![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. 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) 10:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. J Milburn ( talk) 01:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
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. Thank you. HandsomeFella ( talk) 10:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikid77 here. Your new topic ban for diacritic-titles is limited to the redirects and titles only, so I think you can still edit or create any article (but no diacritic-titles) when your edit-block expires at 17:47, 8 January 2012. The topic-ban could be appealed, typically after 1 month but more likely 3 months, so your current fight has ended for January. The poll showed a count of 19-4, where 4 of us realized that your ban was excessive, or your actions were permitted by current written policies. Hence, I hope you are not too upset with everyone, because several users were able to clearly refute claims against you, despite busy events around the New Years holiday (on 2 January, this year). Many of us have been blocked or topic-banned, so you are in good company with fellow editors who understand when a gang of users go against you, while other editors are dogpiling in "Support" for them. The closing admin typically sides with the larger number of users, rather than try to examine the exact details of policy. After 11 years of Wikipedia, there is still no WP:FAIRNESS concept which would carefully examine if your actions were a significant "danger" to Wikipedia. Instead, as you noted, you are being held to a higher standard than others, because several other people wrote remarks against you. The exact topic-ban resolution, of the ANI report, was decided by admin User:28bytes and logged into project page WP:RESTRICT:
Meanwhile, I hope you will not be bothered by the fact that hundreds of other people will continue to double-edit redirects (while you are banned), and so the diacritic-titles will still be double-edited by numerous other people anyway (despite that being called "gaming" for your case, but not for others). The whole situation would be a farcical cosmic joke if it weren't for people claiming you had done something wrong, to "game the system" which others of us had tried to refute. In fact, a 5th person noted it is the fault of the MediaWiki version 1.18 software that edited-redirects prevent rename-moves by non-admin users. So, in a sense, 5 people stated support for you. On balance, whenever I am misjudged by people, I try to remember that it could be worse: I could be one of those people who do not understand the actual events or refuse to forgive minor mistakes. I was an honors student in college, but I have even had people claim that I was below average in intelligence, so other people's judgment is really a sad situation, all throughout life. Working with committees of other people is a real challenge. At ANI, many users did not even understand that your recent ice-hockey stubs were of excellent quality! Anyway, as you can tell, I could ramble about these topics for days, so I will let you get back to your activities. Thanks for understanding. - Wikid77 ( talk) 13:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Dolovis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The discussion concerning my topic ban has now concluded, and this block has effectively (and conveniently) prevented me from addressing the specifics of the concerns raised, and of defending myself against the false claims and outright lies contained in that discussion. I understand that I am banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles". This is my understanding of what the topic ban means:
Decline reason:
No, sorry, I think you are wrong in your interpretation of a number of those. I think 28bytes has summed it up well, and I suggest you accept that clarification - the aim of the topic ban is basically to prevent you doing *anything* related to the diacritic titling of articles or redirects -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The prior WP:ANI complaint has wandered into a proposed topic-ban while you are blocked and unable to respond to whatever allegations have been made against you. This is the sub-thread at AN/I:
Some of us other editors will need to copy your replies, from here, back over to that ANI sub-thread. I only just started checking the background about these concerns, but I will add that diacritical letters in some article titles (such as " Dominik Riečický") cannot be handled by some computer browsers (a search for those titles will match only some unaccented letters, not the precise title). Also, Wikipedia needs a lot of help to create and edit article redirects to handle the special accented letters. I cannot believe these proceedings are being conducted against you, but do not worry, I think we can stop this topic-ban, or get it reversed. Happy New Year, anyway. - Wikid77 ( talk) 16:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Dolovis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Blocks are intended to prevent disruption, and not to be used as a punishment. This is a punitive block. If writing a truthful defense is considered to be “Wiki-lawyering” then Wiki-lawyering should be permitted. I am busy in real life, and so I will not be able to take an active part in this discussion, but I will respond to say that creating valid stub articles for notable athletes is constructive, and my editing has been in full compliance with all of the policies of Wikipedia. I am an English speaking person, and I do not speak or write any other language. The articles I have created are titled according to the sources I have used to create the article. As some of these athletes are born in Europe where non-English spellings are used, redirects have been created (following the instruction of
Template:R from diacritics and
WP:REDCAT) if I come across a red line for the same name, but with diacritics.
There are editors on English Wikipedia who are dedicated to moving articles to titles with diacritics, without regard for
WP:V or
WP:COMMONNAME. It is those same editors who have made and supported these complaints against me. As a result of those complaints I am not even allowed to object to a controversial article move - not by
WP:BRD (a core principle
[1] which I am banned from using) or even by bringing it to the attention of another Admin (as this has been accused of using a MEAT PUPPET)
[2]. The result is that I am being punished for being an English speaking editor who follows the policy of
Wikipedia:Article titles (which includes
WP:COMMONNAME) and I am being held to a higher standard than other editors on Wikipedia.
Dolovis (
talk)
15:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
A number of points:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have closed the AN/I proposal as "enacted." You are indefinitely banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles", broadly construed. Hopefully when your block expires you can find less divisive areas in which to contribute. 28bytes ( talk) 09:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your clarification on these questions. Dolovis ( talk) 12:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to request further clarification if needed. 28bytes ( talk) 17:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The technical issue which has caused the most concern was double-editing of redirects, even for mistakes. So, I suggest if you create a redirect without the proper tag "{{ R from other name}" then rather than edit it for tag, instead request admin-deletion by editing to insert {{ db|1=Improper redirect}}, and recreate the redirect with proper tag in only 1 edit. Note this is a Catch-22 situation: you are to avoid double-editing for category, but you must double-edit to request {{db|1=Improper redirect}} for admin-delete before recreation. Either way, you must double-edit the redirect, but at least in the end, it can be recreated with only 1 perfect edit. That means you must wait hours or days for an admin to delete the unfinished redirect. Meanwhile, in general, the goal is to avoid conflicts with other users about diacritics in titles. If those people get upset again, they might get you edit-blocked for a longer period. So it is important to take time, now, to think what actions to avoid around those people. For example, if you enter a diacritics discussion with the upset users, please please avoid any name-calling or they might call that another "gaming the system" (whatever). Try to respectfully disagree without being disagreeable, even if they are viciously insulting you again (which is likely), it does not matter, because you are being held to a higher standard than them, so rise to that level of expection. However, you are not alone: several of us other editors have been held to much higher standards than most editors. In fact, any long-term editor is held to a somewhat higher standard than newcomers with less than 500 edits or such. I hope that advice will help you focus. - Wikid77 ( talk) 06:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
17:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Dolovis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There is no valid reason for this block. No diffs show that improper edits have been made, and no warning was given prior to the block. ANI complaint against me is made by a fanatical pro-diacritics editor, apparently in retaliation for my posting of valid concerns about the continued failure of some editors follow proper WP:RM procedure for controversial moves. Creation of article with non-modified letters for articles titles follows WP:COMMONNAME and the sources used within the articles, and the creation of redirects follows the instruction of Template:R from diacritics and WP:REDCAT. Dolovis ( talk) 18:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See the discussion below. No matter how much you may try to wikilawyer round the issue, you have been editing in a way which achieved an effect essentially similar to that which you used before, and which you were banned from doing. You don't need a new warning for every new way you may come up with of achieving essentially the same effect. JamesBWatson ( talk) 21:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm reviewing this as well. The gaming of the system seems quite obvious, as Elen explained at ANI, and you pretty well admitted as much in October 2011: " ...I was banned for making double-edits to redirect pages (which I did in an a naive attempt to slow down the controversial moves)..." Are you not now doing something very similar? Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Dolovis is labelling his opponents "diacritic-lovers". If someone was constantly removing f:s, and another person reinstated them, would the latter person then be an "f-lover"? Dolovis's opponents do not "love" diacritics more than other letters, but they are of the opinion that they should not be removed. HandsomeFella ( talk) 21:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, MarcusBritish's comment was added before you closed the discussion, see: [3]. Your edit to close the discussion was the next edit, see: [4], and removed the comment, whether intentionally or not (possible edit conflict). However, according to talkpage guidelines, you are allowed to remove comments from your talkpage – including this one. HandsomeFella ( talk) 13:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010.
Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is
Grapple X (
submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about
The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at
good article candidates. Second place is currently held by
Ruby2010 (
submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is
Jivesh boodhun (
submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!
The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.
A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.
A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dolovis,
I see you started Lying Cow, which I've just been editing. I'm planning to provide article stubs for the entire Auvers period (of course this was early Hague, I came to it from his 1890 study). Right now I'm just working through the existing list of works before starting articles. Probably I shall be working back through the catalogue. All welcome to join! I suggest we take Farms near Auvers as a model. LornaDooneBlackmore ( talk) 23:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, can you be more specific about the portions of the Antero Niittymäki article that need copyediting? Hazelorb ( talk) 00:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dolovis.
You started an article In Church which you said was an 1882 watercolor by Vincent van Gogh but I can't find that work. Only an 1882 watercolor called "Church Pew with Worshippers" (F967, JH225)? Is this what you mean? RobvanderWaal ( talk) 08:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was
Grapple X (
submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was
Tigerboy1966 (
submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were
Ruby2010 (
submissions),
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions),
Miyagawa (
submissions) and
Casliber (
submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list:
List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from
Ruby2010 (
submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.
The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.
The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 23:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
You created a redirect from Michael Guerra to Texas Tornados. Could you let me know why, as the former doesn't appear in the latter. I just wanted to check if there was something I was missing before I took it to RfD. Thanks! Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 14:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey hows it going? White Thug---- ( talk) 14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The article Robert Pukalovic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}
(Whisper...)
12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
An issue involving you is being discussed at AN/I. Prolog ( talk) 20:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well!
Grapple X (
submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in
marine biology and
herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's
Casliber (
submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including
ornithology and
botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.
Congratulations to
Matthewedwards (
submissions), whose impressive
File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to
12george1 (
submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on
Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as
recent statistics from
Miyagawa (
submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!
It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 23:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
00:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Dolovis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What the fuck!??? I've had a death in my family. I log onto Wikipedia and find out that I have been blocked - without even the having the chance of defending myself! I have read the ANI and it looks like some editor has reverted or moved some articles with diacritics, most of them by Cerrot who appears to be exercising his right to invoke WP:BRD, so OF COURSE it must be me... What a bunch of bullshit! I am not the only editor who has reverted a controversial move! Just as likely, these recent edits are made by some editor(s) who wants to frame me. Yes, when it comes to the “diacritics patrol” I do believe in conspiracies. Members of the diacritics patrol have been moving all of those articles away from their common name, including the complainant HandsomeFella, which creates a nice set-up to have someone move them back - and then accuse me of skirting my ban. The conclusion of the CheckUser is “that Dolovis is moving around” so therefor it is a “likely” match. What a bunch or crap!! It appears from his comments that the CheckUser found that my editing location was not matched to the other accused editors, but the fix is in and this Kangaroo Court will find me guilty, despite the evidence to the contrary. I should have appealed the diacritics editing ban to the arbitration board, but I didn't because it wasn't worth my time to appeal on such a ridiculous issue, but clearly I should have because that ban has given HandsomeFella and his coo-hoots the opportunity to perform this frame-up to get me blocked. If the Wikipedia admins allow this kind of bullshit to go on, then Wikipedia has no effective checks and controls, and the bullies have won. And that would be a shame, because I at one time used to enjoy helping to build this encyclopedia. I hope that the Admins will take some positive action to improve the atmosphere around here so I, and others, can once again enjoy working on this project, without the harassment and bullying. Cheers. Dolovis ( talk) 23:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Attacking various editors and swearing is a good way to have an unblock request declined (please see WP:NOTTHEM), even if there wasn't a checkuser finding that the accounts are related. Nick-D ( talk) 11:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Let me first say that I only reported Cerrot. I did not suggest that you, Dolovis, were socking as Cerrot, nor did I perform any research other than checking Cerrot's contribs. The reason I noticed the moves was that I recently moved the article on Maxime Sauvé from its diacriticless version, and thus it was on my watchlist. (I thought my move was logical, since his father, uncle and cousin all have diacritics in their respective article names.)
I don't know what tools the admins have, but I think this issue was acted on a bit quick. We may not have the same views on diacritics, and I certainly dislike some of your methods, but that does not mean that I want to close my eyes for a possible miscarriage of justice. I'll see if the case can be re-opened. (I admit I should have aired my concerns earlier.)
HandsomeFella ( talk) 09:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I've responded to HandsomeFella at ANI, but I'll copy over what I said so another admin can review it if they want.
Checkuser not being a magic spy ray, I obviously can't say that it's the identical laptop, but it is exactly the same build as the four other editors at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dolovis, same updates etc. You're very thorough at keeping your kit up to date. Incidentally, I can see that you're not 'back home' yet - if 'home' is where the fixed line IP addresses to. You're as of this morning's edits around 2000 miles from there, on wifi, and using the same laptop. I don't think anyone is questioning that these four are socks of each other - the way they went over each others edits etc. So if these four - who are in three locations - are socks of each other, it is certainly technically possible that you are the sockmaster. The distances/timings are not impossible.
I also believe there is more than enough behavioural evidence to link you to the four stooges. However, another admin is welcome to review the block, and other checkusers can look at the technical evidence. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Dolovis. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on 1946–47 WIHL season requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Johnathlon ( talk) 20:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. 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) 10:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi! As you've previously expressed interest in the competition, I'm just letting you know that the 2012 WikiCup is due to start in less than 24 hours. Signups are open, and will remain so for a few weeks after the beginning of the competition. The competition itself will follow basically the same format as last year, with a few small tweaks to point costs to reflect the opinions of the community. If you're interested in taking part, you're more than welcome, and if you know anyone who might be, please let them know too- the more the merrier! To join, simply add your name to Wikipedia:WikiCup/2012 signups, and we will be in touch. Please feel free to direct any questions to me, or leave a note on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! You are receiving this note as you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Please feel free to add or remove yourself. J Milburn ( talk) 01:43, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
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. Thank you. HandsomeFella ( talk) 10:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Wikid77 here. Your new topic ban for diacritic-titles is limited to the redirects and titles only, so I think you can still edit or create any article (but no diacritic-titles) when your edit-block expires at 17:47, 8 January 2012. The topic-ban could be appealed, typically after 1 month but more likely 3 months, so your current fight has ended for January. The poll showed a count of 19-4, where 4 of us realized that your ban was excessive, or your actions were permitted by current written policies. Hence, I hope you are not too upset with everyone, because several users were able to clearly refute claims against you, despite busy events around the New Years holiday (on 2 January, this year). Many of us have been blocked or topic-banned, so you are in good company with fellow editors who understand when a gang of users go against you, while other editors are dogpiling in "Support" for them. The closing admin typically sides with the larger number of users, rather than try to examine the exact details of policy. After 11 years of Wikipedia, there is still no WP:FAIRNESS concept which would carefully examine if your actions were a significant "danger" to Wikipedia. Instead, as you noted, you are being held to a higher standard than others, because several other people wrote remarks against you. The exact topic-ban resolution, of the ANI report, was decided by admin User:28bytes and logged into project page WP:RESTRICT:
Meanwhile, I hope you will not be bothered by the fact that hundreds of other people will continue to double-edit redirects (while you are banned), and so the diacritic-titles will still be double-edited by numerous other people anyway (despite that being called "gaming" for your case, but not for others). The whole situation would be a farcical cosmic joke if it weren't for people claiming you had done something wrong, to "game the system" which others of us had tried to refute. In fact, a 5th person noted it is the fault of the MediaWiki version 1.18 software that edited-redirects prevent rename-moves by non-admin users. So, in a sense, 5 people stated support for you. On balance, whenever I am misjudged by people, I try to remember that it could be worse: I could be one of those people who do not understand the actual events or refuse to forgive minor mistakes. I was an honors student in college, but I have even had people claim that I was below average in intelligence, so other people's judgment is really a sad situation, all throughout life. Working with committees of other people is a real challenge. At ANI, many users did not even understand that your recent ice-hockey stubs were of excellent quality! Anyway, as you can tell, I could ramble about these topics for days, so I will let you get back to your activities. Thanks for understanding. - Wikid77 ( talk) 13:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Dolovis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
The discussion concerning my topic ban has now concluded, and this block has effectively (and conveniently) prevented me from addressing the specifics of the concerns raised, and of defending myself against the false claims and outright lies contained in that discussion. I understand that I am banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles". This is my understanding of what the topic ban means:
Decline reason:
No, sorry, I think you are wrong in your interpretation of a number of those. I think 28bytes has summed it up well, and I suggest you accept that clarification - the aim of the topic ban is basically to prevent you doing *anything* related to the diacritic titling of articles or redirects -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
The prior WP:ANI complaint has wandered into a proposed topic-ban while you are blocked and unable to respond to whatever allegations have been made against you. This is the sub-thread at AN/I:
Some of us other editors will need to copy your replies, from here, back over to that ANI sub-thread. I only just started checking the background about these concerns, but I will add that diacritical letters in some article titles (such as " Dominik Riečický") cannot be handled by some computer browsers (a search for those titles will match only some unaccented letters, not the precise title). Also, Wikipedia needs a lot of help to create and edit article redirects to handle the special accented letters. I cannot believe these proceedings are being conducted against you, but do not worry, I think we can stop this topic-ban, or get it reversed. Happy New Year, anyway. - Wikid77 ( talk) 16:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Dolovis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Blocks are intended to prevent disruption, and not to be used as a punishment. This is a punitive block. If writing a truthful defense is considered to be “Wiki-lawyering” then Wiki-lawyering should be permitted. I am busy in real life, and so I will not be able to take an active part in this discussion, but I will respond to say that creating valid stub articles for notable athletes is constructive, and my editing has been in full compliance with all of the policies of Wikipedia. I am an English speaking person, and I do not speak or write any other language. The articles I have created are titled according to the sources I have used to create the article. As some of these athletes are born in Europe where non-English spellings are used, redirects have been created (following the instruction of
Template:R from diacritics and
WP:REDCAT) if I come across a red line for the same name, but with diacritics.
There are editors on English Wikipedia who are dedicated to moving articles to titles with diacritics, without regard for
WP:V or
WP:COMMONNAME. It is those same editors who have made and supported these complaints against me. As a result of those complaints I am not even allowed to object to a controversial article move - not by
WP:BRD (a core principle
[1] which I am banned from using) or even by bringing it to the attention of another Admin (as this has been accused of using a MEAT PUPPET)
[2]. The result is that I am being punished for being an English speaking editor who follows the policy of
Wikipedia:Article titles (which includes
WP:COMMONNAME) and I am being held to a higher standard than other editors on Wikipedia.
Dolovis (
talk)
15:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
A number of points:
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have closed the AN/I proposal as "enacted." You are indefinitely banned from "moving, redirecting/making diacritic related redirects, or otherwise changing titles of articles that have diacritics in the titles", broadly construed. Hopefully when your block expires you can find less divisive areas in which to contribute. 28bytes ( talk) 09:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your clarification on these questions. Dolovis ( talk) 12:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to request further clarification if needed. 28bytes ( talk) 17:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
The technical issue which has caused the most concern was double-editing of redirects, even for mistakes. So, I suggest if you create a redirect without the proper tag "{{ R from other name}" then rather than edit it for tag, instead request admin-deletion by editing to insert {{ db|1=Improper redirect}}, and recreate the redirect with proper tag in only 1 edit. Note this is a Catch-22 situation: you are to avoid double-editing for category, but you must double-edit to request {{db|1=Improper redirect}} for admin-delete before recreation. Either way, you must double-edit the redirect, but at least in the end, it can be recreated with only 1 perfect edit. That means you must wait hours or days for an admin to delete the unfinished redirect. Meanwhile, in general, the goal is to avoid conflicts with other users about diacritics in titles. If those people get upset again, they might get you edit-blocked for a longer period. So it is important to take time, now, to think what actions to avoid around those people. For example, if you enter a diacritics discussion with the upset users, please please avoid any name-calling or they might call that another "gaming the system" (whatever). Try to respectfully disagree without being disagreeable, even if they are viciously insulting you again (which is likely), it does not matter, because you are being held to a higher standard than them, so rise to that level of expection. However, you are not alone: several of us other editors have been held to much higher standards than most editors. In fact, any long-term editor is held to a somewhat higher standard than newcomers with less than 500 edits or such. I hope that advice will help you focus. - Wikid77 ( talk) 06:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
17:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Dolovis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There is no valid reason for this block. No diffs show that improper edits have been made, and no warning was given prior to the block. ANI complaint against me is made by a fanatical pro-diacritics editor, apparently in retaliation for my posting of valid concerns about the continued failure of some editors follow proper WP:RM procedure for controversial moves. Creation of article with non-modified letters for articles titles follows WP:COMMONNAME and the sources used within the articles, and the creation of redirects follows the instruction of Template:R from diacritics and WP:REDCAT. Dolovis ( talk) 18:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
See the discussion below. No matter how much you may try to wikilawyer round the issue, you have been editing in a way which achieved an effect essentially similar to that which you used before, and which you were banned from doing. You don't need a new warning for every new way you may come up with of achieving essentially the same effect. JamesBWatson ( talk) 21:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I'm reviewing this as well. The gaming of the system seems quite obvious, as Elen explained at ANI, and you pretty well admitted as much in October 2011: " ...I was banned for making double-edits to redirect pages (which I did in an a naive attempt to slow down the controversial moves)..." Are you not now doing something very similar? Paul Erik (talk) (contribs) 20:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Dolovis is labelling his opponents "diacritic-lovers". If someone was constantly removing f:s, and another person reinstated them, would the latter person then be an "f-lover"? Dolovis's opponents do not "love" diacritics more than other letters, but they are of the opinion that they should not be removed. HandsomeFella ( talk) 21:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, MarcusBritish's comment was added before you closed the discussion, see: [3]. Your edit to close the discussion was the next edit, see: [4], and removed the comment, whether intentionally or not (possible edit conflict). However, according to talkpage guidelines, you are allowed to remove comments from your talkpage – including this one. HandsomeFella ( talk) 13:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010.
Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is
Grapple X (
submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about
The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at
good article candidates. Second place is currently held by
Ruby2010 (
submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is
Jivesh boodhun (
submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!
The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.
A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.
We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.
A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dolovis,
I see you started Lying Cow, which I've just been editing. I'm planning to provide article stubs for the entire Auvers period (of course this was early Hague, I came to it from his 1890 study). Right now I'm just working through the existing list of works before starting articles. Probably I shall be working back through the catalogue. All welcome to join! I suggest we take Farms near Auvers as a model. LornaDooneBlackmore ( talk) 23:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, can you be more specific about the portions of the Antero Niittymäki article that need copyediting? Hazelorb ( talk) 00:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Dolovis.
You started an article In Church which you said was an 1882 watercolor by Vincent van Gogh but I can't find that work. Only an 1882 watercolor called "Church Pew with Worshippers" (F967, JH225)? Is this what you mean? RobvanderWaal ( talk) 08:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was
Grapple X (
submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was
Tigerboy1966 (
submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were
Ruby2010 (
submissions),
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions),
Miyagawa (
submissions) and
Casliber (
submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list:
List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from
Ruby2010 (
submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.
The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.
The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 23:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
You created a redirect from Michael Guerra to Texas Tornados. Could you let me know why, as the former doesn't appear in the latter. I just wanted to check if there was something I was missing before I took it to RfD. Thanks! Livit⇑ Eh?/ What? 14:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey hows it going? White Thug---- ( talk) 14:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The article Robert Pukalovic has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Brookie :) { - he's in the building somewhere!}
(Whisper...)
12:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
An issue involving you is being discussed at AN/I. Prolog ( talk) 20:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
We are over half way through the second round of this year's WikiCup and things are going well!
Grapple X (
submissions), of Pool B, is our highest overall scorer thanks to his prolific writings on television and film. In second place is Pool H's
Cwmhiraeth (
submissions), thanks primarily to work on biological articles, especially in
marine biology and
herpetology. Third place goes to Pool E's
Casliber (
submissions), who also writes primarily on biology (including
ornithology and
botany) and has already submitted two featured articles this round. Of the 63 contestants remaining, 15 (just under a quarter) have over 100 points this round. However, 25 are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly. 32 contestants, the top two from each pool and the 16 next-highest scorers, will advance to round 3.
Congratulations to
Matthewedwards (
submissions), whose impressive
File:Wacht am Rhein map (Opaque).svg became the competition's first featured picture. Also, congratulations to
12george1 (
submissions), who claimed good topic points, our first contestant this year to do so, for his work on
Wikipedia:Featured topics/1982 Atlantic hurricane season. This leaves featured topics and featured portals as the only sources of points not yet utilised. However, as
recent statistics from
Miyagawa (
submissions) show, no source has yet been utilised this competition to the same extent it has been previously!
It has been observed that the backlogs at good article candidates are building up again. While the points for good article reviews will be remaining constant, any help that can be offered keeping the backlog down would be appreciated. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn ( talk • email) and The ed17 ( talk • email) 23:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Elen of the Roads (
talk)
00:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)Dolovis ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
What the fuck!??? I've had a death in my family. I log onto Wikipedia and find out that I have been blocked - without even the having the chance of defending myself! I have read the ANI and it looks like some editor has reverted or moved some articles with diacritics, most of them by Cerrot who appears to be exercising his right to invoke WP:BRD, so OF COURSE it must be me... What a bunch of bullshit! I am not the only editor who has reverted a controversial move! Just as likely, these recent edits are made by some editor(s) who wants to frame me. Yes, when it comes to the “diacritics patrol” I do believe in conspiracies. Members of the diacritics patrol have been moving all of those articles away from their common name, including the complainant HandsomeFella, which creates a nice set-up to have someone move them back - and then accuse me of skirting my ban. The conclusion of the CheckUser is “that Dolovis is moving around” so therefor it is a “likely” match. What a bunch or crap!! It appears from his comments that the CheckUser found that my editing location was not matched to the other accused editors, but the fix is in and this Kangaroo Court will find me guilty, despite the evidence to the contrary. I should have appealed the diacritics editing ban to the arbitration board, but I didn't because it wasn't worth my time to appeal on such a ridiculous issue, but clearly I should have because that ban has given HandsomeFella and his coo-hoots the opportunity to perform this frame-up to get me blocked. If the Wikipedia admins allow this kind of bullshit to go on, then Wikipedia has no effective checks and controls, and the bullies have won. And that would be a shame, because I at one time used to enjoy helping to build this encyclopedia. I hope that the Admins will take some positive action to improve the atmosphere around here so I, and others, can once again enjoy working on this project, without the harassment and bullying. Cheers. Dolovis ( talk) 23:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Attacking various editors and swearing is a good way to have an unblock request declined (please see WP:NOTTHEM), even if there wasn't a checkuser finding that the accounts are related. Nick-D ( talk) 11:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Let me first say that I only reported Cerrot. I did not suggest that you, Dolovis, were socking as Cerrot, nor did I perform any research other than checking Cerrot's contribs. The reason I noticed the moves was that I recently moved the article on Maxime Sauvé from its diacriticless version, and thus it was on my watchlist. (I thought my move was logical, since his father, uncle and cousin all have diacritics in their respective article names.)
I don't know what tools the admins have, but I think this issue was acted on a bit quick. We may not have the same views on diacritics, and I certainly dislike some of your methods, but that does not mean that I want to close my eyes for a possible miscarriage of justice. I'll see if the case can be re-opened. (I admit I should have aired my concerns earlier.)
HandsomeFella ( talk) 09:32, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I've responded to HandsomeFella at ANI, but I'll copy over what I said so another admin can review it if they want.
Checkuser not being a magic spy ray, I obviously can't say that it's the identical laptop, but it is exactly the same build as the four other editors at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dolovis, same updates etc. You're very thorough at keeping your kit up to date. Incidentally, I can see that you're not 'back home' yet - if 'home' is where the fixed line IP addresses to. You're as of this morning's edits around 2000 miles from there, on wifi, and using the same laptop. I don't think anyone is questioning that these four are socks of each other - the way they went over each others edits etc. So if these four - who are in three locations - are socks of each other, it is certainly technically possible that you are the sockmaster. The distances/timings are not impossible.
I also believe there is more than enough behavioural evidence to link you to the four stooges. However, another admin is welcome to review the block, and other checkusers can look at the technical evidence. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 23:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Dolovis. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on 1946–47 WIHL season requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Johnathlon ( talk) 20:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)