I noticed you're familiar with template code and can use it correctly, so can you help me update the High traffic template? Here's the background info and explanation:
I've noticed that Google Doodles link to the search results page and cause high traffic to sites and high surges in page views on a topic people would normally not look up as often. I saw the High traffic template was implemented on the Charles Addams article, so I copy-pasted it for the other Doodles of 2012, replacing the date for each topic (I stopped after the February 7th one since it was a bit tedious).
But this template has some limitations and doesn't allow for other descriptions for things such as Google Doodles to describe thoroughly. I had a hunch that it would cause mis-understandings, and I wanted to add some code (when I was putting the template in the pages) to further clarify that it came from a Doodle. So as I thought, my hunch was right, and this ambiguity in the template text resulted in people not knowing/remembering about Google Doodles, so they might say that things can't be linked from Google as shown here.
What I want to do is to add template code to allow the linking to a list of Google Doodles for each year depending on the input for the date parameter. There can be an additional phrase about the Doodle, and that phrase will link to the section on the list of Doodles for that year. So for example the template text for Charles Addams can say: "On January 7, 2012, Charles Addams was linked from a Google Doodle on Google, a high-traffic website." where the Google Doodle being mentioned is coded to link to the date that the Doodle was shown on the Google main page. The field parameter for the date (e.g., January 7, 2012) should take care of the input requirement.
A problem with this is the list of Google Doodles for 1998-2009 doesn't follow what I think will be the standard Google Doodle article naming procedure, so for Doodles in those years, the template will need additional code to specifically link to the date sections and the page (1998-2009). For future Doodles, the standard code for linking to the article list and section date can be used if Doodles for 2013 and succeeding years will be titled under the name List of Google Doodles in 20xx (or xxxx). Google seems to be making Doodles for each year now, so the articles will probably be titled like that, unless people decide they should all be moved into a single article for each decade under (2010-2020), which might require the code to be tweaked a bit at a later time (but that most likely won't happen and sorry about the unnecessary comments).
I'm not familiar with the template code, so can you help me with this endeavor (for lack of a better word)? Thanks - M0rphzone ( talk) 23:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, I think using a bot would be better for adding this template to the articles that were linked by the Doodles. It's a bit tedious. Do you know which bot is able to do this task? - M0rphzone ( talk) 23:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is an excerpt from
Template:Cite_news
Do not post urls of Google or Yahoo! hosted AP content: that content is transient. Use MSNBC or another provider that keeps AP archives.
Whywhenwhohow (
talk)
03:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
My proposal is dead... dead into the bottom. I know your concerns about the way I write. One question: how can I write a better proposal of this idea: turning "Today's Featured List" into "this Week's featured list"? Must I do it in WT:Main page, as I should have? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
For fixing yet another of my ITN grammatical errors that I'm simply putting down to anglo-australian-american confusion. Step hen 04:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Why did you change the spelling to nationalise? There's no support for that at ENGVAR. -- Trovatore ( talk) 07:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Just came around to say Hi :) Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser ( talk) 09:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC) |
Can you come decide whether this should be posted before it expires in under an hour? Bzweebl ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
Awarded for the very long but ultimately fruitful discussion culminating at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#New proposal. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 00:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC) |
Check out the hatnotes on this one. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 20:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as you just made some tweaks, I'll bypass WP:Errors and ask that you wiki-link MVP. Bzweebl ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey, David. I reverted your changes because it's transcluded into the discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news, and it might be confusing to change it after other editors have commented on the original. I was reluctant to substitute it because I didn't want to fill up the discussion page with a bunch of extra code if I didn't have to. About the changes themselves, I don't have too much of an issue with the divider, but I'm not sure I like the bullets. Everything else on the main page is separated by dashes, I believe, and I think using bullets might look a little out of place. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 04:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this person, Gwern Branwen, User name User:Gwern should be blocked or banned. It seems that he or she has a "hacker's mentality" and has no respect fror Wikipedia's rules and therefore has no business on Wikipedia. Mugginsx ( talk) 14:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Why do opposers there use the "long-term" criterion? Have I pointed out correctly that significance and impact of this novel does not reflect reader's interests? Now that the discussion is closed per WP:SNOW, would this make me look disruptive? -- George Ho ( talk) 23:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Why do opposers there use the "long-term" criterion? Have I pointed out correctly that significance and impact of this novel does not reflect reader's interests?
Now that the discussion is closed per WP:SNOW, would this make me look disruptive?
How did I conflate separate criteria?
How can I be less disruptive?
How do I understand arguments without requesting a move?
Asking them to elaborate?
How many years must I wait for the right moment to propose again? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Say, would you like to be my mentor for a while? I would like some help. If not, then would you be my helper, as jc37 is right now? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Now I declare you officially my helper... mentor is not what you desire, as far as I can see. --
George Ho (
talk)
00:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
What do you think: http://www.webtender.com/db/drink/5520 -- George Ho ( talk) 12:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi David. I have a great deal of respect for you as an editor, and also a great deal of respect for your contributions to the ITN-related discussions. I find you to be one of the most sensible voices at various debates that take place there, and in the past there has most certainly been occasions where I have been convinced by your arguments, which I initially may have opposed. I feel as though the recent comments in that area have become very heated, and thus decided not to further engage for the time being to do some reflection. I have full intention on creating a positive atmosphere on those pages, and have often attempted to cool things down when they get heated. I do apologize if I have caused frustration, or seem obstructive, uncooperative, etc., and I do hope you accept this apology. Colipon+( Talk) 02:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in short. There are too many discussions going on without conclusion. After one week, both discussions have gone to a natural conclusion, in my opinion. I know it's not "the done thing" but I think I've been reasonable in my conclusions doktorb words deeds 10:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey David, I vaguely recall you weighing in at a recent VP discussion about adminship (although I can't seem to find it right now). There, I offered a proposal to create a community-elected "adminship committee" to do away with RfA drama, and create a streamlined, manageable, drama-reduced (because let's be honest, drama-free is wishful thinking) and community-accountable process, for all kinds of adminship recall, confirmation, and maybe even forced breaks in cases of burnout.
The latter relates to a section I stumbled upon on Jimbo's talk page, where someone proposes term limits for admins. These are imho a good idea in principle, but not manageable for the community in the form of traditional RfAs; and recall/confirmation RfAs are an even worse cesspit than usual RfAs.
I don't know your stance on adminship term limits or recall/confirmation process, or whether RfA as a bit of a problem child is on your radar at all. At any rate, I thought you might be interested since you are one of those few people who try to inject sanity into Wikipedia at every turn. -- 87.79.131.112 ( talk) 03:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your comments on Template talk:Unsigned and thought you might be able to help with this. Thanks. -- xensyria T 19:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Block him David or this is likely to cause a chain reaction. You are correct. Someone, it seems, is covering for him. The silence is deafening. Mugginsx ( talk) 13:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. - Blake Burba ( talk) 08:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi David - I know we haven't always seen eye to eye in the past, but I wanted to ask your advice as an experienced and uninvolved admin. I'm in a dispute with several editors over two articles: Politics in the British Isles and Ireland-United Kingdom relations.
I created Politics in the British Isles a few days ago; it was then nominated for deletion by User:Snappy. A discussion about what to do with the article has been ongoing here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles.
RA, one of the editors opposed to Politics in the British Isles, proposes that the article should merged to Ireland-United Kingdom relations. Rather than wait for consensus to confirm his opinion, he took the unilateral step of copying the entire contents of Politics in the British Isles, and pasting it here to Ireland-United Kingdom relations [1], after which he used its existence there as an argument to try to prove that the original in Politics in the British Isles content is in fact just a fork. To me, this move is the essence of WP:POINT.
My experience has been, in a normal situation, this would be dealt with by a merge discussion on the talk pages, and once consensus is to merge, the content is moved and the original deleted. However, the original content cannot be deleted, because in this case, the article in question is up for AfD, so its contents are extremely relevant and can't just be blanked. In this particular case, I thus believe copying the content across the wiki is disruptive.
As a result of this disruption, edits I've made to improve the content in one place do not show up in another; synchronization issues abound; and ongoing discussions about the content have been moved from place to place. The end result is an absolute mess of dual maintenance that will persist until the AfD closes, which may be a while given the heated debate. I admit to have engaged in edit warring to attempt to undo this mess, along with Snappy and BHG on this issue, which I regret, so I'm not claiming innocence here.
In any case, my opinion is, during an AfD, the content should remain in the original article and not be copy-pasted elsewhere, until the outcome of the AfD is clear - either delete, or merge, or keep. Then if consensus agrees, we merge (and delete from the original). Otherwise, allowing things to continue will mean that dual maintenance will continue on these two pages, one of which is basically a complete content fork of the second, to the detriment of the wiki. Sadly, experienced administrator Brownhairedgirl has encouraged this forking, rather than allowing consensus to decide at the AfD what should be done.
I'd welcome your POV and advice on what, if anything, to do about it; my attempts to revert did not work, my pleas to request them to undo the fork did not work, so I don't know what else to do. Thanks! -- KarlB ( talk) 00:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi David! Sorry to bother you. I hope this was a mistake. -- SMS Talk 23:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I have made a deletion discussion that had people turn against me. Now I want to make amends with soapie people by reviewing my own AFD. How can I not anger them? And I have my proposal here:
I don't want to undo the damage because that would make me look wrong and foolish in the past. Nevertheless, I must for the sake of lessening the anger of people and of making more friends, especially those who are solely dedicated to soap operas. Anyway, I come into conclusion that there must be, at heart, some cleanup to be done, and I think portrayers of their characters have made their roles notable... unless I'm missing the real definition of notability. Suddenly, plots about them and their deaths suddenly impacted their roles and the whole show: I'm talking about Myrtle, Phoebe, and Mona. They were part of the show because... primary sources and affiliates made them, yet I solely depended on Google and their current state of articles to look for third-party and non-primary sources to determine their notability. I let you down in the past; this time, this discussion is proof of undoing the AFD I started. Recently, I have posted an idea of notability about television-related topics in WP:village pump (idea lab), so I'm still working on television notability. Meanwhile, this discussion could help starting to make friends, right? If not, how can I be friends?
-- George Ho ( talk) 02:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 05:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Finalizing_the_new_proposal. Since you participated in the earlier discussion about trivial hatnotes and what to do about them, your input is requested on a finalizing a proposal.
KarlB (
talk)
06:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
In light of this remark and this revert from Rambling Man, I'd like to request in advance (in case you were planning on doing so) that you not remove the UEFA 2012 blurb from ITN in deference to TFL (as you did with Eurovision back in May). Thanks. -- tariqabjotu 21:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Tariqabjotu:
I undid your edit. WP:TFL is entirely independent of the vagaries of ITN, please leave the blurb as is. It may be that it takes a week for the community to decide on a suitable hook/update for ITN. TFL has an updated blurb, and updated article, we don't need ITNers to pop by to "fix" our work. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn't really agree with your decision to do that last time, as I feel TFL and ITN tend to emphasize different aspects of the content. For example, you really have to search through the TFL blurb, if you get down there, and get to that part of the blurb, before you see the link to the final of Euro 2012. And UEFA Euro 2012 isn't linked at all.
Further, I think the omission of Euro 2012 would be far more glaring than the omission of Eurovision was (given it's substantially larger viewing audience).
And, yes, of course, I also feel given Rambling Man's insistence that TFL and ITN be completely independent, I see no pressing reason to coordinate with TFL.
Please see the normal process and also Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions where we, as a community (albeit a small one) review blurbs and get a consensus for them before posting them. It's not ownership to count on consensus to provide you with a decent, fully-worded blurb per our standards. Someone turning up to change it as they see fit at the last moment isn't really appropriate, particularly given the reason that Euro 2012 would feature in ITN – we all know how long some articles can take to get to ITN. TFL lists are scheduled weeks, sometimes months in advance, so there's no reason why anyone interested in trying to "merge" the ITN and TFL process on the occasions that are suitable. The difference is that TFL presentation on main page is stable, i.e. we know any given list will run on a Monday, for 24 hours, hopefully updated if need be before featuring. ITN is very much the opposite. Sure, for an item such as Euro 2012, we'd hope that there were sufficient readers interested to do the updates necessary on the day to get it to meet the requirements of ITN before being posted, but that isn't always the case. Come 00:00 (UTC) on Tuesday, the list disappears back to whence it came, while ITN can persist for.... well... some time in certain situations. If ITNers wish to appraise themselves of the scheduled lists and collaborate for ITN/R items that may be featuring (hopefully on the same day on the main page), then perhaps that could work. If you can see a way of making that work, either of you, then I'm all ears. I would appreciate it if you refrained from calling me a "jerk" in any case. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see the normal process and also Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions where we, as a community (albeit a small one) review blurbs and get a consensus for them before posting them. It's not ownership to count on consensus to provide you with a decent, fully-worded blurb per our standards.
Hi! I've reverted your edits to the TFL template. The content was determined through discussion on the process page (where the part that you removed was felt to be important), so I ask that you please suggest changes there beforehand to give everyone an opportunity to provide feedback. If you're interested in helping out, we'd be happy to have you on board. Thanks!
TFL lists are scheduled weeks, sometimes months in advance, so there's no reason why anyone interested in trying to "merge" the ITN and TFL process on the occasions that are suitable.
If ITNers wish to appraise themselves of the scheduled lists and collaborate for ITN/R items that may be featuring (hopefully on the same day on the main page), then perhaps that could work. If you can see a way of making that work, either of you, then I'm all ears.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Excessive block of Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Thank you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for the discussion(s). I think it's a good thing when Wikipedians can come together and positively discuss something, even if they may disagree (or even not quite understand each other at first).
So with that in mind... - jc37 17:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For joining in on several lengthy discussions with me and others, and working - again, through discussion - to learn and understand, despite the many confusions we all had along the way. - jc37 17:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks very much for the Resilient Barnstar and the kind sentiment behind it. I, too, am glad that we were able to engage in constructive discourse.
As I can think of no award more suitable, please allow me to second
LuK3's presentation of the Barnstar of Diligence. You've certainly earned it! (: —
David Levy
19:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello David,
on UEFA European Football Championship there is always the same deletion.
Most successful team: Germany 3 titles, 3 runners up
Later:
Most successful team: Germany, Spain, 3 titles
Later again:
Most successful team: Germany 3 titles, 3 runners up
etc...
So I made a sort of solution, but someone deleted it again.
Solution I made:
| most successful team =
Germany 3 titles, 3 runners-up
[note]
In the references I added the note so that it was clear for everybody, but Peejay2K3 deleted it again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=UEFA_European_Football_Championship&diff=500700930&oldid=500700306
Can you do something? Or decide something?
A reasonable solution I made was deleted again, etc ...
Klodde ( talk) 22:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello David, just a quick long-distance view on what WP:TFL has scheduled that may coincide with WP:ITN nominations.
At the moment, that's it. I know you're not responsible for what goes on ITN, but as we discussed, at least as someone who frequents ITN more often than I, you are at least forewarned, if not forearmed. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Moderators_.28redux.29 -- RA ( talk) 23:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I was actually planning to use that on July 21, as that would mark the end of the Space Shuttle program. But today is fine too, seeing as how we have no backup items at all. — howcheng { chat} 04:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disingenuous
Definition #3 in particular. DS ( talk) 18:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
It has been delinked, and I am considering to revert it since we are talking about a specific explosion. What do you think? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you fix the link from 2011 Aurora shooting to 2012 Aurora shooting? I was going to fix it and you protected it before I got there. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
So, in my day, the LEAD summarized the whole article. If half the article is about a suspect, then roughly half the lead summarized that. I think I recognize your name from the old days, so I'm wondering if something has changed, or ??? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 04:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi David. Were all of your comments addressed to me? Or just the harsh accusatory ones? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I see. But I'm not quite sure why you've now moved my comment.
You did indeed outdent the second part. But with the note "See below", making me think that part was also meant for me!
Your edit summary just said "replies".
Levy, you need to cool off for 24 hours and stop pulling wild accusations about my intentions in 24 hours. Your latest contribution to the debate about my 3RR edits is wrong and based on misinterpretation of me. I am completely enraged by your remarks. You've really fucked me up, just so you know. Back off, get your facts straight, don't make fake accusation, and step back and ask yourself if you can substantiate accusations based entirely on inferences. My restoration of that picture to the shooting article was completely legitimate and does not constitute an edit war under any definition. You owe me an apology at the 3RR edit war discussion, where I have replied. I am completely pissed off by you. — O'Dea ( talk) 04:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
hi. Overall, yes, move on, it was an interesting discussion, etc, and I admitted that we use some words differently than in the past, and I don't want to be too dogmatic about "film", and that it can be used I guess in a broad sense, like "mix tape" even if it's a CD, etc, but there was a question I asked at the end of that comment, that was more than just rhetorical. I'm actually kind of curious in a way. In Britain, do they ever use the word "movie"? Just wondering... Do English people sometimes say "movie" as well as "film" or "cinema"? Jots and graphs ( talk) 04:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Adding this here as to not say it in front of all - There is no need to repeat everything in green. The format your using makes you look very very young as the format is used at the primary school level so student can follow along. I know your much older - just want you to know that it looks like replies are from a grade 6 student. Your replies show your not young - but first impressions are profound. Moxy ( talk) 22:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Neutralhomer is on the warpath about subchannels and attacking me again on my talk page (threatening to block me) and on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. He was taken to ANI over the issue which showed he lied in a previous argument and his bullying me (over the years going back to the PTEN argument) and other editors but was rejected as a "content dispute". Spshu ( talk) 17:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to report a user User:Rajashekar india3434. He has been making unnecessary pages with only one sentences in them. Please get back to me as soon as possible. Thank you. ZSpeed ( talk) 20:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking about our past discussions, and thought I would ask if you would please take a look at this proposal, and let me know what you think. - jc37 21:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I created the article with the sole intent of mentioning the details of the branch.I later realized and moved the page.It makes no sense to move it back to the original name with no change in it.Please revert. Thanks TheStrike Σagle 06:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi David. Just saw your edit here. I'm afraid I just don't see why it's useful to link Syria when Aleppo, Battle of Aleppo (2012) and Syrian Armed Forces are all already linked in the same sentence. Jenks24 ( talk) 12:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
When I bolded the title, it appears I simply misinterpreted what the comment was. I thought the comment was saying it doesn't appear in bold, but per WP policies it should, so I made the edit. Thanks for clarifying that it wasn't. However, I'm still a bit confused specifically why it doesn't - is it because of "awkward wording?"
Thanks. -- Activism 1234 00:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I see you just reversed one of Lihaas' recent edits. As an admin I request you hat his new section pretending he was unaware of the current RfC on ITN and attempting to hijack the debate. I cannot believe such action by an ITN contributor. μηδείς ( talk) 04:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi David Levy
! I have started my second editor review at
Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for
Adminship. As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing!
TheGeneralUser (
talk)
19:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I happen to agree with your assessment of this ("not an improvement"), but I remind that you WP:CONSENSUS calls for providing more helpful reasons and explanations than that when reverting, especially something like this. In particular, you might want to review Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing, starting with "Any such revert should be explained. One option is to leave a clear edit summary stating why the particular edit is not considered to be an improvement to the article, ..." Simply stating your opinion that it's not an improvement is hardly stating why it's not an improvement. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course, it's not too late to state why on the policy's talk page... -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tokyo Sky Tree under construction 2011-08-04 cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator ( talk) 16:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:Gi has been nominated for merging with
Template:Tq. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --
Hex [
t/
c]
20:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Purple Barnstar | |
Thanks for wading back into it yet again, and for presenting such an impeccable message. JHunterJ ( talk) 00:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC) |
By the way, "closing" the proposals that were made today and not any of the rest of the discussion is absurd, to say the least. You can probably find a better way of reopening it though. Normally discussions are open for at least a week, or a month before they are closed. There is clearly no reason for closing this section in less than 24 hours. Apteva ( talk) 19:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop a note that my comments in no way are directed at you but as I mentioned I have completely lost faith in the RFA process and in a large number of the admins now frolicking about the site. Too many have let the power go to their heads and the process has degraded to that of a bash fest causing few to want to endure it at all. As I mentioned in 2007 we promoted around 400 admins and this year we stand at 20 so far and likely won't get more than 1 or 2 more. Each year we see approx half the year before and I just don't have any faith that changes to the RFA process at this point will turn that around. We are losing admins at a rate faster than we are promoting new ones and at the same time increasing the amount of work the admins do by protecting more content, submitting more things for deletion and blocking more and more users for smaller and smaller infractions. Its gone on far too long and it will take too long of a time before the community trusts the process again. By that time it may be too late. It might be already. Kumioko ( talk) 19:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Heya. I understand the change and don't mind it, but the individual notices can at least be completely hidden. Right now, we're stuck with the big green text no matter what, even if all the messages are hidden. Is there a way this can be toggled or hidden as well? -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 17:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering, since you are an administrator, could you look at protecting the page Athillas_Thasos? We requested page protection already, but I don't think it's going to be fast enough. In the past two hours alone, we have had to re add the AfD template 6 times. And this has been going on for almost 5 hours now. Thanks in advance! Jeancey ( talk) 08:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I may have asked you about this already. If I have, my apologies.
Would you look over Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship? I'd sincerely like to discuss this with you. - jc37 22:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
. TheGoofyGolfer ( talk) 20:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Template:Move-specialized has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
06:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, Is there a list of these? I.E Templates that are no longer present but still nominally in use? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Or should I say, thank you... Bencherlite Talk 19:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
You can read my reply over on the WP DYK talk. But I'd like to personally apologize to you that you felt it was about you. I never meant it to be that way. I've explained in detail over on the DYK talk page. Honest, it wasn't about you, but a venting of frustrations that DYK is becoming less alluring since the summer. You just happened to be the person who stepped in and tried to help. Sorry if I made it sound like you were at fault. — Maile ( talk) 20:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
It's that time of year again. Any chance you might be interested? - jc37 21:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi David,
I apologize for any frustration I have caused you. Looking back through my talk page history, I see your note back in August explaining how to perform a local upload; I should have remembered. I try to put up images on the TFA blurbs before the blurbs go up on the main page so that the images can be discussed beforehand, but I do not always catch the blurbs in time. I have not uploaded any images that I believed at the time to be off-topic, but I will attempt to keep them more centrally on topic in the future. I think TFA images to be a valuable part of Wikipedia, which is why I often edit in this area. I hope my TFA blurb edits will be more agreeable to you in the future.
Neelix ( talk) 21:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 22, 2012. Regards — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I think I found the source of our misunderstanding, and why we seemed to have been talking past one another. I hadn't noticed it at first, but it finally sunk in; I've left a last note on my talk page for your perusal, but to clarify a bit more; it seems you were working under the assumption that I had flagrantly disregarded an established consensus intentionally; I had not done so. As I explained, I really had never heard of such a consensus, and since it doesn't appear to be written in any of the guidelines on the ITN pages, I'm really not sure how I would have known about it. To clarify again: I would have never violated an explicitly written guideline which clearly advocated against posting an item in the manner I did. I knew nothing of such a clear consensus before you brought it up. In the future, I will be more careful not to violate such a consensus, but in the meantime, you would need to update the guidelines to indicate that such a consensus exists, with diffs/links to the relevent discussions, because those of us that didn't participate in the discussions wouldn't know about it. I hope this clears things up between us; looking back I know see where the misunderstanding comes from, and I apologize for give you the impression that I was being just being obtuse or obstinant. Had I realized what your main objection was, I think I would have responded differently to the discussion than I did. I thought you were primarily concerned about the fact that I didn't post after exactly 5 sentences had been updated (which is a guideline itself that is rather fuzzily worded) not that I was deliberately ignoring a known consensus. Let me assure you, it was not my intent to do so, and had I been aware of that ruling, (like, if it were written out as such at WP:ITN) I would have never posted in the first place. -- Jayron 32 07:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.
All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!-- Pharos ( talk) 07:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, can you give me an example of the last-minute TFA rescheduling you referenced here? -- tariqabjotu 08:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
...About what I think are not welcome. I request you cease all speculations phrased as fact regarding what I think; I have had enough of your statements (ie, "You think..." "You want..." etc.) regarding the inner workings of my mind. You have no idea what I think and your pretense at mind reading is uncivil and insulting. As Durova once put it: "Please refrain from speculation regarding my opinions: the normal way of resolving that type of uncertainty is to ask for clarification." KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) telling someone You think yadda-yadda is still asserting you know what they think and/or feel. Your quotes above are from after I protested at your verbiage on Raul's page. Here are examples from that page:
Three instances in one day, in one conversation, of telling me what I think, and being dreadfully wrong all three times btw. "You want" "You seek" both are presuming to tell me what I think and want. That's unacceptable. Sure, AFTER I protested, you offered "I'm sorry if I misunderstood" which is weak. You should say "I'm sorry I presumed to know your mind" or "I'm sorry for my horrible phrasing" or something, and vow to cease such phrasing. Now, you do as you wish. Carry on with your rudeness and pretend to read minds and insult people and piss them off and then offer an inadequate ex post facto "apology" - not "I'm sorry I did that" but simply "I'm sorry I got it wrong" which is useless, sorry to say - or stop using that kind of phrasing. It is no improvement to tell someone "You think this" and get it right - it is still wrong to say such. Getting it completely wrong, as you did with me, is merely a heaped on insult. Now, I hope this time I have been clear enough to get through to you what I'm saying, as apparently I have been failing to do so thus far. Killer Chihuahua 13:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
telling someone You think yadda-yadda is still asserting you know what they think and/or feel.
Your quotes above are from after I protested at your verbiage on Raul's page.
Here are examples from that page:
"you seek to fundamentally alter "
"you want us to deem it bad."
"You want to suppress material from the main page "
Three instances in one day, in one conversation, of telling me what I think, and being dreadfully wrong all three times btw.
"You want" "You seek" both are presuming to tell me what I think and want.
That's unacceptable.
Sure, AFTER I protested, you offered "I'm sorry if I misunderstood" which is weak.
You should say "I'm sorry I presumed to know your mind"
or "I'm sorry for my horrible phrasing" or something,
and vow to cease such phrasing.
tl;dr. Really. From what I scanned, there are four issues here in communication:
tl;dr. Really.
You're still going off about the FA thing: seriously, drop that. Dead horse. Bones, even. Not an issue.
You think it "went without saying" that you wouldn't do it again, becasue why?
You are still going on about how much you apologised. Yeah, got that the first time, don't need to hear it again, pleasefortheloveofgod stop repeating it. No argument from me that you apologized. Apology accepted, notarized, framed and hung in a place of honor.
"At no point" - yes. three times.
Are you saying you see some significant difference in meaning between "you seek to" "you want to" and "you think"?????
Do you honestly think that the declarative sentence beginning with "You want to" is not you telling someone what they want, ergo what they think?????
I'm not going to answer all your points right now, but "You want to..." intended as a speculative rather than a declarative would be fine, But a speculative has a question mark, not a period. Your statements had periods, which renders your argument that they were speculatives moot. Do not confuse my attmpts to exlain how your declaratives read to others as the same as your bizarre "mindreading" bullshit. I am explaining to you what your words mean, to others, and why that's a problem. I'm explaining (or attempting to explain, although this is taking days and I see almost no progress) what's wrong with your phrasing. I am using declaratives because I'm not talking about YOU, I'm talking about ENGLISH. Your sentences were terminated with periods, therefore to anyone not living in your mind they were statements, not queries. "You want to go to the zoo." has a very different meaning from "You want to go to the zoo?" Also, "I'm sorry" does most certainly not (magically and unstated) carry with it the intention to not do so again. Even if it did, nothing "goes without saying" here. You have a multigenerational, multicultural environment. If you don't say it, it remains not only not unsaid but also not reliably implied, inferred, suspected, hinted, ... you get the idea. If it wasn't said, it might as well not exist even as a concept. And regarding knowledge and speculation: you don't know as much as you think you do about anyone else. Make this a mantra. If you remember this, then when you type your comments, you will avoid your presumptive and rude comments, which even if they are "based" on what someone said, are not necssarily, and in my case not even remotely, close to what that person thinks, feels, or was trying to say. Remember that text is fraught with danger for miscommunication; one study found that 95% of the time readers are positive they know precisely what someone was trying to say in text, and 80% of the time they were wrong or partially wrong. You have no magical abilities to do better. When someone says 'You misunderstood what I was trying to say, you do NOT TELL THEM 'I BASED MY STATEMENT ON MY WHAT YOU SAID" you say "my bad, what did you mean?" (That's intended as instruction, not description.) The first is arguing with someone about what they meant, regardless of how you meant it in your mind. It is, in effect, telling them what excellent reasons you had for your wrong statement. You are justifying your wrongness, and it very much sounds like you're telling the other person how wrong they are about your wrong statement. Which being a statement about them, rather than a query to them, is a huge problem. It is the entire reason we are here having this discussion. Killer Chihuahua 13:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to answer all your points right now, but "You want to..." intended as a speculative rather than a declarative would be fine, But a speculative has a question mark, not a period. Your statements had periods, which renders your argument that they were speculatives moot.
I am explaining to you what your words mean, to others, and why that's a problem. I'm explaining (or attempting to explain, although this is taking days and I see almost no progress) what's wrong with your phrasing.
I am using declaratives because I'm not talking about YOU, I'm talking about ENGLISH. Your sentences were terminated with periods, therefore to anyone not living in your mind they were statements, not queries.
"You want to go to the zoo." has a very different meaning from "You want to go to the zoo?"
Also, "I'm sorry" does most certainly not (magically and unstated) carry with it the intention to not do so again.
And regarding knowledge and speculation: you don't know as much as you think you do about anyone else. Make this a mantra. If you remember this, then when you type your comments, you will avoid your presumptive and rude comments, which even if they are "based" on what someone said, are not necssarily, and in my case not even remotely, close to what that person thinks, feels, or was trying to say.
Remember that text is fraught with danger for miscommunication; one study found that 95% of the time readers are positive they know precisely what someone was trying to say in text, and 80% of the time they were wrong or partially wrong.
You have no magical abilities to do better.
When someone says 'You misunderstood what I was trying to say, you do NOT TELL THEM 'I BASED MY STATEMENT ON MY WHAT YOU SAID" you say "my bad, what did you mean?" (That's intended as instruction, not description.)
The first is arguing with someone about what they meant, regardless of how you meant it in your mind.
I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 17:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I've attempted to raise a discussion at WT:ITN because I think that all versions of the Nyasasaurus hook (including mine) are sub-optimal. I'd appreciate it if you'd participate in the discussion; it's section "Dinosaur". Nyttend ( talk) 02:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
David, I think it's pretty clear you're involved and shouldn't be closing RM discussions on an article that you're involved in discussing/editing. While your point is well taken, and perhaps it is soon, RM discussions ought to take some time, so that you closed it within hours is disappointing. I may come back to this later... I have other things to attend to today, but I'd hope you maybe consider opening it back up and letting the discussion run. Like we've said back and forth, that name change is inevitable, and while there are a lot of IPs without broader context chiming in on that discussion, an RM makes perfect sense to start now. Shadowjams ( talk) 17:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The actual name of the school is Sandy Hook School. See the article's talk page for photo proof. It needs to be corrected on Newtown Public Schools, also. Thanks. -- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 05:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Please read the talk page discussion and the MOS:NUM guidelines.
Your edits also go against consensus here Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_2#20 children and 6 staff, so I would strongly urge you self-revert. - Mr X 20:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the reasoning that the historical name of the Bath School disaster seems on the face of it to have been disregarded in this article, as evidenced by this edit. In all the research I have been doing on the Bath School disaster over the past few days, which mostly has consisted of consulting Monty J. Ellsworth's 1927 book "The Bath School Disaster" (written by an eyewitness who was a Bath resident) and newspapers from May 1927 and various other books published from then till now (to keep out all the WP mirror-sites), none of them refer to this attack as anything other than the "Bath School disaster". (I did say in my edit summary that I was relying on the contemporaneous literature and reporting?...) If a concern was raised about some possible confusion regarding the 'deadliest school attacks' on the talkpage (with one article being a 'shooting' and another being a 'massacre'), and the editorial consensus is that the Bath school mass murder should be referred to as a 'bombing', then I would appreciate a link to that. The sad distinction of being #1 in how many people died belongs to the almost simultaneous Bath school attacks (the school being wired with explosives and Kehoe's pickup truck being wired as a suicide device). If the name of the "Virginia Tech massacre" article was changed by pipe in another WP article to "Virginia Tech killings" or "Virginia Tech mass murders", would that piping be acceptable as well? Shearonink ( talk) 07:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess I like to respect what the contemporaneous usage was/is regarding events, to me it would be like changing what we call a Civil War battle...
But if people today are reading the Sandy Hook article and wondering why there's a link to something that occurred in 1927, and a pipe takes care of that confusion?...that makes sense.
By the way, I googled the terms 'disaster' and 'bombing'/'bombings' and the raw data indicates 8,930,000 hits for 'Bath School disaster' and a combined total of 5,300,000 for 'Bath School bombing'/'Bath School bombings'.
Eh, however it's Wiki-sliced, a sad distinction for Bath...
...did you know that there was at least one schoolchild who survived and was interviewed as a senior citizen in 2007? That was an interesting read.
Hey, thanks for your reply. Cheers
Hi David--I'm going to undo this one. Column width is important, but she is more important. Plus, she just got the promotion. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
TheGeneralUser
(talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello David! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!-- Pharos ( talk) 01:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Here's a
toast to the
host |
~ TheGeneralUser (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
~
TheGeneralUser
(talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you David! Enjoy the Whisky
~
TheGeneralUser
(talk)
23:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
do you brownie Msugarbabe ( talk) 18:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC) |
Hello, David Levy. You might be interested in weighing in on this. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings David. I'm not going to bother reverting your reversion of my reversion of another users reversion of another user but I wanted to clarify it wasn't directly related to Rich. Right or wrong Arbcom has stated multiple times that IAR does not apply to their rulings. They said it or Rich, Betacommand and several others in the past. Kumioko ( talk) 03:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother reverting your reversion of my reversion of another users reversion of another user but I wanted to clarify it wasn't directly related to Rich.
Right or wrong Arbcom has stated multiple times that IAR does not apply to their rulings.
Thanks for the better wording; I had the hardest time figuring out how to write what I wanted to say and never could work out something that sounded good. Nyttend ( talk) 22:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The development for TAFI has progressed significantly over the last few weeks, and we are prepared to launch the new feature on the main page for Feb 9th at 0:00 UTC. Concensus was established that the TAFI content should be placed below the DYK content. An example page has been created to show what it would look like. I would like to invite you and several other admins who have recently edited the Main Page to swing by this discussion to help us hammer out the final logistics of integrating the content onto the main page. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 18:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
God bless on getting rid of the bold title. I was just about to do it myself. μηδείς ( talk) 23:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you undid my contributions on the talk page and while I am not fully in understanding of why, I will say there was no need for the snark in the comment insinuating that I was attempting o make a personal argument out of it. I am not a regular editor of Wikipedia. I have edited a few pages for accuracy, grammar, and spelling and have contributed on more than a few talk pages. I found no such instructions on that talk page suggesting that no one can add comments or ideas. I did notice that it said we were allowed to edit the summarized points to improve the arguments and to not sign our contributions. However, seeing as how I have always simply used my IP to sign with, it autosigns for me.
My issue? The oppositions to the arguments were based in an incorrect understanding of the arguments and I was attempting to clarify each individual point. If you could perhaps show me the specific instructions that outline my wrongdoing, I can avoid such things in the future. And if the talk of this subject is not being held on the talk page, then perhaps you could show me where my comments might be better placed. 184.156.23.123 ( talk) 19:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you undid my contributions on the talk page and while I am not fully in understanding of why, I will say there was no need for the snark in the comment insinuating that I was attempting o make a personal argument out of it.
I did notice that it said we were allowed to edit the summarized points to improve the arguments and to not sign our contributions. However, seeing as how I have always simply used my IP to sign with, it autosigns for me.
The oppositions to the arguments were based in an incorrect understanding of the arguments and I was attempting to clarify each individual point.
If you could perhaps show me the specific instructions that outline my wrongdoing, I can avoid such things in the future.
And if the talk of this subject is not being held on the talk page, then perhaps you could show me where my comments might be better placed.
Hi David. Will ITN get this new title? Sca ( talk) 00:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi David. I'm not sure if you still have any interest in this subject, but I was trying to figure out, from reading past discussions, why the article count is still in Main Page's header. It seems like it was nearly removed a few times, with various alternatives proposed (using good or featured article count, including a link to Special:Statistics, etc.). I can't really see how the discussion ended with the article count staying up there. It seems silly for it to still be there for many reasons, including the fact that the number has never been accurate. Any help or pointers on this would be appreciated. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 06:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
#articlecount {display: none}
Hi David,
I've made a draft RFC at Wikipedia:2013 main page redesign proposal/Draft RFC. You're input would be appreciated so that we can avoid mistakes of previous attempts. Thanks, Evad37 ( talk) 01:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It took a while, but I got the code to work. I have posted details over at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_article_for_improvement#Functional_randomization_on_the_Main_Page_Sandbox. Your scrutiny would be appreciated, the code could use a look over. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 03:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi David, I'd like to put the Superbowl back. Can you take a look at WP:MINREF and see if you agree with me that inline citations are not strictly necessary when material isn't challenged or likely to be challenged? The game summary is sort of "sky is blue". Practically every one of the inline sources listed already has a game summary, so the reader certainly can look at those references and verify the game summary. Look at past Superbowl articles and you'll see that many don't have inline citations for the game summary section. We have a lot of eyes on the Superbowl articles; if something is wrong, somebody will raise the issue on the talk page. Jehochman Talk 14:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Taking the article off the home page was a hostile action, and a poor way to treat a fellow administrator.
Editors wanted that article up on the home page because it was important to them.
Hi David,
The reason I set Template:ITN note to be a subst template was because I was concerned that the {{date}} bit wouldn't stay fixed to the date of posting otherwise. I'm not really that great at template design or policy so I won't try any more modifications. I just thought I should let you know this thing!
Cheers, -- LukeSurl t c 23:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know! I will keep that in mind in the future. Best, Spencer T♦ C 23:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw that you removed quite a few white spaces that I had been inserting. May I ask why? The reason I kept adding them was because I thought that since they are two different thread topics, they ought to be dilineated to remove confusion. (I do that often btw) Is there any guideline against what I did?
Also, what does "updated since my last visit" mean?
TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 07:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC) [TB please]
Any ideas on what would have been assuming good faith on my behalf?
Bad phrasing - Any ideas how you would have been assuming good faith had you been me? TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 10:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for getting the pork meat info in there when you posted the blurb Ryan Vesey ( talk · contribs) 23:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind but I have moved our discussion to my talk page out of courtesy for the admin in question however if anyone disagrees they are free to revert Till 11:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I left a message at his talk page to comment on the Talk:Main Page discussion about TAFI, but there's been no response. I feel the move forward hinges on him giving a yea or nay, maybe you could message him as well? -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 07:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know there is a typo on the main page. I think it should be 1908—injured instead of 1908—injure under the News byte for the Meteor. 108.28.162.125 ( talk) 00:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to revert; I suppose the status of the 37b page should be sorted out first. -- Merovingian ( T, C, L) 02:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi David, I just wanted to stop by to inform you that a User made a heavy revert on the article Culture of Italy that lacks consensus and also contains invalid information and just want to be on the safe side that the user is not vandalizing the page. Thank You. ( Slurpy121 ( talk) 04:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC))
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
That personal attack was disgusting but you handled it sensibly and maturely. Impressive and deserving of recognition. Keep up the good work mate. Stalwart 111 00:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
![]() You are invited to join
WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. |
---|
Re: [15]
I started to write a rationale, but then I realized that my logic was wrong. So I am going to revert myself. My reasoning was that in page histories someone have already used these shortcuts. So for readability of history we must have these shortcuts available. But this logic applies to redirects, not to the "shortcut box". Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The ceremony concluded at approximately 9:05pm on the 24th. I see that you mentioned UTC on the candidates page, but we usually go by the local time unless that isn't possible (e.g. when an event occurs in space or pertains to multiple time zones). — David Levy 21:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi David. I'm getting a little concerned about the editing and behavior of User:Medeis at C. Everett Koop, who died yesterday. I'm sensing he's getting pretty aggressive and not actually even looking at the article or reading the edit summaries before making his changes to the article. He's also added clearly non-encylopedic content such as these unnecessary quotes and content which says what we don't know ("No official determination of death has yet been announced": [16] [17] He also put a third-level warning on my talk page after I had posted comments on the article's talk page and his own talk page about agreeing with him about the removal of some content. Haha. As you'll see from my edit history, I've been working hard on the article with other editors to add some great sources and relocate existing content into it's proper place. I created a single Career section with applicable subsections because all of that content had previously been in numerous, separate sections that were scattered all over the page. We've now gotten the article to a nice, easy-to-understand layout for readers. Unless Medies removes it all again. :P I also asked him to please read WP:NLS regarding his non-English signature (μηδείς). In any case, I was hoping maybe you could keep an eye on the Koop article. -- 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 00:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey David. When you have a moment, would you mind having a look at the recent deaths section of Template:ITN and see if I screwed up any of the non-breaking spaces? I removed a stale entry by copying the whole chunk of code from the last time it was unused ( [30]), and one nbsp was removed while two more re-appeared. I didn't want to mess with it further because I didn't think it was anything particularly vital, but I don't want it to cause any problems the next time we need to use the section. Please, and thanks! -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Is this worth linking on the Main Page? I see redlinks, masses of indiscriminate information, but little of any real encyclopedic merit. I'd like to see a proper discussion before including this here. -- MarchOrDie ( talk) 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's reassuring that you at least looked at the article before including it.
If you properly read the talk page, you will see that editors have complained about the view of a redlinked journal being given a prominent mention in the article. There is a body of opinion there that too many trivial and mundane quotations are used in the article.
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is more appropriate for the Infobox in the Scott Allie article in this discussion? You don't need to know anything about Allie; I'm contacting you because you've worked on Featured Pictures. I tried contacting lots of editors who work on comics-related articles, but every time I do so, we wind up with the sentiments split down the middle, and no clear consensus. I'm thinking perhaps that people who work on matters dealing with photography might be able to offer viewpoints that yield a consensus. Thank you. Nightscream ( talk) 15:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello David Levy, Eduemoni ↑talk↓ has given you a shinning smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shinning Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! |
Hello,
Do you know what implementation status is on putting TAFI on the main page? I just saw that the bot that we were waiting for has been approved. Is there anything else, or is TAFI now finally ready to put on the main page?
TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 16:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC) [Talkback plz]
This is just a reminder to upload Commons images locally (unless they're protected at Commons) before transcluding them on the main page. ( File:Krakow Ghetto 06694.jpg was unprotected for about 16 minutes, which is less time than the bot often takes.) Thanks! — David Levy 05:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
As you can see on the Teahouse Host Lounge, I had asked someone to edit the teahouse talkback template to add that one particular line about archival. But it seems there were no admins which looked into it. Do you mind making this particular change? You can add a link to this discussion in your edit summary.
Thanks and Cheers, TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 07:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you've slightly missed the problem with your comments. The problem is when the top item is for a murderer or something and the picture refers to another person for an item that isn't in the top 1-2 items in the list.
Given the BLP policy is supposed to be very cautious I don't think you should need to persuade a lot of people, but obviously you need to persuade more than ~5% of the readers.
It is clear that the solution that was presented to me in the autumn has thrown the baby out with the bathwater and is too restrictive, but I'd have thought that it was worth the effort to try and come up with a more complex but tighter solution.
Cheers
-- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
If you thought my close was a supervote why did you argue (even initially) against returning ITN to its position before November? That literally makes no sense...
And with regards to a "supervote" to anyone who has even a basic understanding of legal contracts there was no other possible way to close it.
![]() You are invited to join
WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of
breakfast-related topics. |
---|
Hi David Levy! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.
Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!
Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 18:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images 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?) 10:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Talk:Central Ferry Piers, Hong Kong#Move? is a week old tomorrow. Just wondering if you might want to leave a categorical 'Support' vote? 188.28.132.145 ( talk) 16:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
My original intention was to remove anything that could lead our current conversation go haywire. Coin's original proposal just wanted to upgrade from a boring way of linking 3 article (I do consider it boring and bland) to a more catchy one, and it should be seen only in that respect. Answering back is not going to help anyone, and since we already have a proposal trying to implement the same idea in a different way, the main idea must not be side-tracked.
I considered all the threads, and hatted everything that I thought was not helping the conversation. Even though parts of the original thread could have been hatted, hatting them would remove actually useful parts of other comments, which was not conducive. Because of which I hatted at the next most feasible place.
Please note that you don't have to reply to every comment asking for an extra line as there are others who voiced the same concern, thereby making it almost a certainity that this proposal would not have passed. In this light, I found your replies slightly pointy, and might have resulted in a reply back, because of which I thought prudent to hat them.
I request you to re-hat those statements to make things easier for everyone. [And I think its not the end of the world if your reply is the first one to be hatted. The drama that happens upon your reversion is much more than the slight inconvenience on the apparent illusion that you have not replied]
TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 02:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC) [Please dont bother with a point-by-point reply. I dont want it, and probably wont even see it.]
Yes.
And I highly prefer a catchy short blurb than a boring and longer one. Which means that formats 1 and 2 have either too much space, or wil have too long blurbs.
But the FP section has the picture as the most important part of the section. The whitespace is there to ensure the focus of the box is the picture.
Nevermind. The new format appears to be better than both formats 1 and 2, and with a little tweaking and support from everyone, I guess it should be good to go. TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 18:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The logs claim the purge happened about 12 minutes ago, let me know if you see (or don't see) anything unexpected. :) -- j⚛e decker talk 00:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I started this proposal on the Village Pump for a review into all old rangeblocks, and it appears that the proposal has got way too less discussion than should be required [Although it did get a good amount of support within for those votes]. Since the proposal does not seem to be garnering any further discussion, can it be passes the way it is? Or will it require more discussion on the same?
Also, have I followed all procedure for this one? Or have I missed something [I did an RfC and a CENT listing]
Thanks! TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 16:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I rather liked that Easter egg. — howcheng { chat} 23:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
That's weird, I don't know how that happened. Feed back ☎ 15:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
For following up my edit to RSA Security with a proper rename and redirect. Pjhansen ( talk) 11:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited May 2013 Iraq attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madain ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 23:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello David: I've updated TAFI entries (see Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/21). Therefore, TAFI can be re-added to Main page at this time. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
A discussion that may interest you is occurring at Wikiproject TAFI's talk page at Proposal: use Theo's Little Bot to automate the schedule and queue. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll let the current RfC run its course, but I'm thinking ahead... Maybe Hindi shouldn't be listed, maybe it should. Its difficult to say, but I doubt our current list is perfect regardless. If there is one thing that is clear (to me anyway) from the current discussion, it is that a manual test is too tedious to get very meaningful results from. Let's say a formula (that a bot could calculate from a much larger sample) could be devised that took many things into account. Some individual factors could be made impossible to fake, and the overall results very hard to fake. Is using the results as a major factor in our decisions to list/not list a Wikipedia something you could, in principle, get behind? That is, after the factors were carefully thought out and tested and shown to meet our ranking expectations for bigger Wikipedias. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:2 Broke Girls logo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Snap Snap 23:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You participated in a previous discussion that led to changes in this policy. There is a current discussion at WT:LEAD#MOS:BOLDTITLE and its application to specific situations further concerning that policy and its application, including the changes made. You may be interested in the new discussion, as the previous changes have been brought up there. – 2001:db8:: ( rfc | diff) 04:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Since I've commented, I can't act on it. Could you review the discussion Here and make a decision to post or close based on the discussion? It's pretty well petered out, and there's not a lot of new blood in the discussion. Neither the article nor the discussion has changed much, and it's going to go stale soon. Thanks! -- Jayron 32 01:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen you've readded this item after I was bold and removed it. I think that the appearance of Janša's conviction on the Main Page is completely out of proportions and a huge embarrassment. See sl:Pogovor:5. junij, where people are mocking the English Wikipedia for this. The decision is not valid yet at all and will surely be changed or even completely overturned by the higher courts. Well, I won't waste time on this anymore - do as you wish. -- Eleassar my talk 07:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey David, I was hoping to get your input over at TAFI. I feel like we are at a make-or-break point right now as far as the future of the project goes. I understand your perspective on the matter, but we need to come to some sort of resolution to reinstate the project on the main page, or it will simply fail.
Can you outline the exact reasons for it's removal, so we can assess if the current changes have resolved those issues? If there's more to be done, then we need to know exactly what that is to move forward. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 00:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this against the rules? -- 24.109.65.154 ( talk) 18:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe consensus was that recent deaths are to be removed when they are older than the oldest blurb or when they reach seven days old, whichever happens first. The section is called recent deaths, after all. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 17:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park |
![]() |
You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos ( talk) |
Thanks for hopping on it....I was actually in IRC kinda leading the guy through the 'cleanup' stuff, and he just had to run, so... :) Revent ( talk) 22:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey David Levy
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 22:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on Today's Articles For Improvement for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot ( talk) 02:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi David,
I'd like to call to your attention User:Glossika. This user seems to be able to speak an absurdly high number of languages, as well as being able to play some ridiculously difficult piano pieces. His/her page promotes a Chinese language-learning website, which claims to more "effectively stimulate the hippocampus" than other programs... Additionally, most of his/her edits (that are not to the user page) seem to be promoting his/her website in given sources on various pages of Chinese languages and dialects.
Just thought it'd be worth checking out.
-- MosheA ( talk) 00:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Please join
Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn scavenger hunt on September 7, 2013! Everyone gather at the Brooklyn Public Library to further Wikipedia's coverage of— photos and articles related to Brooklyn, its neighborhoods and the local landmarks. -- EdwardsBot ( talk) |
![]() |
Please join the
Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA. -- Pharos ( talk) 22:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC) |
I noticed that you have done a fair amount of maintenance on the wikipedia languages template in the past and I was wondering if you would like to comment on this: Template_talk:Wikipedia_languages#Proposed_update_of_lowest_category_to_100k. Cheers. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 14:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The article Prince Ferfried of Hohenzollern should be renamed. Ferfried, Prince of Hohenzollern makes sense. Please look at Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia for a comparison. A redirection with the previous incorrect name is also needed. Thank you.-- 84.138.86.175 ( talk) 22:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)-- 188.195.39.49 ( talk) 00:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Please join
Wikipedia "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon on November 2, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for Greenwich Village articles on the history and the community. -- Pharos ( talk) 22:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC) |
Hello,
With a view of keeping discussion on-topic and focused solely towards future courses of action, I have BOLDLY collapsed a discussion involving you at TAFI. In case you think there are valid points with respect to what can be done now that are also collapsed, I request you to re-state only those points outside the collapsed box.
Thanks and regards, TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 02:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
David, I've taken your name in vain, but only on my talk page. [32] 16:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
First off, are you sure you didn't remove anything inadvertently per your recent comment over at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote? (Just a friendly heads up!)
And this brings me to my real subject. I find that the section "The NAMB rule and example" that I started has become quite the mess. Specifically, by reverting my attempts at "keeping it clean" I feel two problems have been magnified: 1) it is hard to find the current state of the discussion when you can't simply go to the bottom of the section, and 2) it is unnecessarily difficult to edit the section, since the level three headings come along. You're forced to search for the proper place to add your thoughts! You have to make edits into the middle of an edit box, rather than simply and straight-forwardly at the bottom.
I would ask you to reconsider your position; allowing the two (three?) sub-discussions to be spun off to proper sections, level 2(?) sections that mean they don't clutter up the mainline discussion's edit window. The problem of context can still be solved quite cleanly in my opinion, by simply providing a reference "This stuff continues here" and "This stuff is continued from here" respectively. Unless I'm mistaken, the "context" for all sub-discussions is simply my original starting edit anyway.
I ask you this partly because it is now non-trivial to edit the section, as Diego Moya's actions (and possibly your own edit?) show. But mostly because it detracts from the "mainline" discussion - my (our!) discussion which started "The NAMB rule and example". Quite simply, I dislike how hard it has become to add new opinions to the discussion thread I'm interested in among all the chatter.
I'm sure many editors manage just fine. I just don't see a good reason to keep it any more complicated than it has to be.
Regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 12:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Please join
Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013! Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for borough articles on the history and the communities. Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!-- Pharos ( talk) ~~~~~ |
![]() |
Appreciation |
Some flowers for you in appreciation of your efforts at WP:TAFI. I went there to revisit the discussion I'd been involved with about putting TAFI on the main page. I saw the (collapsed) discussion and the abuse you were receiving from editors there, which nobody should have to take. Thank you, you made the right decision. First Light ( talk) 18:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC) |
Wow, amazing. That's exactly what ive been worried about but had conflicts with others over bolding something. Good to see someone e;se has common sense vs. using bold for the sake of it ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)
~
TheGeneralUser
(talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi David, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi David, Happy New Year. At Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_3#Unused_XNRs there is a discussion which led me to look at Category:Temporary cropped main page images, which appears to be primarily 'your' area. I notice the instructions on the top of each file say "Please delete file after it is removed from the Main Page", but many of these should have been deleted long ago. Deleting them seems unnecessarily destructive as a) you are putting time into reducing the size of these images for a good reason, which others may benefit from, and b) deleting them would also break the historical version of the mainpages if I am not mistaken (i.e. Wikipedia:Main Page history/2012 December 8 depends on File:Dave Brubeck 2009 cropped.jpg). If they really should be deleted, we could change that template to automatically drop them into the deletion categories after a month. John Vandenberg ( chat) 09:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey,
Was wondering if you care to be a mentor? I don't really edit articles as of now, but I generally go straight to the talk page even before potential disputes. Was wondering if I can reach out to you to preempt potential disputes for advice. Also contacted Tone, btw( Lihaas ( talk) 12:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)).
It is a hopeful indicator that Lihaas is seeking out mentorship. His editing approach is a cause of some frustration and he is very confrontational and accusatory. I am certainly not the most patient editor, but if someone he trusts can perhaps suggest a more careful and considerate approach to his editing I think that would be wonderful. I see that antoher editor doing very good work on this article is also facing some very trying encounters. Take care and good luck to all. Good night. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 06:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I just want to thank you for being the always-courteous, helpful critic over at WP:SAD. If you look at it, we've shared a lot of the same views. I don't think it's within the authority of the main page people to deviate from status quo in this way without permission from a site-wide consensus. I don't want to just "slip it in" to the normal main page processes-- this is special, and it should require a special consensus.
Secondly, I just want to reiterate that my own brainstorming didn't have my own support. I've always believed "There's no judgements in brainstorming" but it turns out, if people aren't 100% clear that you're just brainstorming, they get scared your brainstorms are actual proposals. I wrote a lot of "pointed", editorialized content during that brainstorm phase, but I never supported it as written; I was just brainstorming, reading through the encyclopedia and jotting down whatever came to mind. For example, I can point to occasions where I wrote something and in the same edit commented that it didn't have my support.
I never "advertised" the proposal as a completed proposal-- it was only a draft, and I can imagine the dismay of the people who misinterpreted my sandbox efforts as an actual proposal.
Lastly, I would ask you to consider the following. I can tell you are acting in good faith, trying to defend the project from a minority using it for a political agenda. In this we are alike-- our dedication is to the community's will, not to any particular position.
If the community decides to do nothing, my work is done. :) My question to you is--- if it should turn out that the community does indeed want us to do something "special" for Feb 11, what would you recommend? On very rare occasions, the community does decide to "advocate", either by an overt call for a specific action (SOPA) or by a call to promote NPOV knowledge of a specific topic.
If the RFC comes down, overwhelming consensus for us to do something special, speedily decided-- what do you think we should do?
It's important to get a wide spectrum of ideas for what we could do. As the opponent who's still taken the time to stay current with the topic, you're uniquely situated to give us a proposal of what we should do to promote knowledge of the topic WITHOUT endorsing the protest, if that's what a site-wide consensus should determine. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 16:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
*ought* we be trying to 'educate' the readership beyond what the WP:RS actually say? *how* do we classify/organize/present 'selected' topics?
|
---|
|
In regards to our recent discussion on the use of Template:current on 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots, wouldn't it be better to make a template like that visible to editors only? As it is, it sounds like it's just warning readers that the article could change rapidly as the event progresses. Esszet ( talk) 16:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Please join
Wikipedia "Art and Feminism Editathon" @ Eyebeam on Saturday February 1, 2014, an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists! There are also regional events that day in
Brooklyn,
Westchester County, and the
Hudson Valley.
|
Hello David, forgive me for asking, but a while ago you noted that I needed to upload a file if it appeared on ITN, using the "Uploaded from Commons" template. The instructions aren't clear and the wizard is far from wizardly, could you help explain in baby steps what is required? It would be helpful to have that written down so we can get it right every time. Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind efforts on my behalf with regards to WP:NPA, most appreciated, — Cirt ( talk) 23:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi David - I just want to make sure you know I am not trying to be argumentative, angry, etc. over at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Conversations like this often become uncivil and angry (I've been guilty of it in the past!), so I want to make sure I'm not coming across that way now. -- Andrew (User:90) (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks for the note, but I think there's a major difference: even when natural elements were still being discovered, we could presume that nobody had previously known about a "new" element (the ancients weren't going around synthesising europium, for example), and we often have no clue whether humans have ever seen a specific "new" comet. In contrast, the poems quite obviously were known and had simply been lost; it's like saying that Halley's Comet was "new" in 1758, the first time it was recognised for what it was, the first time someone saw it and knew that it had been seen before. Nyttend ( talk) 02:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey David,
Let's take a time out and let me thank you for a really valid observation-- I don't normally behave like this.
This is very true. If you look over my multiyear history, you'll see I tend towards non-controversial edits, avoiding the limelight of main page.
But then, a proposal by people I have infinite respect for got me to working, doing something a little different than usual. And, let's be honest, my first week on the job, I mostly fouled it up, but that's okay-- I did my best, and I learned from my mistakes.
I just want to tell you that I understand why you oppose this proposal. "opposing" should be the default 'agnostic' state. The burden of proof is on people like Jimbo and others to demonstrate that this is worth scheduling. Unless we find a consensus to support special scheduling, Feb 11 should pass unnoticed.
That say-- please ease up on me, man-- this ISN'T how I normally act-- I'm trying to help give the community a special option in the event that the community wants the option. I don't need you chiming in every five minutes reminding me the community may not want to use my options-- I know that already. And I definitely don't need people taking my good faith nominations for Feb 11 and trying to rush them into mainpage so they'll be re-runs by Feb 11. That's a blatant corruption of my good-faith attempt to submit Feb 11 content to the DYKN community..
Bottom line-- it's okay to oppose the idea of The Day We Fight Back-- but it's not okay to OBSTRUCT the idea. Just step back, and when we ask for nays, raise your hand and say your peace. Just don't pretend that five people have veto power over this or sabotage power over this- you don't. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 08:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see diff.
I made a good faith effort here to get through to this user.
I tried! :)
Cheers,
— Cirt ( talk) 18:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
As i look at your history, I see you have spent more time opposing me and not so much time actually improving any articles. I've ended the proposal, I'm ending my participation, so let's stop the wikistalking, eh?
I'm not making many edits, but the way you're showing up to criticize or edit war with me in venue after venue is unwelcome. I'd like to see a different face showing up to revert me please. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 02:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Using the red X,
saying that "efforts to organize ... did not reach consensus" is just not accurate.
The truth is, some people interested in the day came together, mooted around a bunch of ideas, and finally organized under the aegis of the mass surveillance wikiproject.
The version I had up was already a compromise with the changes you'd made before,
avoiding the simple redirect I think most participants of the conversation and wikiproject would prefer, to maintain access to a page that is only viewed as history edits by a nearly entirely hypothetical audience.
I even held my nose over the "failed proposal" categorization, though since it led to the birth of a WikiProject I don't consider it any such thing.
This is regarding the dispute between you and HectorMoffet over Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day. As someone who is largely uninvolved in the discussions, I am not sure what the dispute is about, but I do think both of you need to take a break, because such discussions are leading to nowhere. I also recommend staying away from each other's talk page as far as possible. If there is a particular edit by the other user that you strongly object to, please contact me first, so that I can start a discussion on the talk page and ensure that the discussion remains constructive. Thank you for your contributions, and have a nice day. - A1candidate ( talk) 23:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I've replied to your comment. I think we can reach an agreement if you can show that the first non-stub page was called Check or Check mark. Ben Arnold ( talk) 23:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon | |
---|---|
![]() You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March:
|
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)
Hello, David. Shirley Temple and Stuart Hall died on the same day and were posted to RD the next day, February 11. On February 16, you removed Shirley Temple and left Stuart Hall there, and he's still there on February 20. What's up with that? (Aren't enough famous people dying?) -- 71.178.50.222 ( talk) 06:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
David, could you help me out or point me in the right direction? Inadvertently I did something when changing my talk page that resulted in the point-size of text going way up and I think changing font as well. I can't seem to find how to go back to the previous default settings. It seems to be a Wiki issue as other websites appear as before on my screen. Thanks for your assistance. Sca ( talk) 16:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi David. Perhaps I'm still confused, but you added File:Ole Einar Bjørndalen1.jpg to ITN but it doesn't appear to be a local, protected version. Am I missing something? The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
See the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#WP:ENGVAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.176.207 ( talk) 22:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi David. I tried to follow the instructions to upload and use a photo of Shigeru Ban today. If you get a moment, could you just check it was okay? I think the instructions are a little "lightweight" considering the "upload wizard" seems to get in the way. Perhaps there's a method of uploading without the wizard that I missed. Anyway, hopefully I didn't break anything, I did notice that on Commons, the file was already tagged with {{enwiki main page}}, what does that mean? Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The article was appropriately named before you moved it. It was not a "superfluous disambiguation" because two other slides have happened there, one as recently as 2006, the other in the late 1960's, as I recall, (I live 20 miles north). Also, the article name was discussed on the Oso page before it was moved into its own article. Please consider moving it back. 76.28.243.198 ( talk) 09:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I've just started editing at Wikipedia and I was wondering if there is anything in particular that I can do to help over the website? FalconJackson ( talk) 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion that may interest you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles. Anomalocaris ( talk) 08:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to
Incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some
guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Hello, thank you for your concerns over Wikipedia's policy. However, I will have to ask that you read article's talk pages before attempting to move them. The article in question also had no consensus to the title "Accession"--so are we to leave it blank? I think not. You need to read the talk page where a rename to "Annexation" was suggested, as even though this title was not reached via consensus, the titles of "Incorporation" or "Adoption" were in fact approved by every single person who mentioned or came into contact with them. This can, in fact, be considered the "consensus" that we need to effectively move the article. On top of this, "Accession" is an EXTREME push of POV, as almost all sources denoting this term are Russian or allied to Russia. Please note that when other sources refer to the process with the word "accession" they are referring to what Russia calls it. Thank you.
მაLiphradicus
Epicusთე
19:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, wanted you to be aware User:LiphradicusEpicus has been reported for edit- and move-warring on Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation: [ noticeboard discussion - Kudzu1 ( talk) 20:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Notice that Kudzu1 has been reported for move-warring on Incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation: [36]. I suppose this person does not read the discussion on the talk page? Or is he simply looking for problems? Out of everyone I have come into contact with, this person has the least gravitas and authority on the matter, and the most attitude. I'm not really sure what to say...
(mood = bristling) Please don't do that again, even if you think it's warranted per WP:THREAD. Jeh ( talk) 16:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is so twee and sickly, you should revert it. How on earth do you expect normal readers to understand "Dark blues" and "Light blues"? And what relevance does it have to the news item? Nothing at all. Please stick to the facts and restore the original, consensually-agreed blurb. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The non-specific month only titling was an old policy for tornado articles that has not been used since 2011. It was agreed sometime after 2010 that dates were to always be included. This can be confirmed by looking at the articles. You are going to have to trust me on this. Sharkguy05 ( talk) 23:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Sharkguy05
The reasoning behind it is that we could have for example an outbreak from the 5th to the 7th, and another from the the 20th to the 21st in the same month (June lets say). Obviously, we can't title both of those as "June 2014 tornado outbreak". Also, the NWS pretty much always lists the dates in their outbreak summaries. I can't think of one where they don't except for when the outbreak is infamous enough to get a title (1974 Super Outbreak, 1965 Palm Sunday Outbreak, 2012 Leap Day outbreak ect.) Sharkguy05 ( talk) 03:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Sharkguy05
Was there an issue with the original picture that needed fixing? Step hen 02:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
hello. admin Levy
can u Check this page ( Reza Zarrab), Some users have differences over the page. i undo the last edition of the page. please check that page to solve the problem. thank you Changu13 ( talk) 23:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! You have reverted my change about adding the article's title in bold and therefore removal of the related warn tag. I was in believe that it was correct and requested by the tag. Would you pls so kind to explain to me what was wrong with it. Thanks. -- CeeGee 04:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
Thanks for cropping two most important files of Narendra Modi which is currently used in various articles and in main page of English Wikipedia. This is from me. HPD talk 17:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC) |
Can you help me with the grammatical rule... I was taught (a long while ago admittedly) that a comma in that case would prevent the parsing of the sentence as "Manchester City win the Premier League and Arsenal", with the reader only finding out at the end of the sentence that Arsenal won their own prize, and weren't awarded to City. Step hen 01:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey there - just a heads up that I made a request to fix the licensing of a file you uploaded at File talk:Prayuth Jan-ocha 2010-06-17 ITN.jpg. Thanks! ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 19:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello dear user,
Since you are one of the active wiki Users, I am asking you to add an information in Main page's News section about Poroshenko's win in Presidental elections in Ukraine. Dont you think that information deserves to be on Main page? Thansk in advance. 217.76.1.22 ( talk) 10:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry I accidentally reverted and warned you. Please accept my apologies. ... discospinster talk 22:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC | |
---|---|
![]() You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:
|
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)
Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic | |
---|---|
![]() You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Central Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.
Also, before the picnic, you can join in the Wikimedia NYC chapter's annual meeting.
We hope to see you there!-- Pharos ( talk) 16:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC) |
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)
That cunt-headed bastard just won't get with the program (just in case you haven't noticed it by now). He keeps making a combination of good and bad edits, but doesn't cite any sources for them. I allowed a few of the good ones to stand only because I already knew they were true. Now he's conveniently deleted two messages I've sent to him concerning this. He's obviously up to no good, so just keep an eye on him. ElkoGraf ( talk) 12:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share | |
---|---|
![]() You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.
Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant ( to be decided). We hope to see you there!-- Pharos ( talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)
David got blocked and his images reverted over at Commons. Long story short, he mass nominated 600 penis-related images for deletion, which was the catalyst for this. Unable to edit, I stepped in and set up an arbitration case for him. Some of my edits were reverted and I was blocked too. This all smells very fishy. Almost as if Commons administrators abuse their power and block/revert anyone who gets in their way. But of course *that* would not be the case....
As you are a Commons administrator as well as a TAFI contributor, I felt like you would be able to help out David more than anyone. Do you mind having a quick squiz at what went down and tell me your thoughts?-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Need_semi_protection_removed_on_Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa -- NeilN talk to me 02:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I was being bold by making that move. Honestly I have no real passion for this topic, just ran into while patrolling recent changes. I have to ask, though, it seems quite obvious the organization has indeed changed it to all caps (just do a web search). Do we really need discussion? I don't quite see the MOS:TM connection, as DirectTV would then need to be something like DirectTv or Directv, or perhaps I'm missing a clause. At any rate don't forget about DIRECTV Sports Networks which I also moved. Best — MusikAnimal talk 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Also hope you don't mind I fixed some formatting on a few previous posts that at least in my browser messed up the whole page. Might be time to do some archiving. — MusikAnimal talk 21:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I've replied to your comment about easter eggs at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.
I've modified the blurb so that there are no easter eggs, and the blurb text makes two usages of the word in an encyclopedic manner.
Perhaps you can revisit your position?
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 18:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see
Does Wikipedia have an article or articles comparing distaste for profanity and sex issues in media in United States — versus distaste for violence in media in Europe? — Cirt ( talk) 01:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You were involved in the article; I invite you to discuss the page move proposal. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share | |
---|---|
![]() You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop in Manhattan's Greenwich Village.
Afterwards at 8pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant ( to be decided). We hope to see you there!-- Pharos ( talk) 07:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC) |
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)
I noticed you're familiar with template code and can use it correctly, so can you help me update the High traffic template? Here's the background info and explanation:
I've noticed that Google Doodles link to the search results page and cause high traffic to sites and high surges in page views on a topic people would normally not look up as often. I saw the High traffic template was implemented on the Charles Addams article, so I copy-pasted it for the other Doodles of 2012, replacing the date for each topic (I stopped after the February 7th one since it was a bit tedious).
But this template has some limitations and doesn't allow for other descriptions for things such as Google Doodles to describe thoroughly. I had a hunch that it would cause mis-understandings, and I wanted to add some code (when I was putting the template in the pages) to further clarify that it came from a Doodle. So as I thought, my hunch was right, and this ambiguity in the template text resulted in people not knowing/remembering about Google Doodles, so they might say that things can't be linked from Google as shown here.
What I want to do is to add template code to allow the linking to a list of Google Doodles for each year depending on the input for the date parameter. There can be an additional phrase about the Doodle, and that phrase will link to the section on the list of Doodles for that year. So for example the template text for Charles Addams can say: "On January 7, 2012, Charles Addams was linked from a Google Doodle on Google, a high-traffic website." where the Google Doodle being mentioned is coded to link to the date that the Doodle was shown on the Google main page. The field parameter for the date (e.g., January 7, 2012) should take care of the input requirement.
A problem with this is the list of Google Doodles for 1998-2009 doesn't follow what I think will be the standard Google Doodle article naming procedure, so for Doodles in those years, the template will need additional code to specifically link to the date sections and the page (1998-2009). For future Doodles, the standard code for linking to the article list and section date can be used if Doodles for 2013 and succeeding years will be titled under the name List of Google Doodles in 20xx (or xxxx). Google seems to be making Doodles for each year now, so the articles will probably be titled like that, unless people decide they should all be moved into a single article for each decade under (2010-2020), which might require the code to be tweaked a bit at a later time (but that most likely won't happen and sorry about the unnecessary comments).
I'm not familiar with the template code, so can you help me with this endeavor (for lack of a better word)? Thanks - M0rphzone ( talk) 23:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Also, I think using a bot would be better for adding this template to the articles that were linked by the Doodles. It's a bit tedious. Do you know which bot is able to do this task? - M0rphzone ( talk) 23:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is an excerpt from
Template:Cite_news
Do not post urls of Google or Yahoo! hosted AP content: that content is transient. Use MSNBC or another provider that keeps AP archives.
Whywhenwhohow (
talk)
03:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
My proposal is dead... dead into the bottom. I know your concerns about the way I write. One question: how can I write a better proposal of this idea: turning "Today's Featured List" into "this Week's featured list"? Must I do it in WT:Main page, as I should have? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
For fixing yet another of my ITN grammatical errors that I'm simply putting down to anglo-australian-american confusion. Step hen 04:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Why did you change the spelling to nationalise? There's no support for that at ENGVAR. -- Trovatore ( talk) 07:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
Just came around to say Hi :) Happy Editing! TheGeneralUser ( talk) 09:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC) |
Can you come decide whether this should be posted before it expires in under an hour? Bzweebl ( talk • contribs) 23:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy | |
Awarded for the very long but ultimately fruitful discussion culminating at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote#New proposal. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 00:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC) |
Check out the hatnotes on this one. - Stevertigo ( t | c) 20:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Seeing as you just made some tweaks, I'll bypass WP:Errors and ask that you wiki-link MVP. Bzweebl ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey, David. I reverted your changes because it's transcluded into the discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news, and it might be confusing to change it after other editors have commented on the original. I was reluctant to substitute it because I didn't want to fill up the discussion page with a bunch of extra code if I didn't have to. About the changes themselves, I don't have too much of an issue with the divider, but I'm not sure I like the bullets. Everything else on the main page is separated by dashes, I believe, and I think using bullets might look a little out of place. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 04:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I think this person, Gwern Branwen, User name User:Gwern should be blocked or banned. It seems that he or she has a "hacker's mentality" and has no respect fror Wikipedia's rules and therefore has no business on Wikipedia. Mugginsx ( talk) 14:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Why do opposers there use the "long-term" criterion? Have I pointed out correctly that significance and impact of this novel does not reflect reader's interests? Now that the discussion is closed per WP:SNOW, would this make me look disruptive? -- George Ho ( talk) 23:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Why do opposers there use the "long-term" criterion? Have I pointed out correctly that significance and impact of this novel does not reflect reader's interests?
Now that the discussion is closed per WP:SNOW, would this make me look disruptive?
How did I conflate separate criteria?
How can I be less disruptive?
How do I understand arguments without requesting a move?
Asking them to elaborate?
How many years must I wait for the right moment to propose again? -- George Ho ( talk) 01:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Say, would you like to be my mentor for a while? I would like some help. If not, then would you be my helper, as jc37 is right now? -- George Ho ( talk) 00:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Now I declare you officially my helper... mentor is not what you desire, as far as I can see. --
George Ho (
talk)
00:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
What do you think: http://www.webtender.com/db/drink/5520 -- George Ho ( talk) 12:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi David. I have a great deal of respect for you as an editor, and also a great deal of respect for your contributions to the ITN-related discussions. I find you to be one of the most sensible voices at various debates that take place there, and in the past there has most certainly been occasions where I have been convinced by your arguments, which I initially may have opposed. I feel as though the recent comments in that area have become very heated, and thus decided not to further engage for the time being to do some reflection. I have full intention on creating a positive atmosphere on those pages, and have often attempted to cool things down when they get heated. I do apologize if I have caused frustration, or seem obstructive, uncooperative, etc., and I do hope you accept this apology. Colipon+( Talk) 02:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, in short. There are too many discussions going on without conclusion. After one week, both discussions have gone to a natural conclusion, in my opinion. I know it's not "the done thing" but I think I've been reasonable in my conclusions doktorb words deeds 10:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Hey David, I vaguely recall you weighing in at a recent VP discussion about adminship (although I can't seem to find it right now). There, I offered a proposal to create a community-elected "adminship committee" to do away with RfA drama, and create a streamlined, manageable, drama-reduced (because let's be honest, drama-free is wishful thinking) and community-accountable process, for all kinds of adminship recall, confirmation, and maybe even forced breaks in cases of burnout.
The latter relates to a section I stumbled upon on Jimbo's talk page, where someone proposes term limits for admins. These are imho a good idea in principle, but not manageable for the community in the form of traditional RfAs; and recall/confirmation RfAs are an even worse cesspit than usual RfAs.
I don't know your stance on adminship term limits or recall/confirmation process, or whether RfA as a bit of a problem child is on your radar at all. At any rate, I thought you might be interested since you are one of those few people who try to inject sanity into Wikipedia at every turn. -- 87.79.131.112 ( talk) 03:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your comments on Template talk:Unsigned and thought you might be able to help with this. Thanks. -- xensyria T 19:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Block him David or this is likely to cause a chain reaction. You are correct. Someone, it seems, is covering for him. The silence is deafening. Mugginsx ( talk) 13:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. - Blake Burba ( talk) 08:00, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi David - I know we haven't always seen eye to eye in the past, but I wanted to ask your advice as an experienced and uninvolved admin. I'm in a dispute with several editors over two articles: Politics in the British Isles and Ireland-United Kingdom relations.
I created Politics in the British Isles a few days ago; it was then nominated for deletion by User:Snappy. A discussion about what to do with the article has been ongoing here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Politics in the British Isles.
RA, one of the editors opposed to Politics in the British Isles, proposes that the article should merged to Ireland-United Kingdom relations. Rather than wait for consensus to confirm his opinion, he took the unilateral step of copying the entire contents of Politics in the British Isles, and pasting it here to Ireland-United Kingdom relations [1], after which he used its existence there as an argument to try to prove that the original in Politics in the British Isles content is in fact just a fork. To me, this move is the essence of WP:POINT.
My experience has been, in a normal situation, this would be dealt with by a merge discussion on the talk pages, and once consensus is to merge, the content is moved and the original deleted. However, the original content cannot be deleted, because in this case, the article in question is up for AfD, so its contents are extremely relevant and can't just be blanked. In this particular case, I thus believe copying the content across the wiki is disruptive.
As a result of this disruption, edits I've made to improve the content in one place do not show up in another; synchronization issues abound; and ongoing discussions about the content have been moved from place to place. The end result is an absolute mess of dual maintenance that will persist until the AfD closes, which may be a while given the heated debate. I admit to have engaged in edit warring to attempt to undo this mess, along with Snappy and BHG on this issue, which I regret, so I'm not claiming innocence here.
In any case, my opinion is, during an AfD, the content should remain in the original article and not be copy-pasted elsewhere, until the outcome of the AfD is clear - either delete, or merge, or keep. Then if consensus agrees, we merge (and delete from the original). Otherwise, allowing things to continue will mean that dual maintenance will continue on these two pages, one of which is basically a complete content fork of the second, to the detriment of the wiki. Sadly, experienced administrator Brownhairedgirl has encouraged this forking, rather than allowing consensus to decide at the AfD what should be done.
I'd welcome your POV and advice on what, if anything, to do about it; my attempts to revert did not work, my pleas to request them to undo the fork did not work, so I don't know what else to do. Thanks! -- KarlB ( talk) 00:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi David! Sorry to bother you. I hope this was a mistake. -- SMS Talk 23:07, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I have made a deletion discussion that had people turn against me. Now I want to make amends with soapie people by reviewing my own AFD. How can I not anger them? And I have my proposal here:
I don't want to undo the damage because that would make me look wrong and foolish in the past. Nevertheless, I must for the sake of lessening the anger of people and of making more friends, especially those who are solely dedicated to soap operas. Anyway, I come into conclusion that there must be, at heart, some cleanup to be done, and I think portrayers of their characters have made their roles notable... unless I'm missing the real definition of notability. Suddenly, plots about them and their deaths suddenly impacted their roles and the whole show: I'm talking about Myrtle, Phoebe, and Mona. They were part of the show because... primary sources and affiliates made them, yet I solely depended on Google and their current state of articles to look for third-party and non-primary sources to determine their notability. I let you down in the past; this time, this discussion is proof of undoing the AFD I started. Recently, I have posted an idea of notability about television-related topics in WP:village pump (idea lab), so I'm still working on television notability. Meanwhile, this discussion could help starting to make friends, right? If not, how can I be friends?
-- George Ho ( talk) 02:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 05:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia_talk:Hatnote#Finalizing_the_new_proposal. Since you participated in the earlier discussion about trivial hatnotes and what to do about them, your input is requested on a finalizing a proposal.
KarlB (
talk)
06:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
In light of this remark and this revert from Rambling Man, I'd like to request in advance (in case you were planning on doing so) that you not remove the UEFA 2012 blurb from ITN in deference to TFL (as you did with Eurovision back in May). Thanks. -- tariqabjotu 21:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:Tariqabjotu:
I undid your edit. WP:TFL is entirely independent of the vagaries of ITN, please leave the blurb as is. It may be that it takes a week for the community to decide on a suitable hook/update for ITN. TFL has an updated blurb, and updated article, we don't need ITNers to pop by to "fix" our work. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, I didn't really agree with your decision to do that last time, as I feel TFL and ITN tend to emphasize different aspects of the content. For example, you really have to search through the TFL blurb, if you get down there, and get to that part of the blurb, before you see the link to the final of Euro 2012. And UEFA Euro 2012 isn't linked at all.
Further, I think the omission of Euro 2012 would be far more glaring than the omission of Eurovision was (given it's substantially larger viewing audience).
And, yes, of course, I also feel given Rambling Man's insistence that TFL and ITN be completely independent, I see no pressing reason to coordinate with TFL.
Please see the normal process and also Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions where we, as a community (albeit a small one) review blurbs and get a consensus for them before posting them. It's not ownership to count on consensus to provide you with a decent, fully-worded blurb per our standards. Someone turning up to change it as they see fit at the last moment isn't really appropriate, particularly given the reason that Euro 2012 would feature in ITN – we all know how long some articles can take to get to ITN. TFL lists are scheduled weeks, sometimes months in advance, so there's no reason why anyone interested in trying to "merge" the ITN and TFL process on the occasions that are suitable. The difference is that TFL presentation on main page is stable, i.e. we know any given list will run on a Monday, for 24 hours, hopefully updated if need be before featuring. ITN is very much the opposite. Sure, for an item such as Euro 2012, we'd hope that there were sufficient readers interested to do the updates necessary on the day to get it to meet the requirements of ITN before being posted, but that isn't always the case. Come 00:00 (UTC) on Tuesday, the list disappears back to whence it came, while ITN can persist for.... well... some time in certain situations. If ITNers wish to appraise themselves of the scheduled lists and collaborate for ITN/R items that may be featuring (hopefully on the same day on the main page), then perhaps that could work. If you can see a way of making that work, either of you, then I'm all ears. I would appreciate it if you refrained from calling me a "jerk" in any case. The Rambling Man ( talk) 16:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see the normal process and also Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions where we, as a community (albeit a small one) review blurbs and get a consensus for them before posting them. It's not ownership to count on consensus to provide you with a decent, fully-worded blurb per our standards.
Hi! I've reverted your edits to the TFL template. The content was determined through discussion on the process page (where the part that you removed was felt to be important), so I ask that you please suggest changes there beforehand to give everyone an opportunity to provide feedback. If you're interested in helping out, we'd be happy to have you on board. Thanks!
TFL lists are scheduled weeks, sometimes months in advance, so there's no reason why anyone interested in trying to "merge" the ITN and TFL process on the occasions that are suitable.
If ITNers wish to appraise themselves of the scheduled lists and collaborate for ITN/R items that may be featuring (hopefully on the same day on the main page), then perhaps that could work. If you can see a way of making that work, either of you, then I'm all ears.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Excessive block of Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Thank you. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you for the discussion(s). I think it's a good thing when Wikipedians can come together and positively discuss something, even if they may disagree (or even not quite understand each other at first).
So with that in mind... - jc37 17:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
For joining in on several lengthy discussions with me and others, and working - again, through discussion - to learn and understand, despite the many confusions we all had along the way. - jc37 17:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC) |
Thanks very much for the Resilient Barnstar and the kind sentiment behind it. I, too, am glad that we were able to engage in constructive discourse.
As I can think of no award more suitable, please allow me to second
LuK3's presentation of the Barnstar of Diligence. You've certainly earned it! (: —
David Levy
19:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello David,
on UEFA European Football Championship there is always the same deletion.
Most successful team: Germany 3 titles, 3 runners up
Later:
Most successful team: Germany, Spain, 3 titles
Later again:
Most successful team: Germany 3 titles, 3 runners up
etc...
So I made a sort of solution, but someone deleted it again.
Solution I made:
| most successful team =
Germany 3 titles, 3 runners-up
[note]
In the references I added the note so that it was clear for everybody, but Peejay2K3 deleted it again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=UEFA_European_Football_Championship&diff=500700930&oldid=500700306
Can you do something? Or decide something?
A reasonable solution I made was deleted again, etc ...
Klodde ( talk) 22:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello David, just a quick long-distance view on what WP:TFL has scheduled that may coincide with WP:ITN nominations.
At the moment, that's it. I know you're not responsible for what goes on ITN, but as we discussed, at least as someone who frequents ITN more often than I, you are at least forewarned, if not forearmed. The Rambling Man ( talk) 18:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Moderators_.28redux.29 -- RA ( talk) 23:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I was actually planning to use that on July 21, as that would mark the end of the Space Shuttle program. But today is fine too, seeing as how we have no backup items at all. — howcheng { chat} 04:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/disingenuous
Definition #3 in particular. DS ( talk) 18:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
It has been delinked, and I am considering to revert it since we are talking about a specific explosion. What do you think? -- BorgQueen ( talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Could you fix the link from 2011 Aurora shooting to 2012 Aurora shooting? I was going to fix it and you protected it before I got there. — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 00:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
So, in my day, the LEAD summarized the whole article. If half the article is about a suspect, then roughly half the lead summarized that. I think I recognize your name from the old days, so I'm wondering if something has changed, or ??? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 04:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi David. Were all of your comments addressed to me? Or just the harsh accusatory ones? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
I see. But I'm not quite sure why you've now moved my comment.
You did indeed outdent the second part. But with the note "See below", making me think that part was also meant for me!
Your edit summary just said "replies".
Levy, you need to cool off for 24 hours and stop pulling wild accusations about my intentions in 24 hours. Your latest contribution to the debate about my 3RR edits is wrong and based on misinterpretation of me. I am completely enraged by your remarks. You've really fucked me up, just so you know. Back off, get your facts straight, don't make fake accusation, and step back and ask yourself if you can substantiate accusations based entirely on inferences. My restoration of that picture to the shooting article was completely legitimate and does not constitute an edit war under any definition. You owe me an apology at the 3RR edit war discussion, where I have replied. I am completely pissed off by you. — O'Dea ( talk) 04:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
hi. Overall, yes, move on, it was an interesting discussion, etc, and I admitted that we use some words differently than in the past, and I don't want to be too dogmatic about "film", and that it can be used I guess in a broad sense, like "mix tape" even if it's a CD, etc, but there was a question I asked at the end of that comment, that was more than just rhetorical. I'm actually kind of curious in a way. In Britain, do they ever use the word "movie"? Just wondering... Do English people sometimes say "movie" as well as "film" or "cinema"? Jots and graphs ( talk) 04:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Adding this here as to not say it in front of all - There is no need to repeat everything in green. The format your using makes you look very very young as the format is used at the primary school level so student can follow along. I know your much older - just want you to know that it looks like replies are from a grade 6 student. Your replies show your not young - but first impressions are profound. Moxy ( talk) 22:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Neutralhomer is on the warpath about subchannels and attacking me again on my talk page (threatening to block me) and on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television Stations. He was taken to ANI over the issue which showed he lied in a previous argument and his bullying me (over the years going back to the PTEN argument) and other editors but was rejected as a "content dispute". Spshu ( talk) 17:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to report a user User:Rajashekar india3434. He has been making unnecessary pages with only one sentences in them. Please get back to me as soon as possible. Thank you. ZSpeed ( talk) 20:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I was thinking about our past discussions, and thought I would ask if you would please take a look at this proposal, and let me know what you think. - jc37 21:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I created the article with the sole intent of mentioning the details of the branch.I later realized and moved the page.It makes no sense to move it back to the original name with no change in it.Please revert. Thanks TheStrike Σagle 06:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi David. Just saw your edit here. I'm afraid I just don't see why it's useful to link Syria when Aleppo, Battle of Aleppo (2012) and Syrian Armed Forces are all already linked in the same sentence. Jenks24 ( talk) 12:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
When I bolded the title, it appears I simply misinterpreted what the comment was. I thought the comment was saying it doesn't appear in bold, but per WP policies it should, so I made the edit. Thanks for clarifying that it wasn't. However, I'm still a bit confused specifically why it doesn't - is it because of "awkward wording?"
Thanks. -- Activism 1234 00:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I see you just reversed one of Lihaas' recent edits. As an admin I request you hat his new section pretending he was unaware of the current RfC on ITN and attempting to hijack the debate. I cannot believe such action by an ITN contributor. μηδείς ( talk) 04:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi David Levy
! I have started my second editor review at
Wikipedia:Editor review/TheGeneralUser (2). I will be greatly delighted, thankful and valued to have your review for me regarding my editing and possible candidate for
Adminship. As you are a experienced and long term Wikipedian so i have asked for your kind review. Take your time to review my editing and give the best review that you can :). Feel free to ask me any questions you would like to on the review page itself. It will be a great honor to have you review me for which I will truly feel appreciated and helpful! I always work to improve Wikipedia and make it a more better place to be for Everyone :). Regards and Happy Editing!
TheGeneralUser (
talk)
19:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I happen to agree with your assessment of this ("not an improvement"), but I remind that you WP:CONSENSUS calls for providing more helpful reasons and explanations than that when reverting, especially something like this. In particular, you might want to review Wikipedia:Consensus#Reaching_consensus_through_editing, starting with "Any such revert should be explained. One option is to leave a clear edit summary stating why the particular edit is not considered to be an improvement to the article, ..." Simply stating your opinion that it's not an improvement is hardly stating why it's not an improvement. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Of course, it's not too late to state why on the policy's talk page... -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tokyo Sky Tree under construction 2011-08-04 cropped.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator ( talk) 16:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Template:Gi has been nominated for merging with
Template:Tq. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. --
Hex [
t/
c]
20:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Purple Barnstar | |
Thanks for wading back into it yet again, and for presenting such an impeccable message. JHunterJ ( talk) 00:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC) |
By the way, "closing" the proposals that were made today and not any of the rest of the discussion is absurd, to say the least. You can probably find a better way of reopening it though. Normally discussions are open for at least a week, or a month before they are closed. There is clearly no reason for closing this section in less than 24 hours. Apteva ( talk) 19:35, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to drop a note that my comments in no way are directed at you but as I mentioned I have completely lost faith in the RFA process and in a large number of the admins now frolicking about the site. Too many have let the power go to their heads and the process has degraded to that of a bash fest causing few to want to endure it at all. As I mentioned in 2007 we promoted around 400 admins and this year we stand at 20 so far and likely won't get more than 1 or 2 more. Each year we see approx half the year before and I just don't have any faith that changes to the RFA process at this point will turn that around. We are losing admins at a rate faster than we are promoting new ones and at the same time increasing the amount of work the admins do by protecting more content, submitting more things for deletion and blocking more and more users for smaller and smaller infractions. Its gone on far too long and it will take too long of a time before the community trusts the process again. By that time it may be too late. It might be already. Kumioko ( talk) 19:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Heya. I understand the change and don't mind it, but the individual notices can at least be completely hidden. Right now, we're stuck with the big green text no matter what, even if all the messages are hidden. Is there a way this can be toggled or hidden as well? -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 17:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering, since you are an administrator, could you look at protecting the page Athillas_Thasos? We requested page protection already, but I don't think it's going to be fast enough. In the past two hours alone, we have had to re add the AfD template 6 times. And this has been going on for almost 5 hours now. Thanks in advance! Jeancey ( talk) 08:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
I may have asked you about this already. If I have, my apologies.
Would you look over Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship? I'd sincerely like to discuss this with you. - jc37 22:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
. TheGoofyGolfer ( talk) 20:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Template:Move-specialized has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
06:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, Is there a list of these? I.E Templates that are no longer present but still nominally in use? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 22:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. Or should I say, thank you... Bencherlite Talk 19:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
You can read my reply over on the WP DYK talk. But I'd like to personally apologize to you that you felt it was about you. I never meant it to be that way. I've explained in detail over on the DYK talk page. Honest, it wasn't about you, but a venting of frustrations that DYK is becoming less alluring since the summer. You just happened to be the person who stepped in and tried to help. Sorry if I made it sound like you were at fault. — Maile ( talk) 20:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
It's that time of year again. Any chance you might be interested? - jc37 21:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi David,
I apologize for any frustration I have caused you. Looking back through my talk page history, I see your note back in August explaining how to perform a local upload; I should have remembered. I try to put up images on the TFA blurbs before the blurbs go up on the main page so that the images can be discussed beforehand, but I do not always catch the blurbs in time. I have not uploaded any images that I believed at the time to be off-topic, but I will attempt to keep them more centrally on topic in the future. I think TFA images to be a valuable part of Wikipedia, which is why I often edit in this area. I hope my TFA blurb edits will be more agreeable to you in the future.
Neelix ( talk) 21:05, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/November 22, 2012. Regards — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
I think I found the source of our misunderstanding, and why we seemed to have been talking past one another. I hadn't noticed it at first, but it finally sunk in; I've left a last note on my talk page for your perusal, but to clarify a bit more; it seems you were working under the assumption that I had flagrantly disregarded an established consensus intentionally; I had not done so. As I explained, I really had never heard of such a consensus, and since it doesn't appear to be written in any of the guidelines on the ITN pages, I'm really not sure how I would have known about it. To clarify again: I would have never violated an explicitly written guideline which clearly advocated against posting an item in the manner I did. I knew nothing of such a clear consensus before you brought it up. In the future, I will be more careful not to violate such a consensus, but in the meantime, you would need to update the guidelines to indicate that such a consensus exists, with diffs/links to the relevent discussions, because those of us that didn't participate in the discussions wouldn't know about it. I hope this clears things up between us; looking back I know see where the misunderstanding comes from, and I apologize for give you the impression that I was being just being obtuse or obstinant. Had I realized what your main objection was, I think I would have responded differently to the discussion than I did. I thought you were primarily concerned about the fact that I didn't post after exactly 5 sentences had been updated (which is a guideline itself that is rather fuzzily worded) not that I was deliberately ignoring a known consensus. Let me assure you, it was not my intent to do so, and had I been aware of that ruling, (like, if it were written out as such at WP:ITN) I would have never posted in the first place. -- Jayron 32 07:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.
All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!-- Pharos ( talk) 07:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, can you give me an example of the last-minute TFA rescheduling you referenced here? -- tariqabjotu 08:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
...About what I think are not welcome. I request you cease all speculations phrased as fact regarding what I think; I have had enough of your statements (ie, "You think..." "You want..." etc.) regarding the inner workings of my mind. You have no idea what I think and your pretense at mind reading is uncivil and insulting. As Durova once put it: "Please refrain from speculation regarding my opinions: the normal way of resolving that type of uncertainty is to ask for clarification." KillerChihuahua ?!? 17:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
(outdent) telling someone You think yadda-yadda is still asserting you know what they think and/or feel. Your quotes above are from after I protested at your verbiage on Raul's page. Here are examples from that page:
Three instances in one day, in one conversation, of telling me what I think, and being dreadfully wrong all three times btw. "You want" "You seek" both are presuming to tell me what I think and want. That's unacceptable. Sure, AFTER I protested, you offered "I'm sorry if I misunderstood" which is weak. You should say "I'm sorry I presumed to know your mind" or "I'm sorry for my horrible phrasing" or something, and vow to cease such phrasing. Now, you do as you wish. Carry on with your rudeness and pretend to read minds and insult people and piss them off and then offer an inadequate ex post facto "apology" - not "I'm sorry I did that" but simply "I'm sorry I got it wrong" which is useless, sorry to say - or stop using that kind of phrasing. It is no improvement to tell someone "You think this" and get it right - it is still wrong to say such. Getting it completely wrong, as you did with me, is merely a heaped on insult. Now, I hope this time I have been clear enough to get through to you what I'm saying, as apparently I have been failing to do so thus far. Killer Chihuahua 13:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
telling someone You think yadda-yadda is still asserting you know what they think and/or feel.
Your quotes above are from after I protested at your verbiage on Raul's page.
Here are examples from that page:
"you seek to fundamentally alter "
"you want us to deem it bad."
"You want to suppress material from the main page "
Three instances in one day, in one conversation, of telling me what I think, and being dreadfully wrong all three times btw.
"You want" "You seek" both are presuming to tell me what I think and want.
That's unacceptable.
Sure, AFTER I protested, you offered "I'm sorry if I misunderstood" which is weak.
You should say "I'm sorry I presumed to know your mind"
or "I'm sorry for my horrible phrasing" or something,
and vow to cease such phrasing.
tl;dr. Really. From what I scanned, there are four issues here in communication:
tl;dr. Really.
You're still going off about the FA thing: seriously, drop that. Dead horse. Bones, even. Not an issue.
You think it "went without saying" that you wouldn't do it again, becasue why?
You are still going on about how much you apologised. Yeah, got that the first time, don't need to hear it again, pleasefortheloveofgod stop repeating it. No argument from me that you apologized. Apology accepted, notarized, framed and hung in a place of honor.
"At no point" - yes. three times.
Are you saying you see some significant difference in meaning between "you seek to" "you want to" and "you think"?????
Do you honestly think that the declarative sentence beginning with "You want to" is not you telling someone what they want, ergo what they think?????
I'm not going to answer all your points right now, but "You want to..." intended as a speculative rather than a declarative would be fine, But a speculative has a question mark, not a period. Your statements had periods, which renders your argument that they were speculatives moot. Do not confuse my attmpts to exlain how your declaratives read to others as the same as your bizarre "mindreading" bullshit. I am explaining to you what your words mean, to others, and why that's a problem. I'm explaining (or attempting to explain, although this is taking days and I see almost no progress) what's wrong with your phrasing. I am using declaratives because I'm not talking about YOU, I'm talking about ENGLISH. Your sentences were terminated with periods, therefore to anyone not living in your mind they were statements, not queries. "You want to go to the zoo." has a very different meaning from "You want to go to the zoo?" Also, "I'm sorry" does most certainly not (magically and unstated) carry with it the intention to not do so again. Even if it did, nothing "goes without saying" here. You have a multigenerational, multicultural environment. If you don't say it, it remains not only not unsaid but also not reliably implied, inferred, suspected, hinted, ... you get the idea. If it wasn't said, it might as well not exist even as a concept. And regarding knowledge and speculation: you don't know as much as you think you do about anyone else. Make this a mantra. If you remember this, then when you type your comments, you will avoid your presumptive and rude comments, which even if they are "based" on what someone said, are not necssarily, and in my case not even remotely, close to what that person thinks, feels, or was trying to say. Remember that text is fraught with danger for miscommunication; one study found that 95% of the time readers are positive they know precisely what someone was trying to say in text, and 80% of the time they were wrong or partially wrong. You have no magical abilities to do better. When someone says 'You misunderstood what I was trying to say, you do NOT TELL THEM 'I BASED MY STATEMENT ON MY WHAT YOU SAID" you say "my bad, what did you mean?" (That's intended as instruction, not description.) The first is arguing with someone about what they meant, regardless of how you meant it in your mind. It is, in effect, telling them what excellent reasons you had for your wrong statement. You are justifying your wrongness, and it very much sounds like you're telling the other person how wrong they are about your wrong statement. Which being a statement about them, rather than a query to them, is a huge problem. It is the entire reason we are here having this discussion. Killer Chihuahua 13:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not going to answer all your points right now, but "You want to..." intended as a speculative rather than a declarative would be fine, But a speculative has a question mark, not a period. Your statements had periods, which renders your argument that they were speculatives moot.
I am explaining to you what your words mean, to others, and why that's a problem. I'm explaining (or attempting to explain, although this is taking days and I see almost no progress) what's wrong with your phrasing.
I am using declaratives because I'm not talking about YOU, I'm talking about ENGLISH. Your sentences were terminated with periods, therefore to anyone not living in your mind they were statements, not queries.
"You want to go to the zoo." has a very different meaning from "You want to go to the zoo?"
Also, "I'm sorry" does most certainly not (magically and unstated) carry with it the intention to not do so again.
And regarding knowledge and speculation: you don't know as much as you think you do about anyone else. Make this a mantra. If you remember this, then when you type your comments, you will avoid your presumptive and rude comments, which even if they are "based" on what someone said, are not necssarily, and in my case not even remotely, close to what that person thinks, feels, or was trying to say.
Remember that text is fraught with danger for miscommunication; one study found that 95% of the time readers are positive they know precisely what someone was trying to say in text, and 80% of the time they were wrong or partially wrong.
You have no magical abilities to do better.
When someone says 'You misunderstood what I was trying to say, you do NOT TELL THEM 'I BASED MY STATEMENT ON MY WHAT YOU SAID" you say "my bad, what did you mean?" (That's intended as instruction, not description.)
The first is arguing with someone about what they meant, regardless of how you meant it in your mind.
I've recently gone ahead and created WP:WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:
Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, — Cirt ( talk) 17:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I've attempted to raise a discussion at WT:ITN because I think that all versions of the Nyasasaurus hook (including mine) are sub-optimal. I'd appreciate it if you'd participate in the discussion; it's section "Dinosaur". Nyttend ( talk) 02:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
David, I think it's pretty clear you're involved and shouldn't be closing RM discussions on an article that you're involved in discussing/editing. While your point is well taken, and perhaps it is soon, RM discussions ought to take some time, so that you closed it within hours is disappointing. I may come back to this later... I have other things to attend to today, but I'd hope you maybe consider opening it back up and letting the discussion run. Like we've said back and forth, that name change is inevitable, and while there are a lot of IPs without broader context chiming in on that discussion, an RM makes perfect sense to start now. Shadowjams ( talk) 17:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
The actual name of the school is Sandy Hook School. See the article's talk page for photo proof. It needs to be corrected on Newtown Public Schools, also. Thanks. -- 76.189.123.142 ( talk) 05:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Please read the talk page discussion and the MOS:NUM guidelines.
Your edits also go against consensus here Talk:Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting/Archive_2#20 children and 6 staff, so I would strongly urge you self-revert. - Mr X 20:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the reasoning that the historical name of the Bath School disaster seems on the face of it to have been disregarded in this article, as evidenced by this edit. In all the research I have been doing on the Bath School disaster over the past few days, which mostly has consisted of consulting Monty J. Ellsworth's 1927 book "The Bath School Disaster" (written by an eyewitness who was a Bath resident) and newspapers from May 1927 and various other books published from then till now (to keep out all the WP mirror-sites), none of them refer to this attack as anything other than the "Bath School disaster". (I did say in my edit summary that I was relying on the contemporaneous literature and reporting?...) If a concern was raised about some possible confusion regarding the 'deadliest school attacks' on the talkpage (with one article being a 'shooting' and another being a 'massacre'), and the editorial consensus is that the Bath school mass murder should be referred to as a 'bombing', then I would appreciate a link to that. The sad distinction of being #1 in how many people died belongs to the almost simultaneous Bath school attacks (the school being wired with explosives and Kehoe's pickup truck being wired as a suicide device). If the name of the "Virginia Tech massacre" article was changed by pipe in another WP article to "Virginia Tech killings" or "Virginia Tech mass murders", would that piping be acceptable as well? Shearonink ( talk) 07:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I guess I like to respect what the contemporaneous usage was/is regarding events, to me it would be like changing what we call a Civil War battle...
But if people today are reading the Sandy Hook article and wondering why there's a link to something that occurred in 1927, and a pipe takes care of that confusion?...that makes sense.
By the way, I googled the terms 'disaster' and 'bombing'/'bombings' and the raw data indicates 8,930,000 hits for 'Bath School disaster' and a combined total of 5,300,000 for 'Bath School bombing'/'Bath School bombings'.
Eh, however it's Wiki-sliced, a sad distinction for Bath...
...did you know that there was at least one schoolchild who survived and was interviewed as a senior citizen in 2007? That was an interesting read.
Hey, thanks for your reply. Cheers
Hi David--I'm going to undo this one. Column width is important, but she is more important. Plus, she just got the promotion. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 02:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
TheGeneralUser
(talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hello David! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!
We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!-- Pharos ( talk) 01:46, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Here's a
toast to the
host |
~ TheGeneralUser (talk) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
~
TheGeneralUser
(talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
A Very Happy (belated) New Year to you David! Enjoy the Whisky
~
TheGeneralUser
(talk)
23:33, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
do you brownie Msugarbabe ( talk) 18:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC) |
Hello, David Levy. You might be interested in weighing in on this. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings David. I'm not going to bother reverting your reversion of my reversion of another users reversion of another user but I wanted to clarify it wasn't directly related to Rich. Right or wrong Arbcom has stated multiple times that IAR does not apply to their rulings. They said it or Rich, Betacommand and several others in the past. Kumioko ( talk) 03:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to bother reverting your reversion of my reversion of another users reversion of another user but I wanted to clarify it wasn't directly related to Rich.
Right or wrong Arbcom has stated multiple times that IAR does not apply to their rulings.
Thanks for the better wording; I had the hardest time figuring out how to write what I wanted to say and never could work out something that sounded good. Nyttend ( talk) 22:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
The development for TAFI has progressed significantly over the last few weeks, and we are prepared to launch the new feature on the main page for Feb 9th at 0:00 UTC. Concensus was established that the TAFI content should be placed below the DYK content. An example page has been created to show what it would look like. I would like to invite you and several other admins who have recently edited the Main Page to swing by this discussion to help us hammer out the final logistics of integrating the content onto the main page. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 18:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
God bless on getting rid of the bold title. I was just about to do it myself. μηδείς ( talk) 23:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you undid my contributions on the talk page and while I am not fully in understanding of why, I will say there was no need for the snark in the comment insinuating that I was attempting o make a personal argument out of it. I am not a regular editor of Wikipedia. I have edited a few pages for accuracy, grammar, and spelling and have contributed on more than a few talk pages. I found no such instructions on that talk page suggesting that no one can add comments or ideas. I did notice that it said we were allowed to edit the summarized points to improve the arguments and to not sign our contributions. However, seeing as how I have always simply used my IP to sign with, it autosigns for me.
My issue? The oppositions to the arguments were based in an incorrect understanding of the arguments and I was attempting to clarify each individual point. If you could perhaps show me the specific instructions that outline my wrongdoing, I can avoid such things in the future. And if the talk of this subject is not being held on the talk page, then perhaps you could show me where my comments might be better placed. 184.156.23.123 ( talk) 19:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you undid my contributions on the talk page and while I am not fully in understanding of why, I will say there was no need for the snark in the comment insinuating that I was attempting o make a personal argument out of it.
I did notice that it said we were allowed to edit the summarized points to improve the arguments and to not sign our contributions. However, seeing as how I have always simply used my IP to sign with, it autosigns for me.
The oppositions to the arguments were based in an incorrect understanding of the arguments and I was attempting to clarify each individual point.
If you could perhaps show me the specific instructions that outline my wrongdoing, I can avoid such things in the future.
And if the talk of this subject is not being held on the talk page, then perhaps you could show me where my comments might be better placed.
Hi David. Will ITN get this new title? Sca ( talk) 00:30, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi David. I'm not sure if you still have any interest in this subject, but I was trying to figure out, from reading past discussions, why the article count is still in Main Page's header. It seems like it was nearly removed a few times, with various alternatives proposed (using good or featured article count, including a link to Special:Statistics, etc.). I can't really see how the discussion ended with the article count staying up there. It seems silly for it to still be there for many reasons, including the fact that the number has never been accurate. Any help or pointers on this would be appreciated. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 06:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
#articlecount {display: none}
Hi David,
I've made a draft RFC at Wikipedia:2013 main page redesign proposal/Draft RFC. You're input would be appreciated so that we can avoid mistakes of previous attempts. Thanks, Evad37 ( talk) 01:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It took a while, but I got the code to work. I have posted details over at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_article_for_improvement#Functional_randomization_on_the_Main_Page_Sandbox. Your scrutiny would be appreciated, the code could use a look over. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 03:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi David, I'd like to put the Superbowl back. Can you take a look at WP:MINREF and see if you agree with me that inline citations are not strictly necessary when material isn't challenged or likely to be challenged? The game summary is sort of "sky is blue". Practically every one of the inline sources listed already has a game summary, so the reader certainly can look at those references and verify the game summary. Look at past Superbowl articles and you'll see that many don't have inline citations for the game summary section. We have a lot of eyes on the Superbowl articles; if something is wrong, somebody will raise the issue on the talk page. Jehochman Talk 14:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Taking the article off the home page was a hostile action, and a poor way to treat a fellow administrator.
Editors wanted that article up on the home page because it was important to them.
Hi David,
The reason I set Template:ITN note to be a subst template was because I was concerned that the {{date}} bit wouldn't stay fixed to the date of posting otherwise. I'm not really that great at template design or policy so I won't try any more modifications. I just thought I should let you know this thing!
Cheers, -- LukeSurl t c 23:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know! I will keep that in mind in the future. Best, Spencer T♦ C 23:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I saw that you removed quite a few white spaces that I had been inserting. May I ask why? The reason I kept adding them was because I thought that since they are two different thread topics, they ought to be dilineated to remove confusion. (I do that often btw) Is there any guideline against what I did?
Also, what does "updated since my last visit" mean?
TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 07:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC) [TB please]
Any ideas on what would have been assuming good faith on my behalf?
Bad phrasing - Any ideas how you would have been assuming good faith had you been me? TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 10:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for getting the pork meat info in there when you posted the blurb Ryan Vesey ( talk · contribs) 23:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind but I have moved our discussion to my talk page out of courtesy for the admin in question however if anyone disagrees they are free to revert Till 11:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I left a message at his talk page to comment on the Talk:Main Page discussion about TAFI, but there's been no response. I feel the move forward hinges on him giving a yea or nay, maybe you could message him as well? -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 07:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I just wanted to let you know there is a typo on the main page. I think it should be 1908—injured instead of 1908—injure under the News byte for the Meteor. 108.28.162.125 ( talk) 00:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Presidentman talk · contribs ( Talkback) 20:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to revert; I suppose the status of the 37b page should be sorted out first. -- Merovingian ( T, C, L) 02:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi David, I just wanted to stop by to inform you that a User made a heavy revert on the article Culture of Italy that lacks consensus and also contains invalid information and just want to be on the safe side that the user is not vandalizing the page. Thank You. ( Slurpy121 ( talk) 04:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC))
![]() |
The Resilient Barnstar | |
That personal attack was disgusting but you handled it sensibly and maturely. Impressive and deserving of recognition. Keep up the good work mate. Stalwart 111 00:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC) |
![]() You are invited to join
WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. |
---|
Re: [15]
I started to write a rationale, but then I realized that my logic was wrong. So I am going to revert myself. My reasoning was that in page histories someone have already used these shortcuts. So for readability of history we must have these shortcuts available. But this logic applies to redirects, not to the "shortcut box". Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
The ceremony concluded at approximately 9:05pm on the 24th. I see that you mentioned UTC on the candidates page, but we usually go by the local time unless that isn't possible (e.g. when an event occurs in space or pertains to multiple time zones). — David Levy 21:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi David. I'm getting a little concerned about the editing and behavior of User:Medeis at C. Everett Koop, who died yesterday. I'm sensing he's getting pretty aggressive and not actually even looking at the article or reading the edit summaries before making his changes to the article. He's also added clearly non-encylopedic content such as these unnecessary quotes and content which says what we don't know ("No official determination of death has yet been announced": [16] [17] He also put a third-level warning on my talk page after I had posted comments on the article's talk page and his own talk page about agreeing with him about the removal of some content. Haha. As you'll see from my edit history, I've been working hard on the article with other editors to add some great sources and relocate existing content into it's proper place. I created a single Career section with applicable subsections because all of that content had previously been in numerous, separate sections that were scattered all over the page. We've now gotten the article to a nice, easy-to-understand layout for readers. Unless Medies removes it all again. :P I also asked him to please read WP:NLS regarding his non-English signature (μηδείς). In any case, I was hoping maybe you could keep an eye on the Koop article. -- 76.189.111.199 ( talk) 00:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey David. When you have a moment, would you mind having a look at the recent deaths section of Template:ITN and see if I screwed up any of the non-breaking spaces? I removed a stale entry by copying the whole chunk of code from the last time it was unused ( [30]), and one nbsp was removed while two more re-appeared. I didn't want to mess with it further because I didn't think it was anything particularly vital, but I don't want it to cause any problems the next time we need to use the section. Please, and thanks! -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 00:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Is this worth linking on the Main Page? I see redlinks, masses of indiscriminate information, but little of any real encyclopedic merit. I'd like to see a proper discussion before including this here. -- MarchOrDie ( talk) 09:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's reassuring that you at least looked at the article before including it.
If you properly read the talk page, you will see that editors have complained about the view of a redlinked journal being given a prominent mention in the article. There is a body of opinion there that too many trivial and mundane quotations are used in the article.
Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is more appropriate for the Infobox in the Scott Allie article in this discussion? You don't need to know anything about Allie; I'm contacting you because you've worked on Featured Pictures. I tried contacting lots of editors who work on comics-related articles, but every time I do so, we wind up with the sentiments split down the middle, and no clear consensus. I'm thinking perhaps that people who work on matters dealing with photography might be able to offer viewpoints that yield a consensus. Thank you. Nightscream ( talk) 15:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello David Levy, Eduemoni ↑talk↓ has given you a shinning smiling star! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the Shinning Smiling Star whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy! |
Hello,
Do you know what implementation status is on putting TAFI on the main page? I just saw that the bot that we were waiting for has been approved. Is there anything else, or is TAFI now finally ready to put on the main page?
TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 16:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC) [Talkback plz]
This is just a reminder to upload Commons images locally (unless they're protected at Commons) before transcluding them on the main page. ( File:Krakow Ghetto 06694.jpg was unprotected for about 16 minutes, which is less time than the bot often takes.) Thanks! — David Levy 05:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
As you can see on the Teahouse Host Lounge, I had asked someone to edit the teahouse talkback template to add that one particular line about archival. But it seems there were no admins which looked into it. Do you mind making this particular change? You can add a link to this discussion in your edit summary.
Thanks and Cheers, TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 07:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
— Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:02, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
I think you've slightly missed the problem with your comments. The problem is when the top item is for a murderer or something and the picture refers to another person for an item that isn't in the top 1-2 items in the list.
Given the BLP policy is supposed to be very cautious I don't think you should need to persuade a lot of people, but obviously you need to persuade more than ~5% of the readers.
It is clear that the solution that was presented to me in the autumn has thrown the baby out with the bathwater and is too restrictive, but I'd have thought that it was worth the effort to try and come up with a more complex but tighter solution.
Cheers
-- Eraserhead1 < talk> 18:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
If you thought my close was a supervote why did you argue (even initially) against returning ITN to its position before November? That literally makes no sense...
And with regards to a "supervote" to anyone who has even a basic understanding of legal contracts there was no other possible way to close it.
![]() You are invited to join
WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of
breakfast-related topics. |
---|
Hi David Levy! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.
Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!
Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 18:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images 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?) 10:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)Talk:Central Ferry Piers, Hong Kong#Move? is a week old tomorrow. Just wondering if you might want to leave a categorical 'Support' vote? 188.28.132.145 ( talk) 16:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
My original intention was to remove anything that could lead our current conversation go haywire. Coin's original proposal just wanted to upgrade from a boring way of linking 3 article (I do consider it boring and bland) to a more catchy one, and it should be seen only in that respect. Answering back is not going to help anyone, and since we already have a proposal trying to implement the same idea in a different way, the main idea must not be side-tracked.
I considered all the threads, and hatted everything that I thought was not helping the conversation. Even though parts of the original thread could have been hatted, hatting them would remove actually useful parts of other comments, which was not conducive. Because of which I hatted at the next most feasible place.
Please note that you don't have to reply to every comment asking for an extra line as there are others who voiced the same concern, thereby making it almost a certainity that this proposal would not have passed. In this light, I found your replies slightly pointy, and might have resulted in a reply back, because of which I thought prudent to hat them.
I request you to re-hat those statements to make things easier for everyone. [And I think its not the end of the world if your reply is the first one to be hatted. The drama that happens upon your reversion is much more than the slight inconvenience on the apparent illusion that you have not replied]
TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 02:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC) [Please dont bother with a point-by-point reply. I dont want it, and probably wont even see it.]
Yes.
And I highly prefer a catchy short blurb than a boring and longer one. Which means that formats 1 and 2 have either too much space, or wil have too long blurbs.
But the FP section has the picture as the most important part of the section. The whitespace is there to ensure the focus of the box is the picture.
Nevermind. The new format appears to be better than both formats 1 and 2, and with a little tweaking and support from everyone, I guess it should be good to go. TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 18:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The logs claim the purge happened about 12 minutes ago, let me know if you see (or don't see) anything unexpected. :) -- j⚛e decker talk 00:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello,
I started this proposal on the Village Pump for a review into all old rangeblocks, and it appears that the proposal has got way too less discussion than should be required [Although it did get a good amount of support within for those votes]. Since the proposal does not seem to be garnering any further discussion, can it be passes the way it is? Or will it require more discussion on the same?
Also, have I followed all procedure for this one? Or have I missed something [I did an RfC and a CENT listing]
Thanks! TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 16:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I rather liked that Easter egg. — howcheng { chat} 23:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
That's weird, I don't know how that happened. Feed back ☎ 15:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
For following up my edit to RSA Security with a proper rename and redirect. Pjhansen ( talk) 11:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited May 2013 Iraq attacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madain ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 23:13, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello David: I've updated TAFI entries (see Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/21). Therefore, TAFI can be re-added to Main page at this time. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
A discussion that may interest you is occurring at Wikiproject TAFI's talk page at Proposal: use Theo's Little Bot to automate the schedule and queue. Northamerica1000 (talk) 12:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll let the current RfC run its course, but I'm thinking ahead... Maybe Hindi shouldn't be listed, maybe it should. Its difficult to say, but I doubt our current list is perfect regardless. If there is one thing that is clear (to me anyway) from the current discussion, it is that a manual test is too tedious to get very meaningful results from. Let's say a formula (that a bot could calculate from a much larger sample) could be devised that took many things into account. Some individual factors could be made impossible to fake, and the overall results very hard to fake. Is using the results as a major factor in our decisions to list/not list a Wikipedia something you could, in principle, get behind? That is, after the factors were carefully thought out and tested and shown to meet our ranking expectations for bigger Wikipedias. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 00:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Northamerica1000 (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on File:2 Broke Girls logo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Snap Snap 23:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Northamerica1000 (talk) 17:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You participated in a previous discussion that led to changes in this policy. There is a current discussion at WT:LEAD#MOS:BOLDTITLE and its application to specific situations further concerning that policy and its application, including the changes made. You may be interested in the new discussion, as the previous changes have been brought up there. – 2001:db8:: ( rfc | diff) 04:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Since I've commented, I can't act on it. Could you review the discussion Here and make a decision to post or close based on the discussion? It's pretty well petered out, and there's not a lot of new blood in the discussion. Neither the article nor the discussion has changed much, and it's going to go stale soon. Thanks! -- Jayron 32 01:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I've seen you've readded this item after I was bold and removed it. I think that the appearance of Janša's conviction on the Main Page is completely out of proportions and a huge embarrassment. See sl:Pogovor:5. junij, where people are mocking the English Wikipedia for this. The decision is not valid yet at all and will surely be changed or even completely overturned by the higher courts. Well, I won't waste time on this anymore - do as you wish. -- Eleassar my talk 07:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey David, I was hoping to get your input over at TAFI. I feel like we are at a make-or-break point right now as far as the future of the project goes. I understand your perspective on the matter, but we need to come to some sort of resolution to reinstate the project on the main page, or it will simply fail.
Can you outline the exact reasons for it's removal, so we can assess if the current changes have resolved those issues? If there's more to be done, then we need to know exactly what that is to move forward. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 00:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this against the rules? -- 24.109.65.154 ( talk) 18:45, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I believe consensus was that recent deaths are to be removed when they are older than the oldest blurb or when they reach seven days old, whichever happens first. The section is called recent deaths, after all. -- Bongwarrior ( talk) 17:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Great American Wiknic NYC at Prospect Park |
![]() |
You are invited to the Great American Wiknic NYC in Brooklyn's green and lovely Prospect Park, on this Saturday June 22! We would love to see you there, so sign up and bring something fun for the potluck :) -- User:Pharos ( talk) |
Thanks for hopping on it....I was actually in IRC kinda leading the guy through the 'cleanup' stuff, and he just had to run, so... :) Revent ( talk) 22:52, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Hey David Levy
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 22:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on Today's Articles For Improvement for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot ( talk) 02:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi David,
I'd like to call to your attention User:Glossika. This user seems to be able to speak an absurdly high number of languages, as well as being able to play some ridiculously difficult piano pieces. His/her page promotes a Chinese language-learning website, which claims to more "effectively stimulate the hippocampus" than other programs... Additionally, most of his/her edits (that are not to the user page) seem to be promoting his/her website in given sources on various pages of Chinese languages and dialects.
Just thought it'd be worth checking out.
-- MosheA ( talk) 00:56, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Please join
Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn scavenger hunt on September 7, 2013! Everyone gather at the Brooklyn Public Library to further Wikipedia's coverage of— photos and articles related to Brooklyn, its neighborhoods and the local landmarks. -- EdwardsBot ( talk) |
![]() |
Please join the
Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA. -- Pharos ( talk) 22:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC) |
I noticed that you have done a fair amount of maintenance on the wikipedia languages template in the past and I was wondering if you would like to comment on this: Template_talk:Wikipedia_languages#Proposed_update_of_lowest_category_to_100k. Cheers. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 14:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
The article Prince Ferfried of Hohenzollern should be renamed. Ferfried, Prince of Hohenzollern makes sense. Please look at Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia for a comparison. A redirection with the previous incorrect name is also needed. Thank you.-- 84.138.86.175 ( talk) 22:23, 14 November 2013 (UTC)-- 188.195.39.49 ( talk) 00:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Please join
Wikipedia "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon on November 2, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for Greenwich Village articles on the history and the community. -- Pharos ( talk) 22:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC) |
Hello,
With a view of keeping discussion on-topic and focused solely towards future courses of action, I have BOLDLY collapsed a discussion involving you at TAFI. In case you think there are valid points with respect to what can be done now that are also collapsed, I request you to re-state only those points outside the collapsed box.
Thanks and regards, TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 02:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
David, I've taken your name in vain, but only on my talk page. [32] 16:33, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
First off, are you sure you didn't remove anything inadvertently per your recent comment over at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote? (Just a friendly heads up!)
And this brings me to my real subject. I find that the section "The NAMB rule and example" that I started has become quite the mess. Specifically, by reverting my attempts at "keeping it clean" I feel two problems have been magnified: 1) it is hard to find the current state of the discussion when you can't simply go to the bottom of the section, and 2) it is unnecessarily difficult to edit the section, since the level three headings come along. You're forced to search for the proper place to add your thoughts! You have to make edits into the middle of an edit box, rather than simply and straight-forwardly at the bottom.
I would ask you to reconsider your position; allowing the two (three?) sub-discussions to be spun off to proper sections, level 2(?) sections that mean they don't clutter up the mainline discussion's edit window. The problem of context can still be solved quite cleanly in my opinion, by simply providing a reference "This stuff continues here" and "This stuff is continued from here" respectively. Unless I'm mistaken, the "context" for all sub-discussions is simply my original starting edit anyway.
I ask you this partly because it is now non-trivial to edit the section, as Diego Moya's actions (and possibly your own edit?) show. But mostly because it detracts from the "mainline" discussion - my (our!) discussion which started "The NAMB rule and example". Quite simply, I dislike how hard it has become to add new opinions to the discussion thread I'm interested in among all the chatter.
I'm sure many editors manage just fine. I just don't see a good reason to keep it any more complicated than it has to be.
Regards, CapnZapp ( talk) 12:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
Please join
Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013! Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for borough articles on the history and the communities. Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!-- Pharos ( talk) ~~~~~ |
![]() |
Appreciation |
Some flowers for you in appreciation of your efforts at WP:TAFI. I went there to revisit the discussion I'd been involved with about putting TAFI on the main page. I saw the (collapsed) discussion and the abuse you were receiving from editors there, which nobody should have to take. Thank you, you made the right decision. First Light ( talk) 18:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC) |
Wow, amazing. That's exactly what ive been worried about but had conflicts with others over bolding something. Good to see someone e;se has common sense vs. using bold for the sake of it ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lihaas ( talk • contribs) 03:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Merry Yuletides to you! (And a happy new year!)
~
TheGeneralUser
(talk) is wishing you a
Merry
Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a
Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{ subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi David, Wishing you a very Happy and Wonderful Merry Christmas! Hope you are having a great time with family and friends :-) Best wishes. ~ TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi David, Happy New Year. At Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_3#Unused_XNRs there is a discussion which led me to look at Category:Temporary cropped main page images, which appears to be primarily 'your' area. I notice the instructions on the top of each file say "Please delete file after it is removed from the Main Page", but many of these should have been deleted long ago. Deleting them seems unnecessarily destructive as a) you are putting time into reducing the size of these images for a good reason, which others may benefit from, and b) deleting them would also break the historical version of the mainpages if I am not mistaken (i.e. Wikipedia:Main Page history/2012 December 8 depends on File:Dave Brubeck 2009 cropped.jpg). If they really should be deleted, we could change that template to automatically drop them into the deletion categories after a month. John Vandenberg ( chat) 09:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey,
Was wondering if you care to be a mentor? I don't really edit articles as of now, but I generally go straight to the talk page even before potential disputes. Was wondering if I can reach out to you to preempt potential disputes for advice. Also contacted Tone, btw( Lihaas ( talk) 12:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)).
It is a hopeful indicator that Lihaas is seeking out mentorship. His editing approach is a cause of some frustration and he is very confrontational and accusatory. I am certainly not the most patient editor, but if someone he trusts can perhaps suggest a more careful and considerate approach to his editing I think that would be wonderful. I see that antoher editor doing very good work on this article is also facing some very trying encounters. Take care and good luck to all. Good night. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 06:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I just want to thank you for being the always-courteous, helpful critic over at WP:SAD. If you look at it, we've shared a lot of the same views. I don't think it's within the authority of the main page people to deviate from status quo in this way without permission from a site-wide consensus. I don't want to just "slip it in" to the normal main page processes-- this is special, and it should require a special consensus.
Secondly, I just want to reiterate that my own brainstorming didn't have my own support. I've always believed "There's no judgements in brainstorming" but it turns out, if people aren't 100% clear that you're just brainstorming, they get scared your brainstorms are actual proposals. I wrote a lot of "pointed", editorialized content during that brainstorm phase, but I never supported it as written; I was just brainstorming, reading through the encyclopedia and jotting down whatever came to mind. For example, I can point to occasions where I wrote something and in the same edit commented that it didn't have my support.
I never "advertised" the proposal as a completed proposal-- it was only a draft, and I can imagine the dismay of the people who misinterpreted my sandbox efforts as an actual proposal.
Lastly, I would ask you to consider the following. I can tell you are acting in good faith, trying to defend the project from a minority using it for a political agenda. In this we are alike-- our dedication is to the community's will, not to any particular position.
If the community decides to do nothing, my work is done. :) My question to you is--- if it should turn out that the community does indeed want us to do something "special" for Feb 11, what would you recommend? On very rare occasions, the community does decide to "advocate", either by an overt call for a specific action (SOPA) or by a call to promote NPOV knowledge of a specific topic.
If the RFC comes down, overwhelming consensus for us to do something special, speedily decided-- what do you think we should do?
It's important to get a wide spectrum of ideas for what we could do. As the opponent who's still taken the time to stay current with the topic, you're uniquely situated to give us a proposal of what we should do to promote knowledge of the topic WITHOUT endorsing the protest, if that's what a site-wide consensus should determine. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 16:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
*ought* we be trying to 'educate' the readership beyond what the WP:RS actually say? *how* do we classify/organize/present 'selected' topics?
|
---|
|
In regards to our recent discussion on the use of Template:current on 2014 Hrushevskoho Street riots, wouldn't it be better to make a template like that visible to editors only? As it is, it sounds like it's just warning readers that the article could change rapidly as the event progresses. Esszet ( talk) 16:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Please join
Wikipedia "Art and Feminism Editathon" @ Eyebeam on Saturday February 1, 2014, an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists! There are also regional events that day in
Brooklyn,
Westchester County, and the
Hudson Valley.
|
Hello David, forgive me for asking, but a while ago you noted that I needed to upload a file if it appeared on ITN, using the "Uploaded from Commons" template. The instructions aren't clear and the wizard is far from wizardly, could you help explain in baby steps what is required? It would be helpful to have that written down so we can get it right every time. Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 21:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind efforts on my behalf with regards to WP:NPA, most appreciated, — Cirt ( talk) 23:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
Hi David - I just want to make sure you know I am not trying to be argumentative, angry, etc. over at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. Conversations like this often become uncivil and angry (I've been guilty of it in the past!), so I want to make sure I'm not coming across that way now. -- Andrew (User:90) (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks for the note, but I think there's a major difference: even when natural elements were still being discovered, we could presume that nobody had previously known about a "new" element (the ancients weren't going around synthesising europium, for example), and we often have no clue whether humans have ever seen a specific "new" comet. In contrast, the poems quite obviously were known and had simply been lost; it's like saying that Halley's Comet was "new" in 1758, the first time it was recognised for what it was, the first time someone saw it and knew that it had been seen before. Nyttend ( talk) 02:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey David,
Let's take a time out and let me thank you for a really valid observation-- I don't normally behave like this.
This is very true. If you look over my multiyear history, you'll see I tend towards non-controversial edits, avoiding the limelight of main page.
But then, a proposal by people I have infinite respect for got me to working, doing something a little different than usual. And, let's be honest, my first week on the job, I mostly fouled it up, but that's okay-- I did my best, and I learned from my mistakes.
I just want to tell you that I understand why you oppose this proposal. "opposing" should be the default 'agnostic' state. The burden of proof is on people like Jimbo and others to demonstrate that this is worth scheduling. Unless we find a consensus to support special scheduling, Feb 11 should pass unnoticed.
That say-- please ease up on me, man-- this ISN'T how I normally act-- I'm trying to help give the community a special option in the event that the community wants the option. I don't need you chiming in every five minutes reminding me the community may not want to use my options-- I know that already. And I definitely don't need people taking my good faith nominations for Feb 11 and trying to rush them into mainpage so they'll be re-runs by Feb 11. That's a blatant corruption of my good-faith attempt to submit Feb 11 content to the DYKN community..
Bottom line-- it's okay to oppose the idea of The Day We Fight Back-- but it's not okay to OBSTRUCT the idea. Just step back, and when we ask for nays, raise your hand and say your peace. Just don't pretend that five people have veto power over this or sabotage power over this- you don't. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 08:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Please see diff.
I made a good faith effort here to get through to this user.
I tried! :)
Cheers,
— Cirt ( talk) 18:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
As i look at your history, I see you have spent more time opposing me and not so much time actually improving any articles. I've ended the proposal, I'm ending my participation, so let's stop the wikistalking, eh?
I'm not making many edits, but the way you're showing up to criticize or edit war with me in venue after venue is unwelcome. I'd like to see a different face showing up to revert me please. -- HectorMoffet ( talk) 02:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Using the red X,
saying that "efforts to organize ... did not reach consensus" is just not accurate.
The truth is, some people interested in the day came together, mooted around a bunch of ideas, and finally organized under the aegis of the mass surveillance wikiproject.
The version I had up was already a compromise with the changes you'd made before,
avoiding the simple redirect I think most participants of the conversation and wikiproject would prefer, to maintain access to a page that is only viewed as history edits by a nearly entirely hypothetical audience.
I even held my nose over the "failed proposal" categorization, though since it led to the birth of a WikiProject I don't consider it any such thing.
This is regarding the dispute between you and HectorMoffet over Wikipedia:Surveillance awareness day. As someone who is largely uninvolved in the discussions, I am not sure what the dispute is about, but I do think both of you need to take a break, because such discussions are leading to nowhere. I also recommend staying away from each other's talk page as far as possible. If there is a particular edit by the other user that you strongly object to, please contact me first, so that I can start a discussion on the talk page and ensure that the discussion remains constructive. Thank you for your contributions, and have a nice day. - A1candidate ( talk) 23:44, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I've replied to your comment. I think we can reach an agreement if you can show that the first non-stub page was called Check or Check mark. Ben Arnold ( talk) 23:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon | |
---|---|
![]() You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March:
|
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)
Hello, David. Shirley Temple and Stuart Hall died on the same day and were posted to RD the next day, February 11. On February 16, you removed Shirley Temple and left Stuart Hall there, and he's still there on February 20. What's up with that? (Aren't enough famous people dying?) -- 71.178.50.222 ( talk) 06:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
David, could you help me out or point me in the right direction? Inadvertently I did something when changing my talk page that resulted in the point-size of text going way up and I think changing font as well. I can't seem to find how to go back to the previous default settings. It seems to be a Wiki issue as other websites appear as before on my screen. Thanks for your assistance. Sca ( talk) 16:05, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi David. Perhaps I'm still confused, but you added File:Ole Einar Bjørndalen1.jpg to ITN but it doesn't appear to be a local, protected version. Am I missing something? The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
See the discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#WP:ENGVAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.176.207 ( talk) 22:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi David. I tried to follow the instructions to upload and use a photo of Shigeru Ban today. If you get a moment, could you just check it was okay? I think the instructions are a little "lightweight" considering the "upload wizard" seems to get in the way. Perhaps there's a method of uploading without the wizard that I missed. Anyway, hopefully I didn't break anything, I did notice that on Commons, the file was already tagged with {{enwiki main page}}, what does that mean? Thanks. The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:57, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
The article was appropriately named before you moved it. It was not a "superfluous disambiguation" because two other slides have happened there, one as recently as 2006, the other in the late 1960's, as I recall, (I live 20 miles north). Also, the article name was discussed on the Oso page before it was moved into its own article. Please consider moving it back. 76.28.243.198 ( talk) 09:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I've just started editing at Wikipedia and I was wondering if there is anything in particular that I can do to help over the website? FalconJackson ( talk) 18:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion that may interest you at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles. Anomalocaris ( talk) 08:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to
Incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some
guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Hello, thank you for your concerns over Wikipedia's policy. However, I will have to ask that you read article's talk pages before attempting to move them. The article in question also had no consensus to the title "Accession"--so are we to leave it blank? I think not. You need to read the talk page where a rename to "Annexation" was suggested, as even though this title was not reached via consensus, the titles of "Incorporation" or "Adoption" were in fact approved by every single person who mentioned or came into contact with them. This can, in fact, be considered the "consensus" that we need to effectively move the article. On top of this, "Accession" is an EXTREME push of POV, as almost all sources denoting this term are Russian or allied to Russia. Please note that when other sources refer to the process with the word "accession" they are referring to what Russia calls it. Thank you.
მაLiphradicus
Epicusთე
19:49, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hey, wanted you to be aware User:LiphradicusEpicus has been reported for edit- and move-warring on Accession of Crimea to the Russian Federation: [ noticeboard discussion - Kudzu1 ( talk) 20:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC) Notice that Kudzu1 has been reported for move-warring on Incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation: [36]. I suppose this person does not read the discussion on the talk page? Or is he simply looking for problems? Out of everyone I have come into contact with, this person has the least gravitas and authority on the matter, and the most attitude. I'm not really sure what to say...
(mood = bristling) Please don't do that again, even if you think it's warranted per WP:THREAD. Jeh ( talk) 16:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is so twee and sickly, you should revert it. How on earth do you expect normal readers to understand "Dark blues" and "Light blues"? And what relevance does it have to the news item? Nothing at all. Please stick to the facts and restore the original, consensually-agreed blurb. The Rambling Man ( talk) 19:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The non-specific month only titling was an old policy for tornado articles that has not been used since 2011. It was agreed sometime after 2010 that dates were to always be included. This can be confirmed by looking at the articles. You are going to have to trust me on this. Sharkguy05 ( talk) 23:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Sharkguy05
The reasoning behind it is that we could have for example an outbreak from the 5th to the 7th, and another from the the 20th to the 21st in the same month (June lets say). Obviously, we can't title both of those as "June 2014 tornado outbreak". Also, the NWS pretty much always lists the dates in their outbreak summaries. I can't think of one where they don't except for when the outbreak is infamous enough to get a title (1974 Super Outbreak, 1965 Palm Sunday Outbreak, 2012 Leap Day outbreak ect.) Sharkguy05 ( talk) 03:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Sharkguy05
Was there an issue with the original picture that needed fixing? Step hen 02:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
hello. admin Levy
can u Check this page ( Reza Zarrab), Some users have differences over the page. i undo the last edition of the page. please check that page to solve the problem. thank you Changu13 ( talk) 23:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi! You have reverted my change about adding the article's title in bold and therefore removal of the related warn tag. I was in believe that it was correct and requested by the tag. Would you pls so kind to explain to me what was wrong with it. Thanks. -- CeeGee 04:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
Thanks for cropping two most important files of Narendra Modi which is currently used in various articles and in main page of English Wikipedia. This is from me. HPD talk 17:01, 18 May 2014 (UTC) |
Can you help me with the grammatical rule... I was taught (a long while ago admittedly) that a comma in that case would prevent the parsing of the sentence as "Manchester City win the Premier League and Arsenal", with the reader only finding out at the end of the sentence that Arsenal won their own prize, and weren't awarded to City. Step hen 01:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Hey there - just a heads up that I made a request to fix the licensing of a file you uploaded at File talk:Prayuth Jan-ocha 2010-06-17 ITN.jpg. Thanks! ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 19:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello dear user,
Since you are one of the active wiki Users, I am asking you to add an information in Main page's News section about Poroshenko's win in Presidental elections in Ukraine. Dont you think that information deserves to be on Main page? Thansk in advance. 217.76.1.22 ( talk) 10:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry I accidentally reverted and warned you. Please accept my apologies. ... discospinster talk 22:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Upcoming Saturday event - June 21: Wiki Loves Pride NYC | |
---|---|
![]() You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:
|
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)
Sunday July 6: WikNYC Picnic | |
---|---|
![]() You are invited to join us the "picnic anyone can edit" in Central Park, as part of the Great American Wiknic celebrations being held across the USA. Remember it's a wiki-picnic, which means potluck.
Also, before the picnic, you can join in the Wikimedia NYC chapter's annual meeting.
We hope to see you there!-- Pharos ( talk) 16:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC) |
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)
That cunt-headed bastard just won't get with the program (just in case you haven't noticed it by now). He keeps making a combination of good and bad edits, but doesn't cite any sources for them. I allowed a few of the good ones to stand only because I already knew they were true. Now he's conveniently deleted two messages I've sent to him concerning this. He's obviously up to no good, so just keep an eye on him. ElkoGraf ( talk) 12:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Sunday August 17: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share | |
---|---|
![]() You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.
Afterwards at 5pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant ( to be decided). We hope to see you there!-- Pharos ( talk) 15:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC) |
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)
David got blocked and his images reverted over at Commons. Long story short, he mass nominated 600 penis-related images for deletion, which was the catalyst for this. Unable to edit, I stepped in and set up an arbitration case for him. Some of my edits were reverted and I was blocked too. This all smells very fishy. Almost as if Commons administrators abuse their power and block/revert anyone who gets in their way. But of course *that* would not be the case....
As you are a Commons administrator as well as a TAFI contributor, I felt like you would be able to help out David more than anyone. Do you mind having a quick squiz at what went down and tell me your thoughts?-- Coin945 ( talk) 14:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Need_semi_protection_removed_on_Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa -- NeilN talk to me 02:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I was being bold by making that move. Honestly I have no real passion for this topic, just ran into while patrolling recent changes. I have to ask, though, it seems quite obvious the organization has indeed changed it to all caps (just do a web search). Do we really need discussion? I don't quite see the MOS:TM connection, as DirectTV would then need to be something like DirectTv or Directv, or perhaps I'm missing a clause. At any rate don't forget about DIRECTV Sports Networks which I also moved. Best — MusikAnimal talk 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Also hope you don't mind I fixed some formatting on a few previous posts that at least in my browser messed up the whole page. Might be time to do some archiving. — MusikAnimal talk 21:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I've replied to your comment about easter eggs at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties.
I've modified the blurb so that there are no easter eggs, and the blurb text makes two usages of the word in an encyclopedic manner.
Perhaps you can revisit your position?
Thank you,
— Cirt ( talk) 18:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Please see
Does Wikipedia have an article or articles comparing distaste for profanity and sex issues in media in United States — versus distaste for violence in media in Europe? — Cirt ( talk) 01:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
You were involved in the article; I invite you to discuss the page move proposal. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Thursday December 4: NYC Wiki-Salon and Skill Share | |
---|---|
![]() You are invited to join the the Wikimedia NYC community for our upcoming wiki-salon and knowledge-sharing workshop in Manhattan's Greenwich Village.
Afterwards at 8pm, we'll walk to a social wiki-dinner together at a neighborhood restaurant ( to be decided). We hope to see you there!-- Pharos ( talk) 07:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC) |
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)