This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 2010 | ← | Archive 2014 | Archive 2015 | Archive 2016 |
Regarding this unblock, and this comment, are you going to have more to say at WP:AE? It might help the closing admins decide what to do with the complaint. Need more information (or more admin commentary) as to possible bad editing regarding Warsaw Pact. Also, if a topic ban is needed, what is the best scope. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is the edit [1]. An explicit link to this page was added [2]. The JBS is a conservative political group with links to the Koch family. Springee ( talk) 17:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. I don't understand why you reverted my edit of 84 (number). Your comment is "no indication of the number in the remaining article". If you mean the article Computus which I refer to, it says, "A completely distinct 84 - year cycle, the Insular latercus, was used in the British Isles. These old tables were used in Northumbria until 664, and by isolated monasteries as late as 931."
By the way, did you ever get my letter to you of July 19, 2014? (Or those of August 3 & 11, 2014?) I have just finished a paper on the work of Louis de Branges on proving the Riemann Hypothesis ( Commentary on work of Louis de Branges). Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 08:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs),
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs),
UY Scuti (
talk ·
contribs)
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
COASTIE I am ( talk) 01:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Wik-Ed Women Session #5 | |
---|---|
Dear fellow Wikipedian, I would like to personally invite you to the March edition of the Wik-Ed Women meetup, which will take place on March 15, from 6-10 in the evening. It will occur at Los Angeles Contemporary Archive, 2245 E Washington Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90021 (downtown LA -- map). The building has a pink top with old signage for American Accessories, Inc. dba Princess Accessories ( Photos [PDF]). There is on-site parking in the back, which also has an entrance. If you cannot attend in person, you are more than willing to work remotely, as we appreciate all help that you can provide. Finally, here is a link to the Facebook event, in case you want to invite friends, as we are always looking for new editors to help expand coverage of women on Wikipedia! I hope to see you there! Cosmicphantom ( talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list. |
Is this [3] what you were referring to here [4]? I think one has to assume that if an editor adds Koch related material to the article [5] they would assume the article to be Koch related. I certainly noticed but honestly I would just be happy if HughD would gracefully bow out of the auto topics and we could both agree to leave each other alone (including not revisiting previous points of contention). Springee ( talk) 01:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
UY Scuti (
talk ·
contribs)
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to avoid the bait that HughD is leaving out but it really seems to me that he is going too far. After the recent ANI you would think a smart editor would avoid old disputes. HughD instead has driven right back into the Chrysler article and the MJ related content, totally ignoring previous discussions and setting up RfC's without allowing others a chance to interject. Do you have any suggestions? Springee ( talk) 20:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that Hewitt has had quite a hard time understanding how Wikipedia works...and have been disagreeing with his content suggestions for another article...I stumbled over to his Wikipedia article, looked at the talk page...was wondering about the IR...if it's true that this is what his research has predominately been about for many years then isn't that in itself reason enough for inclusion? that is, even if IR itself is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article...it has been determined that Hewitt himself is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article...so isn't it relevant/of note what he's been working on?? 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 19:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Chrysler.
This edit summary is a violation of WP:AGF, and also an example of poor reading comprehension. Several of the "support" editors said multiple times that it would be an improvement to make it more balanced, and to include context and balance the criticism with more positive facts about Chrysler's public image.
Do you think it would be helpful if the supporting editors decided to accuse everyone who didn't agree with them of being "pro-corporate" or "pro-business"? The point of the AGF policy is to have productive discussions about content, not contributors. If you think anyone has a COI, is abusing multiple accounts, or otherwise !voting in a way that violates policy, then you should say so in an appropriate venues. Otherwise, please stop making uncharitable assumptions about others, or at least keep them to yourself.
Also, your first count of the number of editors supporting the proposal was completely off the mark. Your correction was only slightly better, from zero to one. The actual number at the time of your edits was four !votes in favor, and five opposed, which is not overwhelming either way and suggests extending the discussion to find stronger consensus is the obvious step. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
If you really have a problem with HughD or EllenCT, you should find an appropriate venue for those complaints, and keep your posts and edit summaries on topic at Talk:Chrysler. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
You know there's some prominent articles on companies filled with product-related material, including controversies, public image problems, recalls and more? Holden, for example, another car company like Chrysler and somebody has gone and written stuff about how some of their cars had problems. And Ace Books. And BAE Systems. And -- well, here's the whole list of them. Go delete all that product-related material right away. Hurry. It does not belong.
I don't have anything more to add to this that could be of any use. Whatever is going on between you and Hugh and Ellen is not my problem. Good luck. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Real life has again taken me away from en.wp. I hope to be able to get back to your page in the next 48 hours or so. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 20:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by
The Interior,
Ocaasi,
UY Scuti,
Sadads, and
Nikkimaria
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi,
Samwalton9,
UY Scuti, and
Sadads
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Arthur Rubin. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Arthur, I was hoping to pick your brains with regards to the best way to handle a content dispute and resolution. The primary discussion is on the auto project page [ [6]]. I'm trying to decide which method might be most effective in terms of getting other eyes on the topic. I'm considering RfC as well as the NPOV notice board. NPOV is good in that it gets a reasonable amount of traffic but I'm not sure I see this as 100% a NPOV issue (non-NPOV arguments have been put forth). RfC would seem like a good idea but given the conversation is already on the related project page I'm not sure it would work well. Anyway, any suggestions? Thanks. Springee ( talk) 03:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
If Springee can't take a step back give other editors the space work on finding consensus, all the advice he needs is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Follow up question. At what point does this sort of thing become a personal attack? [
[7]]
Springee (
talk)
03:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Does the 3RR rule apply to talk page reversions? I feel like this is really going over the line [ [8]], see the removal of my talk page comments end of Oct 15-16th. I tried restoring but I'm done now. Springee ( talk) 03:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Brexit invoke date has been announced by the UK government as March 2017. It's quite an important scheduled event which deserves to be included. It's far more relevant than a solar eclipse! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKMMX ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
hi,
Thanks for your attempt to restore said page, deletion of which i, for one, regret. If you should have a backup, i would be grateful for a copy (here, anywhere, or by PM). Or is the content still available anywhere? (If it is, on WP, i didn't yet figure out how to find/get it). Best Regards from Vienna: wda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wda ( talk • contribs) 11:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
> Article restored to User:Wda/Barry Jennings. ...
THANKS. I'm done with it in the sense that i've made a copy; wouldn't mind at all if it stayed available as
User:Wda/Barry_Jennings. "
... Evidence that Barry Jennings and Michael Hess Experienced an Explosion in WTC 7 the Morning of 9/11" has also been collected & published by Consensus911.org, so it won't go down the memory hole just yet. Best! --
Wda (
talk)
19:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by
Nikkimaria,
Sadads and
UY Scuti
19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
You reverted a few of my edits of the Stevo Todorcevic article
You wrote: "Mathematical genealogy" is self-reported, and the list is not here; other material is just unsourced.
Kindly, please, put back the removed text in the article.-- Vujkovica brdo ( talk) 09:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I would like to understand why you reverted my edit to 173 (number). 173 is included on the List of notable numbers, so I accept it is notable. This is why I added that list to the "see also" list on the article. But you reverted that edit, with the rather unhelpful comment nonsense "See also". I don't see why you claim it is "nonsense" - reviewing the guidelines at MOS:SEEALSO, it seems to be in line with everything there. Would you mind explaining your objection to including the link to this in the "See also" section?-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 06:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Arthur Rubin.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
What sort of advanced degrees do YOU have to be able to even KNOW the difference among causation, correlation and coincidence and does CONTEXT not matter to you? At all? Really? You have reverted the article to an outright lie -- which it was BEFORE I corrected papers and found yours to be an F. And what country are you from, anyway?
PROUDLY AND REPEATEDLY ***** CENSORED ***** BY SOME DEPLORABLE AT WIKIPEDIA. Thom Prentice ( talk) 23:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Would it be a problem, if I deleted the US prez inaugurations from all the Year articles? GoodDay ( talk) 02:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Arthur Rubin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Good evening,
I am trying to mention Rita Barberá (great mayor of Spain) in the list of deceased in 2016 in English, but shortly after you delete it. I do not understand why, I'm new here and I think I'm not doing anything with bad faith. In addition, I consider that this woman for 24 years (even the scandalous cases of corruption of her council and political party) was considered the most powerful Mayor of the country, so I think it is something that should be mentioned here.
I pray that I can understand my novice status and I apologize for the inconvenience. I would like you to help me as the revocation was on your part.
Thank you very much, greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsoriano97 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I really feel very bad about my insistence and I fear that I will become very annoying. Rita was able to put Valencia on a map: he managed to host the 5th World Meeting of Families with the visit of Pope Benedict XVI, he built the Formula 1 circuit to call the Spanish Grand Prix in this category (although both celebrations have ended Uncovering terrible cases of corruption of the City Council with Barberá as chief, being this tried two days before dying). If these two actions really are not enough, I will admit your opinions and I will not make any other attempt to mention or leave messages.
Sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsoriano97 ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 50.247.81.99 ( talk) 23:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin; why "User:Arthur Rubin", your userpage is protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.125.61 ( talk) 09:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur Rubin.
It seems that the "Michigan kid" is back ( [10], [11]). Beagel ( talk) 06:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, just curious about why some events on the 2016 article were not notable. For example, why was the impeachment of the South Korean President removed, but the impeachment of the Brazilian President is fine? And why are bombings in Brussels and Lahore in the article, when other bombings and earthquakes with a much higher death toll have been removed? Are there some specific guidelines for notability? I'm not contesting the removals, just wondering for future reference. Neegzistuoja ( talk) 11:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Do these work?
For 2009 page... Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson.
For 1994 page… Dick Sargent and Kim Il-Sung.
Do you think it's nearly even? Because I have been going back and forth on my phone. 206.45.11.108 ( talk) 03:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lightbulb. Since you had some involvement with the lightbulb redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
FYI, I suspect Hugh has been editing via IP addresses. I requested an investigation but didn't realize check user can't be used with IP editors. Anyway, the edit patterns seem very similar (my original filing [ [12]], additional edits that seem suspicious but are from an Amazon IP outside the US.[ [13]]) Springee ( talk) 05:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 2010 | ← | Archive 2014 | Archive 2015 | Archive 2016 |
Regarding this unblock, and this comment, are you going to have more to say at WP:AE? It might help the closing admins decide what to do with the complaint. Need more information (or more admin commentary) as to possible bad editing regarding Warsaw Pact. Also, if a topic ban is needed, what is the best scope. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Here is the edit [1]. An explicit link to this page was added [2]. The JBS is a conservative political group with links to the Koch family. Springee ( talk) 17:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Arthur. I don't understand why you reverted my edit of 84 (number). Your comment is "no indication of the number in the remaining article". If you mean the article Computus which I refer to, it says, "A completely distinct 84 - year cycle, the Insular latercus, was used in the British Isles. These old tables were used in Northumbria until 664, and by isolated monasteries as late as 931."
By the way, did you ever get my letter to you of July 19, 2014? (Or those of August 3 & 11, 2014?) I have just finished a paper on the work of Louis de Branges on proving the Riemann Hypothesis ( Commentary on work of Louis de Branges). Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 08:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 15, December-January 2016
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi (
talk ·
contribs),
Sadads (
talk ·
contribs),
Nikkimaria (
talk ·
contribs),
UY Scuti (
talk ·
contribs)
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
COASTIE I am ( talk) 01:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Wik-Ed Women Session #5 | |
---|---|
Dear fellow Wikipedian, I would like to personally invite you to the March edition of the Wik-Ed Women meetup, which will take place on March 15, from 6-10 in the evening. It will occur at Los Angeles Contemporary Archive, 2245 E Washington Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90021 (downtown LA -- map). The building has a pink top with old signage for American Accessories, Inc. dba Princess Accessories ( Photos [PDF]). There is on-site parking in the back, which also has an entrance. If you cannot attend in person, you are more than willing to work remotely, as we appreciate all help that you can provide. Finally, here is a link to the Facebook event, in case you want to invite friends, as we are always looking for new editors to help expand coverage of women on Wikipedia! I hope to see you there! Cosmicphantom ( talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 05:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list. |
Is this [3] what you were referring to here [4]? I think one has to assume that if an editor adds Koch related material to the article [5] they would assume the article to be Koch related. I certainly noticed but honestly I would just be happy if HughD would gracefully bow out of the auto topics and we could both agree to leave each other alone (including not revisiting previous points of contention). Springee ( talk) 01:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 16, February-March 2016
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
UY Scuti (
talk ·
contribs)
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 15:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm trying to avoid the bait that HughD is leaving out but it really seems to me that he is going too far. After the recent ANI you would think a smart editor would avoid old disputes. HughD instead has driven right back into the Chrysler article and the MJ related content, totally ignoring previous discussions and setting up RfC's without allowing others a chance to interject. Do you have any suggestions? Springee ( talk) 20:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that Hewitt has had quite a hard time understanding how Wikipedia works...and have been disagreeing with his content suggestions for another article...I stumbled over to his Wikipedia article, looked at the talk page...was wondering about the IR...if it's true that this is what his research has predominately been about for many years then isn't that in itself reason enough for inclusion? that is, even if IR itself is not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article...it has been determined that Hewitt himself is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article...so isn't it relevant/of note what he's been working on?? 68.48.241.158 ( talk) 19:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Chrysler.
This edit summary is a violation of WP:AGF, and also an example of poor reading comprehension. Several of the "support" editors said multiple times that it would be an improvement to make it more balanced, and to include context and balance the criticism with more positive facts about Chrysler's public image.
Do you think it would be helpful if the supporting editors decided to accuse everyone who didn't agree with them of being "pro-corporate" or "pro-business"? The point of the AGF policy is to have productive discussions about content, not contributors. If you think anyone has a COI, is abusing multiple accounts, or otherwise !voting in a way that violates policy, then you should say so in an appropriate venues. Otherwise, please stop making uncharitable assumptions about others, or at least keep them to yourself.
Also, your first count of the number of editors supporting the proposal was completely off the mark. Your correction was only slightly better, from zero to one. The actual number at the time of your edits was four !votes in favor, and five opposed, which is not overwhelming either way and suggests extending the discussion to find stronger consensus is the obvious step. Dennis Bratland ( talk) 19:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
If you really have a problem with HughD or EllenCT, you should find an appropriate venue for those complaints, and keep your posts and edit summaries on topic at Talk:Chrysler. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
You know there's some prominent articles on companies filled with product-related material, including controversies, public image problems, recalls and more? Holden, for example, another car company like Chrysler and somebody has gone and written stuff about how some of their cars had problems. And Ace Books. And BAE Systems. And -- well, here's the whole list of them. Go delete all that product-related material right away. Hurry. It does not belong.
I don't have anything more to add to this that could be of any use. Whatever is going on between you and Hugh and Ellen is not my problem. Good luck. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 02:39, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Real life has again taken me away from en.wp. I hope to be able to get back to your page in the next 48 hours or so. Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 20:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 17, April-May 2016
by
The Interior,
Ocaasi,
UY Scuti,
Sadads, and
Nikkimaria
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by
The Interior (
talk ·
contribs),
Ocaasi,
Samwalton9,
UY Scuti, and
Sadads
The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Arthur Rubin. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Arthur, I was hoping to pick your brains with regards to the best way to handle a content dispute and resolution. The primary discussion is on the auto project page [ [6]]. I'm trying to decide which method might be most effective in terms of getting other eyes on the topic. I'm considering RfC as well as the NPOV notice board. NPOV is good in that it gets a reasonable amount of traffic but I'm not sure I see this as 100% a NPOV issue (non-NPOV arguments have been put forth). RfC would seem like a good idea but given the conversation is already on the related project page I'm not sure it would work well. Anyway, any suggestions? Thanks. Springee ( talk) 03:02, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
If Springee can't take a step back give other editors the space work on finding consensus, all the advice he needs is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 03:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Follow up question. At what point does this sort of thing become a personal attack? [
[7]]
Springee (
talk)
03:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Does the 3RR rule apply to talk page reversions? I feel like this is really going over the line [ [8]], see the removal of my talk page comments end of Oct 15-16th. I tried restoring but I'm done now. Springee ( talk) 03:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Brexit invoke date has been announced by the UK government as March 2017. It's quite an important scheduled event which deserves to be included. It's far more relevant than a solar eclipse! — Preceding unsigned comment added by JKMMX ( talk • contribs) 18:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
hi,
Thanks for your attempt to restore said page, deletion of which i, for one, regret. If you should have a backup, i would be grateful for a copy (here, anywhere, or by PM). Or is the content still available anywhere? (If it is, on WP, i didn't yet figure out how to find/get it). Best Regards from Vienna: wda — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wda ( talk • contribs) 11:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
> Article restored to User:Wda/Barry Jennings. ...
THANKS. I'm done with it in the sense that i've made a copy; wouldn't mind at all if it stayed available as
User:Wda/Barry_Jennings. "
... Evidence that Barry Jennings and Michael Hess Experienced an Explosion in WTC 7 the Morning of 9/11" has also been collected & published by Consensus911.org, so it won't go down the memory hole just yet. Best! --
Wda (
talk)
19:55, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Books & Bytes
Issue 19, September–October 2016
by
Nikkimaria,
Sadads and
UY Scuti
19:07, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
You reverted a few of my edits of the Stevo Todorcevic article
You wrote: "Mathematical genealogy" is self-reported, and the list is not here; other material is just unsourced.
Kindly, please, put back the removed text in the article.-- Vujkovica brdo ( talk) 09:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I would like to understand why you reverted my edit to 173 (number). 173 is included on the List of notable numbers, so I accept it is notable. This is why I added that list to the "see also" list on the article. But you reverted that edit, with the rather unhelpful comment nonsense "See also". I don't see why you claim it is "nonsense" - reviewing the guidelines at MOS:SEEALSO, it seems to be in line with everything there. Would you mind explaining your objection to including the link to this in the "See also" section?-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 06:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Arthur Rubin.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
What sort of advanced degrees do YOU have to be able to even KNOW the difference among causation, correlation and coincidence and does CONTEXT not matter to you? At all? Really? You have reverted the article to an outright lie -- which it was BEFORE I corrected papers and found yours to be an F. And what country are you from, anyway?
PROUDLY AND REPEATEDLY ***** CENSORED ***** BY SOME DEPLORABLE AT WIKIPEDIA. Thom Prentice ( talk) 23:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Would it be a problem, if I deleted the US prez inaugurations from all the Year articles? GoodDay ( talk) 02:38, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Arthur Rubin. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Good evening,
I am trying to mention Rita Barberá (great mayor of Spain) in the list of deceased in 2016 in English, but shortly after you delete it. I do not understand why, I'm new here and I think I'm not doing anything with bad faith. In addition, I consider that this woman for 24 years (even the scandalous cases of corruption of her council and political party) was considered the most powerful Mayor of the country, so I think it is something that should be mentioned here.
I pray that I can understand my novice status and I apologize for the inconvenience. I would like you to help me as the revocation was on your part.
Thank you very much, greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsoriano97 ( talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I really feel very bad about my insistence and I fear that I will become very annoying. Rita was able to put Valencia on a map: he managed to host the 5th World Meeting of Families with the visit of Pope Benedict XVI, he built the Formula 1 circuit to call the Spanish Grand Prix in this category (although both celebrations have ended Uncovering terrible cases of corruption of the City Council with Barberá as chief, being this tried two days before dying). If these two actions really are not enough, I will admit your opinions and I will not make any other attempt to mention or leave messages.
Sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsoriano97 ( talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 50.247.81.99 ( talk) 23:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Arthur Rubin; why "User:Arthur Rubin", your userpage is protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.125.61 ( talk) 09:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Arthur Rubin.
It seems that the "Michigan kid" is back ( [10], [11]). Beagel ( talk) 06:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, just curious about why some events on the 2016 article were not notable. For example, why was the impeachment of the South Korean President removed, but the impeachment of the Brazilian President is fine? And why are bombings in Brussels and Lahore in the article, when other bombings and earthquakes with a much higher death toll have been removed? Are there some specific guidelines for notability? I'm not contesting the removals, just wondering for future reference. Neegzistuoja ( talk) 11:27, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Do these work?
For 2009 page... Farrah Fawcett and Michael Jackson.
For 1994 page… Dick Sargent and Kim Il-Sung.
Do you think it's nearly even? Because I have been going back and forth on my phone. 206.45.11.108 ( talk) 03:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lightbulb. Since you had some involvement with the lightbulb redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
FYI, I suspect Hugh has been editing via IP addresses. I requested an investigation but didn't realize check user can't be used with IP editors. Anyway, the edit patterns seem very similar (my original filing [ [12]], additional edits that seem suspicious but are from an Amazon IP outside the US.[ [13]]) Springee ( talk) 05:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)