![]() | This page 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. |
|
|
A miltonist is not someone who studies John Milton, or I think you better provide RS to show that it does, which is hard to do for a redirect admittedly. That would be like saying an orwellist or a grayist or a I dunno shakespearist. I don't think you're right on this one but anyway blooody nice to see you, haven't seen you in a month of Sundays. Hope you and yours are all doing fine. I am just getting through stacks of nonsense Neelix redirects and occasionally make the wrong call but I don't think I have with this one. You obviously disagree, and that's fine. I relisted it over at WP:RfD but I am aware that I'm flooding that; the consensus at WP:ANI seems to be for me to carry on and I am getting through a few but if I ever make the wrong call quite right to reject the CSD. Si Trew ( talk) 14:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again for closing the Kennedy RM, and even for noting that my actions in anticipation of the close were "presumptuous". They were also intended to be a bit provocative. If you can suggest other ways to get things like this unstuck, I'd like to hear. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
F&W, are you up for closing some more silly unanimous Jr RMs?
Dicklyon ( talk) 01:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
This one has now migrated into the backlog: Talk:John_D._Rockefeller,_Jr._Memorial_Parkway#Requested_move_15_May_2016. It's the last open RM related to WP:JR, and got a little twist at the end. Take it on if you like. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Thanks for all that you do. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 14:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC) |
The skyscraper in Madrid Torre de Cristal I think should have no disambiguation because of its relevance. And Torre de Cristal (Recife) is just a redirect, no main article. That's why. Triplecaña ( talk) 22:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I feel like I'm missing something. Why doesn't A7 apply? – Compassionate727 ( T· C) 17:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Liz as a personal name is the primary topic; the few other entries should go to the dab page. So I need the deletion to create a name list. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for reverting Roman Catholic Church in Mexico to its original designation. |
Now with the confusion gone, can you please complete the move? Thanks. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
69.243.236.95 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is abusing the unblock template to continue making attacks/troll. Feinoha Talk 22:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I see you deleted Cambridge Football Club on 17 May 2016. Just letting you know that the article has been recreated. Schwede 66 20:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi.
I noticed you declined the speedy deletion of Template:Multiple stable software releases/WhatsApp with the following comment:
In use, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Multiple_stable_software_releases/WhatsApp. Decline speedy
I am afraid you should look more closely at Special:WhatLinksHere. It says "WhatsApp (links | edit)" but there is no "(transclusion)" between "WhatsApp" and "(links | edit)". The reason is {{ LSR}} which used in both Template:Multiple stable software releases/WhatsApp and Template:Latest stable software release/WhatsApp. Once you delete the Template:Multiple stable software releases/WhatsApp, {{ LSR}} will safely change the target of its link.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 09:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
He's back, per the unmistakable pattern here, et al. Please block 174.29.179.102 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) accordingly, with my thanks. 🖖 ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 00:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, at the risk of pestering you (
), using the tool and similar edits at around the same time I've found additional IPs that are unquestionably the same person; I'm including only those used within the past two months, though a few older ones also were prolific:
I'm assuming, of course, that it's possible for this guy (no contemporary woman would ever write "she bore him [children]") to jump back to any of these IPs at any time. Whether you choose to block these immediately or just have us keep an eye on them is of course at your discretion. 🖖 ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 02:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
death_cause, etc. Is there a tool that would allow me to watch for those specific phrases, then report the continuing pattern when I see it? 🖖 ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 08:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
User:WaterlooRoadFanWWE. Thank you. --
wL<
speak·
check> 06:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Please revoke user:82.112.144.10's ability to edit their talk page. 2602:306:3357:BA0:91FA:29C8:1A98:AC81 ( talk) 21:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Do it. 2602:306:3357:BA0:91FA:29C8:1A98:AC81 ( talk) 21:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Please do it already. 2602:306:3357:BA0:91FA:29C8:1A98:AC81 ( talk) 21:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Whoa there, I was participating in those Afds you closed. While I'm glad the Brigands gets to stay, the song article had a genuine discussion going on. Whether the AFD was a violation on the nominator who started it or not, it should not affect those who were making an actual point to merge the articles. It seems terribly unfair when there was clear consensus for a merger going on. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for coming to my protection regarding the editor that was trying to harass me. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 00:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted the edits largely due to the fact that the user stated that the match had finished and written it as a final result when in fact there was still over ten minutes to play. This clearly goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL. Thanks. Kosack ( talk) 18:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Please block
174.16.201.235 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log). TIA.
🖖
ATS /
Talk 00:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
184.96.184.185 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) and
here we go again ...
🖖
ATS /
Talk 02:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dominic Cummings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samara. 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) 10:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I presume you will have seen the comment on your talk page, but just in case I've posted here. Im getting tired of this. Doug Weller talk 06:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi F&W, just sending you a brief message to commend you for your continuing work overseeing the editing of the page for Mary Hogg (including the redacting of an inappropriate edit summary). It's easy to understand why people currently have such strong feelings about recent events connected with the subject, and your calm diplomacy when engaging with other editors is a credit to all Wikipedians. Regards, ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 10:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for protecting the page for Sam Mizrahi. This page was created and modified a number of times after release of an article by Bloomberg and Financial Post last week about a lawsuit involving Sam Mizrahi. But since yesterday information started being deleted from the page even though the sections deleted had proper citation.
I did add a few pieces of information myself having reviewed the article published and researching Sam Mizrahi's business affairs online. When I realized that the information was being deleted I was forced to create an account to restore the page after it was vandalized again and again by a user named Trust one2010. I am pretty new to Wikipedia but I managed to figure out how to post a warning to that user to stop deleting the information. I guess they decided to do it as an IP user afterwards.
Would you be able to let me know how I should go about adding back in the sections that were actually edited by other users and were deleted by Trust One2010 and the IP user after wards? Thank you for your help and again thank you for putting an end to the silly restore and delete game. TorontoWhistleblower ( talk) 01:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi F&W. I appreciate your work and I recognize the need for it. Thanks for doing what you do.
You deleted text from the proposed page I entered for Dr. Zandi's page saying it had been copied from his University of Penn website page. That is correct, it was, but I do not think this violates any sort of copyright issue because Dr. Zandi himself wrote that page. Is there no exception for that case? Dr. Zandi is older. He expects that over time the information that he so carefully prepared for the U Penn website will be taken down and lost to posterity. Is there no way to move this information over to a much more permanent location? While somewhat less active in his later years, Dr. Zanid's work during the 1960 and 1970s was important in his field. Please advise. Also--I'm not sure this is how I'm supposed to communicate with you. If this is incorrect, please instruct me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjayrush ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a chronological order for general understanding.
I bring this up because Omeganian didn't immediately go after Neobatfreaks English until they reverted his excellent edit. The edit summary that is in question was part of a revert not the copy-edit. I doesn't matter too much but thought it worth addressing. Have a good day. Mr rnddude ( talk) 19:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
So um... shit [1], I may have come across as an administrator here when I'm not. Any suggestion on what I should do; quietly just close the discussion, wait for an admin, have some hot cocoa and let the apocalypse commence. Mr rnddude ( talk) 21:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for closing it, I felt that the points had all been covered well, and while I might not agree every single point, made by every single editor, I certainly paid attention to everything said, and think your closing summary summed things up well and gave me a very good idea of how I can and should improve things, without it detracting from my ability to edit articles and communicate with other editors. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 05:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Revoke talk page access for user:198.49.31.131. 2602:306:3357:BA0:3636:3BFF:FE89:DA50 ( talk) 18:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the correct way to reply is but if I readded that it was by mistake. I was only meaning to add a single reference, but I must have accidentally readded that as well. My apologies. Jokullmusic 20:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on the Yahweh talk page. I didn't even notice there was a discussion at the time. The sources you gave are most valuable, and I've tried to work the information in to the article. You might like to have a look. PiCo ( talk) 10:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm writing to you because I see that you are the one who blocked RyanSunshine. It looks like he continues using his IP: 98.237.123.85. Just as before, the user never responds to user talk messages, never uses edit summary, and of course doesn't discuss on article talk page. Could you please help? The last time I reported an editor, I was told to discuss it with them, but there can't be a discussion without both people discussing. — Musdan77 ( talk) 19:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see my proposal to rename Category:United States military veterans from Indiana etc Hugo999 ( talk) 04:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
FYI - I deleted the 2 images as Speedy:G3, and User:jcb has blocked him indef Ronhjones (Talk) 23:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Could you help me with a matter? The transclusion of the review for the article the Wrecking Crew is not up-to-date and I cannot get it to reflect my latest changes that I made at the real review (no matter how may times I try to re-edit it). Would it be possible to update the talk page trasclusison of the review to coincide with my latest revisions to the actual review? It is important that my words convey my thoughts regarding the matters discussed in the review, and I don't think that my initial response adequately conveyed my thoughts, particularly in light of the fact that I have gone the extra mile since then to further satisfy the reviewer's recommendations. The reviewer seems to be taking a break or absence from the review and, in order to make it clear that I am trying to rectify all of his issues, I want to have the most up-to-date trasclusion possible to best-represent where I'm at right now in the process. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 16:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charlotte Spencer (actress), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ABC (TV), George Mackay and Les Misérables (film). 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) 09:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, Fences and Windows. My name's Rachel - I wanted to reach out to you because I am planning on creating a page/editing some content related to a page that you once edited some years ago - Interactive storytelling - for the purposes of an Online Communities class for my fall semester. (The new page will probably be titled Interactive drama.) I wanted to introduce myself in case we run into each other in the mainspace for that reason, and to ask for some general guidance with my first few edits, if you were able to spare the time and expertise. Looking forward to getting to know some experienced wikipedians! - Rroberie ( talk) 17:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Fences and windows. Thanks for your note at Talk:Michael Shrimpton pointing me towards an archive of the previous version of the article. Were you involved in editing or deleting that version, or any of the other versions that were created under different names? If so, perhaps you could shed more light on the discussion at Talk:Michael Shrimpton#previously deleted as an attack page. Apart from what I've gleaned from comments in the associated deletion discussions, I have no idea who created or edited all these pages. Am I correct that at least two of them were autobiographies? (Note that Shrimpton appears to be contributing to the present article not only under his registered account but also using unregistered IP accounts; the same may have held for some or all three of the previous articles.) — Psychonaut ( talk) 10:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Fences and windows. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fences and Windows! Thank you for your support for the article I started for Cathy Simon, and for the additional sources you found about her. I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia editing, and have never had an article I wrote be "nominated for deletion", so at first I was worried, but now I feel encouraged to continue working on this article and to "make my case" for it. ~~rscooli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.182.226 ( talk) 22:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I saw Malia Obama (celebrity). It was a normal article, a bit short because it was new. But not an attack piece by any stretch of imagination. You deleted it. Please let me see it. I think it is very credible an article that can grow.
Afghandeaths ( talk) 23:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
This is pretty borderline as a G10, IMO; it's not really very negative (not enough for me to call it an attack page, and more negative about Barack than Malia really), and it does have sources. But I see where you're coming from, particularly in that navel-gazing paragraph about Wikipedia[the same passage quoted above by F&W]
, and I'll err on the side of caution, since it's a BLP. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 19:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fences and windows.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Fences and windows. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting this article, I've tried to revert the premature revisions but it was a constant battle. I would like to request that you consider reverting to a previous edit as he has not yet officially or unofficially been declared the coach of the University of Oregon and thus the article is currently not accurate. Thanks. krizoitz( talk) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your nomination! I have added my acceptance and answered the questions. Please transclude the nomination if you think it is OK. PS: I think one "your" still needs changing to "their". -- Boson ( talk) 12:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, it seems to me some people are linking to this essay (of which you are the primary author) as if it's some kind of get out of jail free card when they're called out for displays of bad faith towards other editors. Perhaps it needs some editing to clearly explain that this is not the purpose of the essay, and that rather than linking to the essay people who are perceived to be violating wikipedia's behavioral guidelines re AGF should instead reconsider their approach? Really, the only time it is appropriate to link to the essay is when discussing clear cut vandalism, trolling etc. Trying to excuse one's behaviour by linking to that essay constitutes a personal attack in my opinion. MaxBrowne ( talk) 07:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | This page 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. |
|
|
A miltonist is not someone who studies John Milton, or I think you better provide RS to show that it does, which is hard to do for a redirect admittedly. That would be like saying an orwellist or a grayist or a I dunno shakespearist. I don't think you're right on this one but anyway blooody nice to see you, haven't seen you in a month of Sundays. Hope you and yours are all doing fine. I am just getting through stacks of nonsense Neelix redirects and occasionally make the wrong call but I don't think I have with this one. You obviously disagree, and that's fine. I relisted it over at WP:RfD but I am aware that I'm flooding that; the consensus at WP:ANI seems to be for me to carry on and I am getting through a few but if I ever make the wrong call quite right to reject the CSD. Si Trew ( talk) 14:05, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again for closing the Kennedy RM, and even for noting that my actions in anticipation of the close were "presumptuous". They were also intended to be a bit provocative. If you can suggest other ways to get things like this unstuck, I'd like to hear. Dicklyon ( talk) 23:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
F&W, are you up for closing some more silly unanimous Jr RMs?
Dicklyon ( talk) 01:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
This one has now migrated into the backlog: Talk:John_D._Rockefeller,_Jr._Memorial_Parkway#Requested_move_15_May_2016. It's the last open RM related to WP:JR, and got a little twist at the end. Take it on if you like. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
Thanks for all that you do. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 14:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC) |
The skyscraper in Madrid Torre de Cristal I think should have no disambiguation because of its relevance. And Torre de Cristal (Recife) is just a redirect, no main article. That's why. Triplecaña ( talk) 22:54, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I feel like I'm missing something. Why doesn't A7 apply? – Compassionate727 ( T· C) 17:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Liz as a personal name is the primary topic; the few other entries should go to the dab page. So I need the deletion to create a name list. Clarityfiend ( talk) 01:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for reverting Roman Catholic Church in Mexico to its original designation. |
Now with the confusion gone, can you please complete the move? Thanks. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 10:52, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
69.243.236.95 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is abusing the unblock template to continue making attacks/troll. Feinoha Talk 22:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
I see you deleted Cambridge Football Club on 17 May 2016. Just letting you know that the article has been recreated. Schwede 66 20:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi.
I noticed you declined the speedy deletion of Template:Multiple stable software releases/WhatsApp with the following comment:
In use, see Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Multiple_stable_software_releases/WhatsApp. Decline speedy
I am afraid you should look more closely at Special:WhatLinksHere. It says "WhatsApp (links | edit)" but there is no "(transclusion)" between "WhatsApp" and "(links | edit)". The reason is {{ LSR}} which used in both Template:Multiple stable software releases/WhatsApp and Template:Latest stable software release/WhatsApp. Once you delete the Template:Multiple stable software releases/WhatsApp, {{ LSR}} will safely change the target of its link.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 09:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
He's back, per the unmistakable pattern here, et al. Please block 174.29.179.102 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) accordingly, with my thanks. 🖖 ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 00:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, at the risk of pestering you (
), using the tool and similar edits at around the same time I've found additional IPs that are unquestionably the same person; I'm including only those used within the past two months, though a few older ones also were prolific:
I'm assuming, of course, that it's possible for this guy (no contemporary woman would ever write "she bore him [children]") to jump back to any of these IPs at any time. Whether you choose to block these immediately or just have us keep an eye on them is of course at your discretion. 🖖 ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 02:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
death_cause, etc. Is there a tool that would allow me to watch for those specific phrases, then report the continuing pattern when I see it? 🖖 ATinySliver/ ATalkPage 08:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is
User:WaterlooRoadFanWWE. Thank you. --
wL<
speak·
check> 06:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Please revoke user:82.112.144.10's ability to edit their talk page. 2602:306:3357:BA0:91FA:29C8:1A98:AC81 ( talk) 21:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Do it. 2602:306:3357:BA0:91FA:29C8:1A98:AC81 ( talk) 21:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Please do it already. 2602:306:3357:BA0:91FA:29C8:1A98:AC81 ( talk) 21:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Whoa there, I was participating in those Afds you closed. While I'm glad the Brigands gets to stay, the song article had a genuine discussion going on. Whether the AFD was a violation on the nominator who started it or not, it should not affect those who were making an actual point to merge the articles. It seems terribly unfair when there was clear consensus for a merger going on. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for coming to my protection regarding the editor that was trying to harass me. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 00:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I reverted the edits largely due to the fact that the user stated that the match had finished and written it as a final result when in fact there was still over ten minutes to play. This clearly goes against WP:CRYSTALBALL. Thanks. Kosack ( talk) 18:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Please block
174.16.201.235 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log). TIA.
🖖
ATS /
Talk 00:02, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
184.96.184.185 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
filter log ·
WHOIS ·
RDNS ·
RBLs ·
http ·
block user ·
block log) and
here we go again ...
🖖
ATS /
Talk 02:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dominic Cummings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Samara. 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) 10:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
I presume you will have seen the comment on your talk page, but just in case I've posted here. Im getting tired of this. Doug Weller talk 06:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi F&W, just sending you a brief message to commend you for your continuing work overseeing the editing of the page for Mary Hogg (including the redacting of an inappropriate edit summary). It's easy to understand why people currently have such strong feelings about recent events connected with the subject, and your calm diplomacy when engaging with other editors is a credit to all Wikipedians. Regards, ~dom Kaos~ ( talk) 10:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you so much for protecting the page for Sam Mizrahi. This page was created and modified a number of times after release of an article by Bloomberg and Financial Post last week about a lawsuit involving Sam Mizrahi. But since yesterday information started being deleted from the page even though the sections deleted had proper citation.
I did add a few pieces of information myself having reviewed the article published and researching Sam Mizrahi's business affairs online. When I realized that the information was being deleted I was forced to create an account to restore the page after it was vandalized again and again by a user named Trust one2010. I am pretty new to Wikipedia but I managed to figure out how to post a warning to that user to stop deleting the information. I guess they decided to do it as an IP user afterwards.
Would you be able to let me know how I should go about adding back in the sections that were actually edited by other users and were deleted by Trust One2010 and the IP user after wards? Thank you for your help and again thank you for putting an end to the silly restore and delete game. TorontoWhistleblower ( talk) 01:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi F&W. I appreciate your work and I recognize the need for it. Thanks for doing what you do.
You deleted text from the proposed page I entered for Dr. Zandi's page saying it had been copied from his University of Penn website page. That is correct, it was, but I do not think this violates any sort of copyright issue because Dr. Zandi himself wrote that page. Is there no exception for that case? Dr. Zandi is older. He expects that over time the information that he so carefully prepared for the U Penn website will be taken down and lost to posterity. Is there no way to move this information over to a much more permanent location? While somewhat less active in his later years, Dr. Zanid's work during the 1960 and 1970s was important in his field. Please advise. Also--I'm not sure this is how I'm supposed to communicate with you. If this is incorrect, please instruct me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjayrush ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Just a chronological order for general understanding.
I bring this up because Omeganian didn't immediately go after Neobatfreaks English until they reverted his excellent edit. The edit summary that is in question was part of a revert not the copy-edit. I doesn't matter too much but thought it worth addressing. Have a good day. Mr rnddude ( talk) 19:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
So um... shit [1], I may have come across as an administrator here when I'm not. Any suggestion on what I should do; quietly just close the discussion, wait for an admin, have some hot cocoa and let the apocalypse commence. Mr rnddude ( talk) 21:43, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for closing it, I felt that the points had all been covered well, and while I might not agree every single point, made by every single editor, I certainly paid attention to everything said, and think your closing summary summed things up well and gave me a very good idea of how I can and should improve things, without it detracting from my ability to edit articles and communicate with other editors. Spacecowboy420 ( talk) 05:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Revoke talk page access for user:198.49.31.131. 2602:306:3357:BA0:3636:3BFF:FE89:DA50 ( talk) 18:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the correct way to reply is but if I readded that it was by mistake. I was only meaning to add a single reference, but I must have accidentally readded that as well. My apologies. Jokullmusic 20:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your input on the Yahweh talk page. I didn't even notice there was a discussion at the time. The sources you gave are most valuable, and I've tried to work the information in to the article. You might like to have a look. PiCo ( talk) 10:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm writing to you because I see that you are the one who blocked RyanSunshine. It looks like he continues using his IP: 98.237.123.85. Just as before, the user never responds to user talk messages, never uses edit summary, and of course doesn't discuss on article talk page. Could you please help? The last time I reported an editor, I was told to discuss it with them, but there can't be a discussion without both people discussing. — Musdan77 ( talk) 19:08, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Please see my proposal to rename Category:United States military veterans from Indiana etc Hugo999 ( talk) 04:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
FYI - I deleted the 2 images as Speedy:G3, and User:jcb has blocked him indef Ronhjones (Talk) 23:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Could you help me with a matter? The transclusion of the review for the article the Wrecking Crew is not up-to-date and I cannot get it to reflect my latest changes that I made at the real review (no matter how may times I try to re-edit it). Would it be possible to update the talk page trasclusison of the review to coincide with my latest revisions to the actual review? It is important that my words convey my thoughts regarding the matters discussed in the review, and I don't think that my initial response adequately conveyed my thoughts, particularly in light of the fact that I have gone the extra mile since then to further satisfy the reviewer's recommendations. The reviewer seems to be taking a break or absence from the review and, in order to make it clear that I am trying to rectify all of his issues, I want to have the most up-to-date trasclusion possible to best-represent where I'm at right now in the process. Garagepunk66 ( talk) 16:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Charlotte Spencer (actress), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ABC (TV), George Mackay and Les Misérables (film). 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) 09:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, Fences and Windows. My name's Rachel - I wanted to reach out to you because I am planning on creating a page/editing some content related to a page that you once edited some years ago - Interactive storytelling - for the purposes of an Online Communities class for my fall semester. (The new page will probably be titled Interactive drama.) I wanted to introduce myself in case we run into each other in the mainspace for that reason, and to ask for some general guidance with my first few edits, if you were able to spare the time and expertise. Looking forward to getting to know some experienced wikipedians! - Rroberie ( talk) 17:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Fences and windows. Thanks for your note at Talk:Michael Shrimpton pointing me towards an archive of the previous version of the article. Were you involved in editing or deleting that version, or any of the other versions that were created under different names? If so, perhaps you could shed more light on the discussion at Talk:Michael Shrimpton#previously deleted as an attack page. Apart from what I've gleaned from comments in the associated deletion discussions, I have no idea who created or edited all these pages. Am I correct that at least two of them were autobiographies? (Note that Shrimpton appears to be contributing to the present article not only under his registered account but also using unregistered IP accounts; the same may have held for some or all three of the previous articles.) — Psychonaut ( talk) 10:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Fences and windows. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fences and Windows! Thank you for your support for the article I started for Cathy Simon, and for the additional sources you found about her. I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia editing, and have never had an article I wrote be "nominated for deletion", so at first I was worried, but now I feel encouraged to continue working on this article and to "make my case" for it. ~~rscooli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.182.226 ( talk) 22:13, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
A few weeks ago, I saw Malia Obama (celebrity). It was a normal article, a bit short because it was new. But not an attack piece by any stretch of imagination. You deleted it. Please let me see it. I think it is very credible an article that can grow.
Afghandeaths ( talk) 23:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
This is pretty borderline as a G10, IMO; it's not really very negative (not enough for me to call it an attack page, and more negative about Barack than Malia really), and it does have sources. But I see where you're coming from, particularly in that navel-gazing paragraph about Wikipedia[the same passage quoted above by F&W]
, and I'll err on the side of caution, since it's a BLP. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 19:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Fences and windows.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Fences and windows. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for protecting this article, I've tried to revert the premature revisions but it was a constant battle. I would like to request that you consider reverting to a previous edit as he has not yet officially or unofficially been declared the coach of the University of Oregon and thus the article is currently not accurate. Thanks. krizoitz( talk) 16:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your nomination! I have added my acceptance and answered the questions. Please transclude the nomination if you think it is OK. PS: I think one "your" still needs changing to "their". -- Boson ( talk) 12:30, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi, it seems to me some people are linking to this essay (of which you are the primary author) as if it's some kind of get out of jail free card when they're called out for displays of bad faith towards other editors. Perhaps it needs some editing to clearly explain that this is not the purpose of the essay, and that rather than linking to the essay people who are perceived to be violating wikipedia's behavioral guidelines re AGF should instead reconsider their approach? Really, the only time it is appropriate to link to the essay is when discussing clear cut vandalism, trolling etc. Trying to excuse one's behaviour by linking to that essay constitutes a personal attack in my opinion. MaxBrowne ( talk) 07:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |