first ten results on that page, but none of them seem to support the notion that "A language fragment is a subset of the group of proper sentences of a language." Cnilep ( talk) 19:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Statements such as "I also don't attribute the same weight to the !votes of OTRS users…" indicates a refutation of wikipedia's consensus-based editing and a likely tendency to disruptive editing. For a while now you have been in the distinct minority, and now you are attempting to dilute the value of people who disagree with you in some Orwellian fashion. I would suggest you take a step back and see how your involvement in this discussion has so narrowed your focus that you seem to have lost site of core wikipedia policies and guidelines. Otherwise, I fear that a wider discussion of these statements may be necessary. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 14:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I just figured that it was unnecessary to continuously archive the page when it receives so little traffic. I could understand to have it automatically archive if there were ten new sections a day like some talk pages do, but Talk:File sharing gets about one section a month. Gary King ( talk) 18:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought what you said there seemed very reasonable but I don't know if the discussion has rather died and I am resurrecting a dead horse for you to flog some more :) At any rate I left a comment there. TheGrappler ( talk) 21:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. You don't seem to have an e-mail address set. Also, there's some interesting discussion happening at WP:5P that I thought you might enjoy. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 00:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Has Reword been tested on Macs? I can't seem to get it to work in either Safari or Firefox. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Shrug. Do state your position on the suggested positions, which is most of what I've been doing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
If you choose to go to ANI about this matter, do quote Xandar's canvassing - and this edit, by an admin, calling it an invitation to meatpuppetry. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The redirect is unused and a natural place for the policy. The policy page itself has become a general chat about admins. As for the Smith and Jones in OR, it's primarily seeing the wood for the trees. I seem to remember when we had a handful of policies and they were all very short and succinct. Rich Farmbrough, 04:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC).
changing the sections further down the policy is one thing, but changing the first key policy is quite another think. You gave no indication that you were going to change the top sections, and I do not agree with changing them for the reasons I have outlined. There is no fire with this stuff, and for much of it there is a very good reason it is structured as it is. Please discuss the changes you wish to make, explain why you wish to make a specific change and wait and see if anyone objects, as for most of the policy this has been discussed in detail several times before and the positioning of most of it is as it is for specific reasons. -- PBS ( talk) 00:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with you edit up until
this one, but that edit and the ones that followed are unacceptable.
I am now putting on my Admin hat. Editing a policy page to make a point is unacceptable Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). WP:NC is a working policy which you disrupted with these edits 1 2. In all the WP:NC policy page was made deliberately incorrect by you for 20 minutes. If you edit the NC policy page like that again to make a point, I will block you account for a time. -- PBS ( talk) 01:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how this is editing to make a point. I suggest you leave this to an uninvolved admin. M 01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You are a party in a request for an Arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3CCatholic_Church_and_Renaming.3E -- Rockstone ( talk) 01:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi M, in the interests of dispute resolution, I'm writing again to ask you to stop making fundamental changes to policies. I am seeing objections to your changes all over the place, yet you're reverting when challenged, and filibustering on talk.
I do very much support your efforts to copy edit, and to make sure that guidelines don't contradict policies, or each other, but making substantive changes over prolonged, multiple objections risks causing the policy or guideline you're changing to be ignored in future. There is a strong descriptive element to policies; indeed, some people argue the policies should only be descriptive. I'm therefore asking you again to stop what you're doing, and perhaps to gain more experience editing articles so that you can see how the policies affect content in practice. That will help you to copy edit without removing sentences or sections that people regard as important. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I am objecting here to all the changes you're making to policies and guidelines, including the changes I personally agree with, and the way you're making them. For several weeks, you've been ignoring people's objections on multiple pages. I'm asking you to stop, except for basic copy-editing, and to start listening to the people who rely on these policies to be stable. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It would take me a while to collect diffs, and there's really no need, because you know people are objecting, including here on your talk page. Here is one, [3] and Philip objected, [4] then warned you, [5] and that's just today.
Regardless, I see you're agreeing to be more careful in making substantive changes, and I thank you for that. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You ignored Xandar, and of course I'm serious about him; why wouldn't I be? You must have ignored Philip's point or he wouldn't have come back to warn you. You kept the template discussion going long after it was clear consensus was against you. You were asked by several people at the OTRS policy to stop trying to change it, then were further asked to stop posting on multiple pages about it, yet you continued. Those are just a few examples. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 05:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You said "Because it seems that the only valid changes to policy ..."; is there supposed to be a "you're saying that" in there somewhere? - Dank ( push to talk) 22:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to wikippedia. You had requested for Citation on the technologies used for file transfer prior to 1970. This info is found in each of the linked the Wikipedia article. All these media are similar to storage in floppy disks. For example, punched cards of Fortran programs (files) were stored and shared with others by physically carrying it to office/home. -- Pinecar ( talk) 00:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
No one agreed to your removal of the subheadings at Naming conventions. Please reverse that when you get a moment. cygnis insignis 19:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.
You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xan dar 22:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes it removes other edits; see [6]. I believe this may have happened to me one other time before that, too. Best, Sandstein 13:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I have Firefox and have followed all the instructions, but it doesn't seem to work. Any suggestions? Apologies if this is a vague description. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 21:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom clerk notice - Your tool appears to ignore edit conflicts. This is a serious matter, as the tool has now overwritten a vote by an Arbtirator (see this diff). An arbitrator managed to catch this, but the overwrite went unnoticed for two days and could have altered a case outcome.
As a result ArbCom have now instructed the clerks to examine all edits made to all ArbCom pages in order to identify any other such problems. While this instruction is reasonable given the circumstances, it is a major task and we (the clerks) do NOT appreciate having to do it. Manning ( talk) 04:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
edit conflict with yourself, but I've edit conflicted with myself many times in the past. auto / decltype ( talk) 08:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
( edit conflict), lol <--- Hmm...If I'm not mistaken I just said that? :) But the original did not call updateData() prior to saving, I made that change when I heard of this bug. [8] So the chance of an EC was fairly large, actually. decltype ( talk) 09:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Bob decides to Reword his !vote to "Keep". In the meantime, Alice switches to "Delete". The script loads the most recent revision, which is:
and replaces the first instance of "Delete" with "Keep". The result is:
I have implemented the change as discussed. If the page has been revised since you loaded it, you won't be able to Reword it. decltype ( talk) 17:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I had thought it would fail on conflict by default, as it would now if in writing this I had an edit conflict. Or maybe I set an override flag somewhere, or omitted the previous revision date. If I didn't, then this should be filed as an API bug. Something this dangerous shouldn't be so easy, and the workaround shouldn't be so extensive.
I don't think I'll be around to take care of this script. I was going to add a couple of things to it today. (First, the alert box needs to be replaced with a proper textarea. Second, by comparing leftwards and rightwards on the selected text until it fails to match the loaded wikimarkup, you likely end up with two unique left and right ends that do match. You search for those in the markup, and anything between and including them is what you're editing. This would allow reword to edit arbitrary markup.) Unfortunately, the usability initiative borked up jQuery so I had to spend time fixing that instead. M 08:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You have mail... Or will have, in a few moments. decltype ( talk) 06:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Template:Nnote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator ( talk) 05:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Nnote requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". 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 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bulwersator ( talk) 05:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot ( error?) 09:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Hello,
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.
Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called M. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name M~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.
Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
01:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) ( talk)
16:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The file File:Left-aligned-295.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
orphaned image, uploaded for a discussion that no longer exists
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. ★
Bigr
Tex
16:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Template:Bugdesc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Trialpears ( talk) 17:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The file File:Bad image positioning.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused free use image with no clear use on the Wiki.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
fuzzy510 (
talk)
08:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Limewire logo.gif. 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 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).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Try Reword to make direct in-article edits of short phrases, in three steps: 1) Highlight 2) Reword 3) Submit. To find out how, click here.
I'm not currently active. M
Thanks. It's probably too early to say, but it seems to have quietened down. -- JD554 ( talk) 06:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
To be frank I think it's a lost cause. Either I'm naive or most of the detractors of this idea are overly paranoid. To suggest that a vandal (who I assume is normally a 13-year old kid who is bored with his homework) would register, make the requisite ten edits, wait 10 days, then vandalize a page about 16th century pianists seems far fetched, but what do I know? Your idea is well thought out and makes sense but I don't see anyone changing their minds, sorry. J04n( talk page) 08:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to
Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an
edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to
Timeline of file sharing. Thank you.
-
Garrett W. (
Talk /
Contribs /
Email)
20:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
... as is the case here.An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit.
Thanks for starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines/List - this looks like a useful thing to do (though I'm not clear what exactly you're proposing we do with the list - perhaps it depends on what you find?). Sorry, I don't have time for IRC at the moment, maybe in a week or two; but if you discuss on the talk page I can drive by and see/comment if I have time. So could you link the list from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Policy and Guidelines (and possibly list yourself as a participant)? cheers, Rd232 talk 01:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks for the advice about where to leave requests to bots, following my proposal at Wikipedia: Village Pump. All the best, ACEOREVIVED ( talk) 22:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I saw you post, "This isn't just my opinion - the recent usability study results back this up." This sounds very interesting; can you tell me where I can find this study? - GTBacchus( talk) 05:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, as I said, I'm not partaking in that discussion any further with you. I'm given confidence by Melodia's "trolling" comment a few paragraphs above my latest contribution, that I'm not alone in my opinions, and that the proposal is likely to be resolved-defeated quite shortly (from looking at the numbers, and the weight of the respective arguments, and WP:SNOW) without any further input from me.
For the record, I find your attitude a frustrating (perfectly plausibly, you're not trying to irritate, but you do nonetheless, and while you're trying to help Wikipedia, I'm concerned that you're not), and do urge you, for the good of the project, to consider what other people are saying to you, even those who don't agree with some of your views. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 08:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
You'll probably want to also take a close look at file sharing as some of the same info reverted from Timeline of file sharing has creeped in over there. Since you appear to be active on that page as well, I'll leave it to you decide what is appropriate to delete. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 18:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a closer look at the articles tomorrow and see if I can help end this dispute. I don't think you've reached the level of edit warring yet, but I would advise against making any more reverts for the time being. If this does keep up, you'll probably have to file an RfC, like you said, but if Deathmolor decides to start undoing my changes too, he could easily get into 3RR territory fast. there is also the possibility of bringing this to ANI if he is clearly being disruptive, but I wouldn't recommend it at this time as it is currently basically just a content dispute with some minor uncivility. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 02:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I just left Deathmolor I very stern warning about his legal threats and in general disruptive behavior. (and another user also did at virtually the same time). If he continues this behavior he will certainly be blocked (although not by me since I'm not actually an admin). -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
FYI: Users are perfectly within their rights to blank most comments from their talkpages. — Travis talk 00:15, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Please be advised that the removal of other editors' comments on article talk page is against WP policy and generally considered vandalism if it occurs repeatedly and intentionally, as you have demonstrated. Kbrose ( talk) 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I really like it. I'd go as far to say as it's the most visually appealing signature I've ever seen on the project. However, it's a little large, and it disrupts the flow of text (leaving extra space between the line above and the line including the sig). This could be solved by just making it a little smaller. hmwith τ 13:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
In response to your undoing of my RFC tag correction on Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Simplify_policy_RfC. In order for it to be properly listed, it needs to be formatted the way I have formatted it. As a result of changes in the mechanisms of the bot, instead of a sentence being entered as the one being sent to the RFC listings, the sentence is inferred based on the location of the tag. If there is no sentence with datestamp underneath the tag, then no description can get sent to the RFC listings. If I can find a way to get around this for the few situations that warrant it, then I will try to implement it. — harej 05:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
I should have listed that under G4. A series of sockpuppets have been recreating this article over a period of weeks. Thanks! Fribbler ( talk) 17:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Hiya M, I like your signature & was wondering whether you minded if I borrowed it? Is this too similar or not? Cheers! dottydotdot ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC).
Hello. I see people like your signature, and it does look nice, but there is a problem causing Opera 9.64 (latest version) to add large chunks of whitespace both to the right and to the bottom of the content on all pages where it's used—it seems both the width and height are exactly doubled. I can't quite penetrate the intricacies of the syntax, but do you know what might cause this? IE, Firefox and Chrome don't have this problem. — JAO • T • C 12:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Little notice: Template talk:File sharing protocols
Greetings, Old Death ( talk) 08:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from further attempts to instigate edit wars or tempting other editors to simply keep reverting edits you have a bias against, such as you did here. Kbrose ( talk) 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hey, thanks a lot for the notice and for trying to restore my edits :) I must say, however, that those were just one of those random edits I make wherever I find something that I feel I can improve; not something I care deeply about, so I'd rather not start a discussion on the subject. Besides, I wasn't entirely sure of the technical correctness of my edits. I do feel there are some categories the article should belong to -- perhaps not the specific ones I added, but something more than what it currently belongs to. For example, Kbrose wrote that P2P is not a network architecture, but an application architecture; well, first of all, the category is called "network architecture", not "network architectures", so I still feel it might belong there; On the other hand, perhaps a "application architectures" category could be added, or something similar. Feel free to suggest these edits or make them yourself, but once again I'd rather not do it myself (I have been lately too busy to even check my watchlist, so you see why I am not willing to expand my attention span even further :) ) Anyway, thanks again for your attention :) Cheers, Waldir talk 09:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You objected to David Levy's ad hominem remarks. FWIW, I have asked for input: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Personal remarks. -- Una Smith ( talk) 22:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The criteria for speedy deletion:
end sandbox M 18:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
So the other day I had something of a confrontation with a grumpy old timer at the office where I work. He was with the company for as long as I have lived! He was going like "yeah yeah, you want to do this and that, but I've seen it all, and guess who gets to pick up the pieces once you leave/get fired/etc. so many years down the road? There's no way I'm going to let you just do your job!"
He was being all agressive and intimidating about it too.
And, well, in my discussion with you, I feel like we're getting into a similar situation, with myself in the role of that guy, and I don't WANT to be like that guy. :-P
So let's see what I can do about that.
First of all, I want to say how much I appreciate your patient attitude and diplomatic approach to discussing your changes with myself and others. That should help a bit, at least.
Second - as I think we have to cover a lot of ground - it might be handy to talk using some real time communications system, so that we can go back and forth. Would you have access to (in order of preference) irc, skype, msn or aim?
I hope to hear back from you soon!
-- Kim Bruning ( talk) 19:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
This is a bad idea. Yes, this causes more people to give barnstars. Unfortunately, it will soon become a pain in the ass if editors start giving out batches of these. Barnstars should not ask more from an editor. They are an award, not an invitation to a game. M 21:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, You are an exprienced editor and I excepted that you at least discuss it with
author (Me!) or on
WikiProject Wikipedia Awards talk page before any action, and if the community decision was that this award is a bad idea then I'll make another image for it. I hope you don't mind that I temporary reverted your edit in template page, but I'll not add it to
Barnstars page until the final decision by community.
Now about the award: The
Pay it forward barnstar was made to promote
WikiLove. to make
users friendly with each other, same as all other
Wikilove templates, If you think the template's image should not be a barnstar, well that is discussable. Why this a bad idea if more people give barnstars to each other? we have many
Barnstars, general ones, topicals and wikipedia-space barnstars, all of them are different in shape, mean and value. Barnstars are not just an award, they are for making an stronger and friendlier community, and the one I made will specially designed for this aim (making an stronger and friendlier community). Regards.
■ MMXX
talk
04:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Personally, I think the clause would be better off without the qualifier at all. That is, stop at "This excludes poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, coherent non-English material, poorly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes". You're right that the "sometimes we do" language is really a reference to G3 and is unnecessary to the G1 clause.
My concern was based on the assumption that the clause has to stay in (just because changing anything on that page is hard) and if it must stay in, then it needs to clearly mirror the "blatant" language below. I'll try pulling it out and let's see if we get reverted. Rossami (talk) 04:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Despite our dustup over G9, I just wanted to stop by and tell you I think your changing of the descriptions to list the criteria section and number in the same form as we use them is a great idea!-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 12:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! and I'm enjoying that discussion as well :) M 18:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello. At Template_talk:Policy#RfC:_Changes_made_should_reflect_consensus you stated that
: Just now I removed a deletion of a CSD by someone who seemed to have a good contribution record, a few hours ago someone added "info pages" as being neutral and having strong "tie-in" or somesuch. This does nothing to stop reckless editors from trying to change policy page. The only ones it seems to stop are the careful ones, as clearly evidenced by how carelessly our policies are written.
— M
I wanted to know why you removed the infopages from the policy page. I took the text directly from {{ infopage}}. Smallman12q ( talk) 13:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Happy editing!
M, I want to apologize to you for the way I behaved the other day, when I asked you not to post about the policy template on my talk page. I was irritated by something else that day, something unconnected to you or the policies, and it made me short with you, which I very much regret. It's clear that you're doing good work, trying to create a structure within which the policies and guidelines can be consistent and coherent, which is a mammoth task, and one you're to be congratulated for taking on. I won't always agree with you on specific points, but I do very much respect the overall effort, and I don't want to make it harder than it needs to be. I'm very sorry I reacted the way I did. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 12:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed you are now edit warring on WP:NOT while there is an RFC about the edit in question underway. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 13:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi M! I have to admit that I am very impressed by your "Reword" script, which I believe has the potential to completely alter the way we edit wiki pages. (Dare I use the phrase " paradigm shift"?) I have unfortunately found that it is too disruptive to have it constantly enabled, as I often select text for different reasons than to paraphraze it, especially outside of mainspace. I was wondering if you have considered adding functionality to either: automatically disable the script outside of mainspace, or some other way to quickly disable/enable it without updating monobook.js. Anyway, great work! Regards, decltype ( talk) 14:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad you like it! Yes... I've found this to be a problem too, copy-pasting is a pain but I'm much too lazy to turn it off (usually triggering the box elsewhere and then copy-pasting does the trick...). What did you think of the alertbox that popped up to confirm your edit? That was the interface I used before, rather than the fancier box (which is a bit buggy sometimes). The fancy box is nice, but might be too obtrusive, and I like simple things. I was thinking of doing one of the following:
Or some combination of these. Which would you prefer to use? Is the as-you-select word-chopping useful? And may I ask which browser you're using? M 15:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok, fixed - you now have to hold down control while releasing to have an alertbox pop up, otherwise nothing will happen. It reloads the page after you're done. I don't know what happens if you select too many words, I think it just chops the summary off. Also, there's no feedback that you actually selected editable text (it can't yet edit refs, or I think bold, and that sort of thing). The changes across punctuation are due to people putting two spaces after their periods - html ignores anything over one consecutive regular space, so it can't to find the singlespaced version in the source wiki text, to allow for replacing. M 20:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
What are the quirks? I'm very open to criticism and suggestions here; the more information I have, the easier it is to find effective ways to improve this. The small details are especially important. By the way, if instead of click-dragging to select characters, you doubleclick-drag to select words, things may be a bit easier (I just looked this up, myself). I was actually thinking of having it mark insertions and deletions with del. and ins. - especially deletions, which are often left with an arrow pointing to nothing. M 01:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll work on adding a little hover, or maybe a changing cursor or something to indicate that the selection is good or bad. I think you should be able to select this or also this or also this just fine, as long as you select the entire word (or not - I'll check why this is). Usually it's the bluelinks in the form of [Alphabet|abc] that trip it up, due to capitalization (though a bunch of those should work too). M 01:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I have tested the latest version a bit on IE7. I made a small adjustment to some code that was causing the script to fail (complaining that 'console is undefined'). If you know why this is, perhaps you can make a better fix. I tried it on links and formatted text and it worked just as expected, except failing, as you indicated above, on capitalized links (not just piped links). The coloring of the page is a nice indicator for whether it will fail or not. Finally, I found a subtle bug while testing it on the article Goran Svilanović, in that it won't accept any selection except the article title itself. decltype ( talk) 13:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
LOL, I was going to write "<---" and triggered the signature. Anyway, I was writing this with your version. Couple of questions: Why did you change "\n" to two newlines instead of one? But IIUC it's customizable. As for the summary, I don't want the default summary when I'm (ab)using the script to reply to messages, as it clutters the history. All I want is, say, "re (using REWORD)", when there's a custom edsum. What do you think? (I suppose that could be made customizable with a flag) decltype ( talk) 00:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi again, some more comments: I can't get it to recognize "¤" for summaries. This is how I am importing it into my monobook:
importScript('User:M/reword.js');
rewordComment = "¤";
rewordReplace("\\n","\n");
Any ideas? Another, more serious problem, is that it seems to be marking every edit as minor. This needs to be changed, since the script is powerful enough to perform many non-controversial tasks, including tagging pages for speedy deletion. Regards, decltype ( talk) 02:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Your reward script doesn't seem to work in IE8 -- Tyw7 ( Talk • Contributions) 11:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I am going to re-order your hit list so I hope you don't mind. No wording is being changed at this point. The order is important because someday, your list may be an official WP policy list. User F203 ( talk) 15:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
WP policies and guidelines are all scattered. They are also not clearly indicated by name if they are a policy or guideline. One has to go to the exact page to see it. For example: WP:BLP1E. There is no indication in the abbreviation if it is a policy or not.
One way to fix this is to codify everything like laws. For example, the abbreviation for WP:NOTNEWS could be optionally written WP:NOTNEWS G3.12. G would be guideline. 3 would be section 3. In section 3, there would be several subsections, number 12 being notnews.
However, this would run into some opposition. If there is no consensus, disorder is the consensus. So I think I will not even propose this idea. The best we can do is to put the guidelines and policies in one place.
This is not bureaucracy. For example, user names that resemble companies are often suddenly blocked. This is bad treatment of people. According to the rules, a user name such as Microsoft is not allowed. However, the rules are scattered all over the place that even I don't know where they all are. Putting them in one place (but not numbering them) is a great idea. User F203 ( talk) 19:06, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You have accused other editors of "repeated personal attacks [1] I have requested difs [2] which as you have not yet responded, in spite of having subsequently posted on that page, I believe you may have missed. Please provide the difs asked for, or strike your accusation. KillerChihuahua ?!? Advice 14:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
In the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#NFT_Straw_Poll you mentioned:
"as a recent RfC has made very clear, the only things admins may delete without discussion must fall explicitly under existing criteria"
Have you got a link to that Rfc? It would be very helpful to another discussion I'm having at the moment. Thanks! AndrewRT( Talk) 22:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The Hello Barnstar | ||
This is to say hello to a fellow Wikipedian User F203 ( talk) 19:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)) |
The OTRS policy poll you've started should properly be held on the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page. At the very least, it needs to be notified there and on WP:AN.
Please move it to the Village Pump.
Continuing to try and force discussion only on the policy talk page, after multiple warnings that it's the wrong venue, is approaching disruptive. I really don't want to shut down discussion on this topic but you HAVE to notify properly and really, really should make sure that it is in the right place (Village Pump).
Please take appropriate corrective actions.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert ( talk) 22:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | ||
For your great improvements to the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion page. Thanks to you, the page is far more readable and concise than what it previously was. MuZemike 02:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) |
You got new messages under the section reword. -- Tyw7 ( Talk • Contributions) 09:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
That should not be an issue. Do what many of us have done, register a free anonymous gmail account. That's what i use; not my ISP based e-mail :) -- Avi ( talk) 14:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, just wanted to let you know that I'm in the process of moving from Indiana to California and that's going to put me out of commission for about a week. I'm sorry that this is going to stagnate our discussion. :-( Thanks for your patience on these things, and I'll try to stay up to date as much as I can. causa sui × 04:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi
Noticed
WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 36#Single user page warning template too late:
You can already use say {{
subst:db-a7-notice}} for {{
db-a7}}, all those redirects with the criterion abbreviation should exist. If you're manually tagging something for SD with, say, {{
db-foo}}, and {{
db-foo-notice}} doesn't exist, just create a redirect and you're set.
Cheers,
Amalthea
22:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I have requested your editing be reviewed here. NonvocalScream ( talk) 20:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
M, as I said earlier, I very much appreciate your efforts to streamline and copy edit the policies. But this can't extent to making substantive changes over multiple objections. You saw in the template RfC that people do not want editors rushing in to change policy without discussion, yet still you are arguing that they do, and adding that to policy pages (or removing the advice to be cautious). Please start another RfC if you feel the first RfC wasn't representative, but you shouldn't simply ignore the mutiple objections. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 20:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
When you mention another editors contributions in an unfavourable way on a public noticeboard as you did here & here, you must notify the editor so they can comment if they wish. Failing to do so is both extremely discourteous and undermines any assertion of acting in good faith that you may wish to make. I have notified David on your behalf for these instances but I suggest you let them know of anywhere else that you have listed this. Spartaz Humbug! 06:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I note that you added a link to Google Scholar in the 'References' section of Language fragment. Was this your intention, or did you have a specific paper or book in mind? I skimmed the first ten results on that page, but none of them seem to support the notion that "A language fragment is a subset of the group of proper sentences of a language." Cnilep ( talk) 19:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Statements such as "I also don't attribute the same weight to the !votes of OTRS users…" indicates a refutation of wikipedia's consensus-based editing and a likely tendency to disruptive editing. For a while now you have been in the distinct minority, and now you are attempting to dilute the value of people who disagree with you in some Orwellian fashion. I would suggest you take a step back and see how your involvement in this discussion has so narrowed your focus that you seem to have lost site of core wikipedia policies and guidelines. Otherwise, I fear that a wider discussion of these statements may be necessary. Thank you. -- Avi ( talk) 14:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
No, I just figured that it was unnecessary to continuously archive the page when it receives so little traffic. I could understand to have it automatically archive if there were ten new sections a day like some talk pages do, but Talk:File sharing gets about one section a month. Gary King ( talk) 18:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I thought what you said there seemed very reasonable but I don't know if the discussion has rather died and I am resurrecting a dead horse for you to flog some more :) At any rate I left a comment there. TheGrappler ( talk) 21:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey there. You don't seem to have an e-mail address set. Also, there's some interesting discussion happening at WP:5P that I thought you might enjoy. Cheers. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 00:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Has Reword been tested on Macs? I can't seem to get it to work in either Safari or Firefox. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Shrug. Do state your position on the suggested positions, which is most of what I've been doing. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
If you choose to go to ANI about this matter, do quote Xandar's canvassing - and this edit, by an admin, calling it an invitation to meatpuppetry. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The redirect is unused and a natural place for the policy. The policy page itself has become a general chat about admins. As for the Smith and Jones in OR, it's primarily seeing the wood for the trees. I seem to remember when we had a handful of policies and they were all very short and succinct. Rich Farmbrough, 04:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC).
changing the sections further down the policy is one thing, but changing the first key policy is quite another think. You gave no indication that you were going to change the top sections, and I do not agree with changing them for the reasons I have outlined. There is no fire with this stuff, and for much of it there is a very good reason it is structured as it is. Please discuss the changes you wish to make, explain why you wish to make a specific change and wait and see if anyone objects, as for most of the policy this has been discussed in detail several times before and the positioning of most of it is as it is for specific reasons. -- PBS ( talk) 00:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with you edit up until
this one, but that edit and the ones that followed are unacceptable.
I am now putting on my Admin hat. Editing a policy page to make a point is unacceptable Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). WP:NC is a working policy which you disrupted with these edits 1 2. In all the WP:NC policy page was made deliberately incorrect by you for 20 minutes. If you edit the NC policy page like that again to make a point, I will block you account for a time. -- PBS ( talk) 01:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how this is editing to make a point. I suggest you leave this to an uninvolved admin. M 01:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You are a party in a request for an Arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#.3CCatholic_Church_and_Renaming.3E -- Rockstone ( talk) 01:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi M, in the interests of dispute resolution, I'm writing again to ask you to stop making fundamental changes to policies. I am seeing objections to your changes all over the place, yet you're reverting when challenged, and filibustering on talk.
I do very much support your efforts to copy edit, and to make sure that guidelines don't contradict policies, or each other, but making substantive changes over prolonged, multiple objections risks causing the policy or guideline you're changing to be ignored in future. There is a strong descriptive element to policies; indeed, some people argue the policies should only be descriptive. I'm therefore asking you again to stop what you're doing, and perhaps to gain more experience editing articles so that you can see how the policies affect content in practice. That will help you to copy edit without removing sentences or sections that people regard as important. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I am objecting here to all the changes you're making to policies and guidelines, including the changes I personally agree with, and the way you're making them. For several weeks, you've been ignoring people's objections on multiple pages. I'm asking you to stop, except for basic copy-editing, and to start listening to the people who rely on these policies to be stable. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It would take me a while to collect diffs, and there's really no need, because you know people are objecting, including here on your talk page. Here is one, [3] and Philip objected, [4] then warned you, [5] and that's just today.
Regardless, I see you're agreeing to be more careful in making substantive changes, and I thank you for that. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 03:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You ignored Xandar, and of course I'm serious about him; why wouldn't I be? You must have ignored Philip's point or he wouldn't have come back to warn you. You kept the template discussion going long after it was clear consensus was against you. You were asked by several people at the OTRS policy to stop trying to change it, then were further asked to stop posting on multiple pages about it, yet you continued. Those are just a few examples. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 05:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
You said "Because it seems that the only valid changes to policy ..."; is there supposed to be a "you're saying that" in there somewhere? - Dank ( push to talk) 22:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your contributions to wikippedia. You had requested for Citation on the technologies used for file transfer prior to 1970. This info is found in each of the linked the Wikipedia article. All these media are similar to storage in floppy disks. For example, punched cards of Fortran programs (files) were stored and shared with others by physically carrying it to office/home. -- Pinecar ( talk) 00:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
No one agreed to your removal of the subheadings at Naming conventions. Please reverse that when you get a moment. cygnis insignis 19:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
This is to inform you that the removal of exceptions to the use of Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles from the the Talk:Naming_Conventions policy page, is the subject of a referral for Comment (RfC). This follows recent changes by some editors.
You are being informed as an editor previously involved in discussion of these issues relevant to that policy page. You are invited to comment at this location. Xan dar 22:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes it removes other edits; see [6]. I believe this may have happened to me one other time before that, too. Best, Sandstein 13:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I have Firefox and have followed all the instructions, but it doesn't seem to work. Any suggestions? Apologies if this is a vague description. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 21:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
ArbCom clerk notice - Your tool appears to ignore edit conflicts. This is a serious matter, as the tool has now overwritten a vote by an Arbtirator (see this diff). An arbitrator managed to catch this, but the overwrite went unnoticed for two days and could have altered a case outcome.
As a result ArbCom have now instructed the clerks to examine all edits made to all ArbCom pages in order to identify any other such problems. While this instruction is reasonable given the circumstances, it is a major task and we (the clerks) do NOT appreciate having to do it. Manning ( talk) 04:53, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
edit conflict with yourself, but I've edit conflicted with myself many times in the past. auto / decltype ( talk) 08:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
( edit conflict), lol <--- Hmm...If I'm not mistaken I just said that? :) But the original did not call updateData() prior to saving, I made that change when I heard of this bug. [8] So the chance of an EC was fairly large, actually. decltype ( talk) 09:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Bob decides to Reword his !vote to "Keep". In the meantime, Alice switches to "Delete". The script loads the most recent revision, which is:
and replaces the first instance of "Delete" with "Keep". The result is:
I have implemented the change as discussed. If the page has been revised since you loaded it, you won't be able to Reword it. decltype ( talk) 17:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I had thought it would fail on conflict by default, as it would now if in writing this I had an edit conflict. Or maybe I set an override flag somewhere, or omitted the previous revision date. If I didn't, then this should be filed as an API bug. Something this dangerous shouldn't be so easy, and the workaround shouldn't be so extensive.
I don't think I'll be around to take care of this script. I was going to add a couple of things to it today. (First, the alert box needs to be replaced with a proper textarea. Second, by comparing leftwards and rightwards on the selected text until it fails to match the loaded wikimarkup, you likely end up with two unique left and right ends that do match. You search for those in the markup, and anything between and including them is what you're editing. This would allow reword to edit arbitrary markup.) Unfortunately, the usability initiative borked up jQuery so I had to spend time fixing that instead. M 08:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
You have mail... Or will have, in a few moments. decltype ( talk) 06:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom/Article title. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC) (Using {{ Please see}})
Template:Nnote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator ( talk) 05:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Nnote requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". 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 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bulwersator ( talk) 05:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot ( error?) 09:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Hello,
The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.
Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called M. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name M~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.
Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.
Sorry for the inconvenience.
Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation
01:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) ( talk)
16:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
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)
08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The file File:Left-aligned-295.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
orphaned image, uploaded for a discussion that no longer exists
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion. ★
Bigr
Tex
16:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Template:Bugdesc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Trialpears ( talk) 17:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
The file File:Bad image positioning.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Unused free use image with no clear use on the Wiki.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
fuzzy510 (
talk)
08:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Limewire logo.gif. 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 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).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)