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.

Hello, GusF. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stella Dallas (1937 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Holt ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 18:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I was going to post the {{ uw-editsummary}} & {{ uw-warn}} templates here, but I see that you are an experienced Wikipedian.

As per the GusF - Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org) - Edit Counter - XTools report, you leave edit summaries just over 60% of the time. Please endeavor to leave edit summaries. It really helps us fellow editors to know what you are doing.

Also, I noticed that deleted Prosvelent's edits from Me Too movement, but did not leave a user warning template on Prosvelent's talk page. Prosvelent is a new editor & seems to have made good faith edits, & deserves to know why the edits were reverted. I presume you deleted the edits because they ran afoul of the consensus to prohibit the Daily Mail as a reliable source, but neither Prosvelent or anyone else would know that without an edit summary or a message on the user talk page. Good feedback will help keep new editors editing.

Perhaps you might consider using the semi-automated Twinkle tool for reversion. I use Twinkle for the vast majority of my reversions. It provides [rollback (AGF)] || [rollback] || [rollback (VANDAL)] options on the diff screen. If one chooses the first two options, Twinkle presents a prompt for the edit summary. If one chooses the latter option, Twinkle automatically populates the edit summary. Twinkle then opens up a tab or window on the user talk page & presents a drop-down menu of warning template options.

While I do not use Huggle, my understanding is that semi-automated tool provides similar capabilities.

Thank you for your attention to this, & thank you for editing Wikipedia.

Peaceray ( talk) 18:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Also, under the Editor tab under Preferences, in the Editing section you can check "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary." Peaceray ( talk) 18:48, 9 February 2018 (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.