![]() | 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. |
Maybe, just maybe I find your "house keeping" to be controversial! lol (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 14:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
People with level heads are always needed here-in both admin and non-admin capacities. Hope you'll take a little time out and consider coming back. We hope ( talk) 15:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
FYI, per the ANI discussion, User:RickinBaltimore has unblocked Cassianto. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
(all said above.) Anmccaff ( talk) 16:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to deal with this edit, and I'm hoping you might give me advice. I carefully checked the sources, and then removed unsourced content. Should I revert, and get into an edit war over unsourced content? Go to ANI? Report this one revert as edit waring? This editor habitually adds unsourced content, and the pattern seems to be that I tag their talk page with another "final warning", and nothing happens. Thanks for your input. Magnolia677 ( talk) 00:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I saw that you left but shamefully didn't write then to say please come back. Events in the last few days have persuaded me that I ought to. I'd like to try to persuade you that administrators are not usually "held on a special platter". I've been blocked four times since I became an admin, and have only just avoided a fifth. I hope the example of my long block log can demonstrate to you that sometimes admins do get their just desserts. When they don't, it is a failure of individuals not the project. Best wishes, DrKay ( talk) 19:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Gojira (band), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Oh, yeah, you left... Hope you're doing well. All the best, Drmies ( talk) 14:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Laser brain. 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)
Just saw this pop up on my watchlist. Hoping that the project is lucky enough to see you returning to the project for good, but don't want to get people's hopes up. Either way, hope all is well. ceran thor 04:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
You already know how pleased I am to see you back, Andy... Now if you're looking to review something, I'd welcome your input on this FAC... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I know I said it over there but I'll say it here too - It's great to have you back! :), Happy editing, – Davey2010 Talk 16:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Merry Christmas Laser brain!!
Hi Laser brain, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia!
,
–
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year
13:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and best wishes in all things! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I just thought that the finger looked like a reproduction organ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltomas2003 ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Dear Laserbrain, The Reason why I nominated Tokyo Mirage Sessions FE is because I felt like all around it was deserving of a TFA, I want to understand why you removed by featured article nominations, it feels like a slap to the face. Can you please tell me why? Eltomas2003 ( talk) 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Why do I have to be a major contributor to an article in order for it to be a FA candidate, also lets be friends! Eltomas2003 ( talk) 16:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I saw this comment of yours; wanted to respond but did not want to flood Ceoil's talk page any further. Just want to say I share many of your sentiments. I thought it was silly for Ceoil to edit war, but perhaps it's the natural response to warnings in general. Your work is always appreciated. Thank you. From a silent admirer, Alex Shih ( talk) 05:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello can you please help Daniel Genis writer about the Pavle Stanimirovic page very important if you can help so you can make the page better and for it not to get taken down . John of #%%$ Is on a war path and it's personal. Please object and contact Daniel Genius please . Thank you a friend of a friend. Chateaux Margo ( talk) 15:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I see you also left for an extended time. I am pretty much gone for good, although occasionally real life forces me to rub internet shoulders with another Wikipedia outrage, and I briefly entertain the notion that I can just pop in for a moment and fix the issue. After beating my head on the wall, I come back to my senses :)
From what happened to Ceoil, it looks like participation must be way down, and besides the age-old problems with the admin corps, there seems to be a new standard in both clerks and arbs.
I forgot my old yahoo password, so have another email, but hope you are well! Heck, if you can still stomach the shenanigans, you should probably be an arb-- the newcomers can learn a lot from you! Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Laser Brain,
I recently spent a bit of time with the Joseph Bishara entry. You went an undid all my updates. Let me walk you through the why I did the changes.
- Occupations: Since Bishara works in both the music and film industry, it is necessary to identify him as a music producer as it is very different from a film producer. Changing Actor to Creature Performer is to clarify that he is monster costume operator, not one of the extras in the background.
- Citations: The change to the citation style allow the visual editor to correctly add in new citations. The citation style of the page is not the most current format used on Wikipedia. It will cause issues as new contributors add material to the page.
- Yesterday's Tear: Yesterday's Tears is a song by Zakk Wylde ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4EILN3dVZA). Yesterday's Tear (no "s") was Bishara's band ( https://www.discogs.com/artist/4246062-Yesterdays-Tear) that was latter renamed Drown
- Exploring vs Improvising some: Improvisation has the connotation of Jazz when it comes to music. The musicians did not jazz it up but they did experiment within Bishara's figures and systems. So the word "improvise" is inaccurate and misleading.
- Demon: Bishara's official crew credit for The Conjuring 2 identifies him as "Demon" not winged creature ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3065204/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast identifying) ( https://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/Who-Plays-Demon-Conjuring-2-41604276?stream_view=1#photo-41604289).
I am going to undo your actions in reference to the above as these edits improve the functionality and accuracy of the entry. SyrLA ( talk) 21:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Laser Brain,
Thank for accepting my contribution to the Bishara's entry. And also your patience with the process.
I was thrilled that you included the credit of "Demon". I looked at your original source and noted that they incorrectly stated the role as "Winged Creature". I was at a bit of an impasse but your solution was wonderfully stated.
Thank you again, SyrLA ( talk) 19:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Was that necessary? I already left a warning on his page in my own words and there haven't been any reverts since then. Templates tend to piss people off. MaxBrowne ( talk) 03:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Why delete edits to an article where even the source article that has been cited for viewer ratings admits that the figure is improbable? As I stated in the article, if you add up the populations of all the countries the concert was broadcast to then you reach a figure in excess of 1.5 billion, but you cannot reasonably expect every single person in a country to own a TV set, and of those that did at the time not everyone tuned in to watch the concert. The figure of 1.5 billion therefore must be considered dubious (albeit should be left on the page with a citation to that effect). By removing edits to the contrary you're flying in the face of common sense, not to mention ignoring the very source material that is currently used to 'prove' the viewer ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.138.35 ( talk) 11:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Thank you!
... it is a delight to see you back editing again. I hope all is well. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 14:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I replied to your post on my talk page. Senor Cuete ( talk) 18:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
As a recent participant in the discussion over at the Stanley Kubrick talk page, I wanted to discuss the possibility of an RfC on the inclusion of a by-default-collapsed infobox. I brought this here because I believe asking it at the talk page until ready to present something as an RfC would be counterproductive at this point as there is too much hot blood over there at the moment.
The idea about a collapsed infobox was a considerable part of the last RfC on the topic, and suggested as a future avenue for discussion. The general idea is that many people who want an infobox will be satisfied by one that is collapsed, and those that oppose an infobox for asthetic reasons essentially get their wish. You had a different idea, about an infobox being a "magnet for those wishing to introduce unsourced parameters" and I think we could address this by proposing that only relevant and directly sourced parameters be added to a by-default-collapsed infobox.
What do you think of this idea and do you think it is a possible avenue to find a compromise for this article? — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 05:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
This is new territory for me. On one hand, I feel like ignoring it, but socking is a serious charge. One day, I might like to make the discography a Featured list candidate and a charge like this on the talk page may put some off. Also, more broadly, this may be a case of WP:NOTHERE. Any ideas (AN personal sanctions, demand a retraction, etc.)? — Ojorojo ( talk) 20:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
You might be interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Borodino class battlecruiser/archive2 after opposing the first nom back in '10.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
Hello Laser Brain,
I´m sorry for not explaining my edit. The reason I removed the part saying that adding an extension was "too expensive" is that, in the very next sentence, it is made clear that an extension was added. This clearly indicates that the reason the extension was not added straight away was not because it was too expensive, as that would have meant that no extension could be added (on account of it being too expensive). It was merely indicative of the fact that the priorities were not with safety at that moment. Since that time two extensions have been added, enabling that airport to be used by wide body aircraft. I´ll leave it up to you to decide if those extension were made for safety reasons or to enable those bigger air planes. One thing is for sure, whatever the reason, the extension wasn´t "too expensive" after all.... I have edited again to say that an extension was "very expensive", I hope that has your approval, and if not, that you will give me your side of the argument before removing my edit.
Kind regards, God-Himself ( talk) 09:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
This is a rather embarrassing question. I'm having trouble formatting the name of a new article. I can't seem to put a portion of the article's title in italics, as per the typical IUPAC nomenclature (the page is for a chemical compound). I've added a link (still red) to the compound on the page for Benzene, under Benzene derivatives.
Thanks.
ThreePhaseAC ( talk) 04:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Italicized'' part of page title}}
will display as "Italicized part of page title". --
Izno (
talk)
16:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)It's already been closed, Andy. Perhaps it was too difficult too answer. Cassianto Talk 18:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed your block of User:PerhapsXarb. This seems very harsh. The editor looks like a well-meaning, constructive but sometimes misguided newbie, not someone "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". I presume (but feel free to correct me) that the edits to Talk:Stanley Kubrick are what caused the block (they are what caused me to notice the editor), but wanting an infobox (or not wanting an infobox) are not signs of someone "not here to contribute", ceryainly not when their other edits are actual contributions and useful suggestions (again, considering they are a newbie). Of course, if they would be a sock of some known troll, then a bock would be justified, but then a clearer block summary would have helped.
Can you please reconsider the block and/or explain it? Fram ( talk) 12:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for this catch. I completely misread and thought I was on featured topics for some reason. Sorry about that!
Sock
(tock talk)
17:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
( [1]) -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 15:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm requesting that you undo the closing at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Friends_(Beach_Boys_album)/archive1. Most of the issues that JG66 brought up were immediately addressed. Their only remaining concerns was to perhaps add a detail about the album cover (it is unknown whether there is even anything to add) and to reorganize the citation style. We don't need two weeks to revise the books citations (the task is about 30 minutes at best) and I was actually waiting for one more editor to voice an opinion before going through with it.--- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 04:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
addendum Completed revising the citation style...-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 05:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
—SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 13:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
That couldn't have been easy. Whatever happened, at least one person besides me told the truth. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 19:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm still working through the issues. Please don't archive it just yet. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 15:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! Thank you for the help with the source review with my current FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lady Blue (TV series)/archive1). I believe that it is ready for promotion as it has already received an image review and source review and a fair amount of commentary. I was wondering in this circumstance, if I could put up another FAC, or if I should wait. I completely understand if it is not advisable, but I just wanted to check in about this. Thank you in advance, and have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 ( talk) 20:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Laser Brain,
I made that edit because the timeline reflect that Mick played bass in the mid-2000's and I believe the page for the album "A Bigger Bang" also reflects this.
Thanks! EPBeatles ( talk) 23:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
i made a compromise edit for now on the Nine inch nails article. you can revert the edit if you disagree with the edit. we'll have the compromise edit until we reach a consensus on the talk page. I'll start the talk page discussion soon once i'm done with a few things. Statik N ( talk) 01:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I submitted the article for copyediting but haven't gotten a response yet. LittleJerry ( talk) 02:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. Look I'm not mad or anything but I just want to say something. I know the FAC wasn't going to pass, but I think it would have been a much better idea to leave it open. This article sat at peer review for more than 3 months ( see here) and only received two reviews (and I think I had to initiate a trade review to get at least one of those). By comparison I got four unsolicited reviews in less than 2 weeks at FAC. More importantly my reviewers had not reached a consensus about the best ways to move forward. One thought the article should have a sub-section on military prisons, one did not, one person thought the History section should be entirely rewritten, though nobody else commented on it etc. At this stage there's no clear consensus on how to move forward with the article. I'm going to renominate it for peer review, mostly because if I don't the fact that I didn't may get brought up against me at the next FAC for this article, but I anticipate about as much interest in the new peer review as the old one, so I don't see any major improvements coming out of it. Anyway I guess what I'm saying is I really think the goal of FAC shouldn't be to just put stars in the corner, rather it should be to just improve articles in general. I mean, I don't care if it wasn't going to pass. It was getting better and now it's just going to go back to stagnating because very few editors comment on peer reviews. Freikorp ( talk) 03:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello. A few days ago, I posted a question here asking why you closed my John Adams FAC so soon. Since you did not respond then, I'm wondering if you would do so now. Thank you. Display name 99 ( talk) 11:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in ( here), I'll talk about this below - but first:
The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:
{{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}}
- if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.{{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}}
- if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.
I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.
So, I've decided to create " WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.
We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!
And... that's it!
I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Re "Also, anyone who wants to collaborate on a proposal to nuke ITN and DYK permanently, let me know." I would strongly support such an effort, and would be happy to look over a draft of said proposal and offer suggestions. Alas, I am dealing with health issues of a family member and wouldn't be able to put a lot of time into such an effort. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. All the problems you have with the article had been taken care of expect sourcing. Should all the sources be looked at? I can tell you that any information I added is properly cite and paraphrased. LittleJerry ( talk) 21:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd like clarification on this. It is my understanding that a user's talk page should ONLY be used for discussing unblock attempts while blocked, and not to request edits from other users. Please help me understand where it says the latter is allowed. -- Tarage ( talk) 19:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
You applied indefinite semi-protection to Talk:Autism more than 5 years ago. Is there any reason why it can't now been unprotected? -- David Biddulph ( talk) 11:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Andy, just checking in re this conversation; with Sarastro1 inactive this month, would you be able to take a look? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to help, I am grateful, and while it probably seems like a stupid question--what is a PMC? Can you tell how I ended up with two different ones since I used the template and since I'm pretty sure I just filled it in once? I have been on Wp about a year and a half, and there is still more that I don't know than I do know. I apologize for what must seem like obvious nonsense to you. Even with your knowledge and skill, it will be a full day just getting ref #8 fixed--which I still don't know how to do--and there are 150 of them. I appreciate any suggestions. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 02:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Part of lack of focus on FAC is also the quagmire that is all these daughter lion articles. I feel the main page ( lion) is under control but the forking is out of control. Am trying to reign it in with proposed mergers etc. but then you get to see how low traffic areas struggle to get a consensus happening. Sigh... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It's funny, areas I edit in are generally pretty quiet but there are some contentious groups of articles, including the largest stars, the most poisonous snakes, largest eagles, and...lions.....sigh... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Just chiming in here Laser brain, but after seeing the talk page at lion, does it seem like the behavior problems are escalating? I'll admit I've gone cross-eyed trying to figure out what's all going on at big cat articles too. I've run into Leo1pard at AfD's and seen some pointy behavior already to the point I thought a topic ban might be needed, but I didn't realize how much more of a mess was going on outside of the snapshot I'd seen. I'll admit I don't have the energy right now to pull things together for an ANI, so I figured I'd pose the question here since it looks like you maybe have a better read on whether things are getting worse or just settling into a dull roar that us periphery watchers just don't want to deal with right now. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Laser brain - an approach from me may be unwelcome at present, and I quite understand that. But I did want to say I think you handled a very challenging situation very well and I see no reason at all for you to consider resigning. Best regards. KJP1 ( talk) 17:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I see that you recently blocked IP 66.69.132.230 following a good-faith but misguided systematic bypassing of redirects. 66.25.201.147 now appears to be swimming in the same duckpond and may need a watchful eye. Thanks, Certes ( talk) 21:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Laser brain. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I've done the tweaks for Joseph Bishara - mostly getting rid of the score/d repetition, but a couple of other minor ones too. In terms of the structure, I think you've got it about right, given the level of information available. I tend to let the content determine the sectioning, and this is about how I would have done it with the same amount of info.
It's one of those cases where a good press article and interview could change the whole article by building up the early life with some decent background information on the man and his music. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 09:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Austral season's greetings |
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
Hello Laser brain: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 07:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Your summation here was a bit vaguer than usual. How do you suggest I proceed? Thanks. Homeostasis07 ( talk) 19:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I found you on the volunteers Peer Review list of music section. I wanted to ask you if it would be possible to check this discography. Eurohunter ( talk) 20:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
Thanks for your useful comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Becky Lynch/archive1. ImmortalWizard (chat) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC) |
Thank you for your help last year, including the FA work leading to a tricentenary appearance! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
You are amazing for preventing vandalism. Inalol ( talk) 19:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
For your work on Mark XIV bomb sight you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
All issues at the FAC are now resolved and there are a few supports.
I'm rusty with the process. What happens with the FAC nomination now? Does it sit for a set period of time before being reviewed by one of the coordinators?
Please excuse the question.
Thanks -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Dweller: Hey there! At this time it's just a matter of when one of us makes the next pass through the list on the lookout for things that are ready for promotion. We'll assess the existing comments and consensus, ensure the proper image and source reviews are in place and resolved, etc. -- Laser brain (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you listed yourself (or was listed) as a volunteer at Peer review. If possible, could you take a look at the article 1989 (Taylor Swift album) and give some input? Thanks very much, HĐ ( talk) 04:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Would it be prudent to block Mr Fink ( talk) 15:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
for a while, considering that it's the same user as Douglas Markatop whom you just blocked?--Dude, were you going to leave your comments or not?! ;) No, seriously, it's been over a week since you said you were going to weigh in on the FAC, so I wanted to check in. I'm worried that the article is going to fail yet again because of lack of reviews, so it'd be really really great if you chimed in soon. Thanks for your willingness to do so. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 05:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I hope all is well. I currently have Sinking of SS Princess Alice with seven supports, no opposes and a clean bill of health in terms of sources and images (it's been running over three weeks). Would you be OK if I added a second nom that came out of PR yesterday? Many thanks - SchroCat ( talk) 15:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, that didn't take long... It would not have occurred to me to nominate National Popular Vote Interstate Compact for featured status, but now that it failed, I wonder what is wrong with it. Could you perhaps briefly elaborate? KarlFrei ( talk) 07:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
He just doesn't get it. [2] Doug Weller talk 07:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
Would you be amenable to reopening The Infinity Gauntlet's FAC? The month's warning was given in March 18, but it's already closed (even though I was going there to help with the review).
Thanks very much!
@ Argento Surfer: -- Neopeius ( talk) 20:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-xpm-1997-08-19-9708190347-story.html
Crawlspace here. Dont know how to correctly communicate yet. Still learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawlspace ( talk • contribs)
99721829Max ( talk) 03:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what you said in my talk page. 99721829Max ( talk) 03:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, based on your closing comments here, I do want to ask for some helpful suggestions—the other comments were useful, like peer reviews themselves, which I'm grateful for because when I did put the article out for peer review (asking specifically for style/ce help, because I know that's where it's lacking), only minor things came back. I also worry about GOCE because of how obscure the topic is; some of the editors are great, whilst some aren't afraid to vivisection an article and I wouldn't want anything lost. There doesn't seem to be much interest in old Venezuelan film on Wikipedia, but if you know of other avenues for style help beyond the comments you already gave, I'd really appreciate them. Thank you, Kingsif ( talk) 01:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if I could get your feedback on a new article I put through AFC, Draft:Trimaco, Inc.. I really appreciated your help and advice with the NRG Energy article and want to make sure I am following the correct process for a paid editor. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for improving the article? Thanks, Kelsey246! ( talk) 22:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Laser brain, I noticed you were listed as a volunteer on this page, so I thought maybe you could give John Denver's article a look. He is an iconic musician and it would be nice to nominate his article for GA in the near future. I have been editing citations, but I'm not really experienced enough to spot smaller details. Your resistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, NightBag10 ( talk) 13:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Why on earth did you archive this? There is an ongoing conversation with an issue I’m trying to resolve. This is the second time you have closed a nomination of this article when there were conversations active within the last week, and Jo-Jo Eumerus and literally started this discussion, which was ongoing, only a week ago to get the ball rolling. Last time you did this the guy who was starting a review never responded to attempts to re-engage, and then I had to wait another two weeks to re-nominate it. Now, after this being shut down in the middle of discussion, I have to wait weeks again after spending a month waiting for someone to comment at all? I don’t see how this helps, especially on an article that was inches away from passing in the first run. Toa Nidhiki05 17:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey. Do you think that the lion article may be too large. I reduced it from over 172,000 to 168,008 but is it still bigger than tiger (158,840) and elephant (145,126). Wolf was recently reduced to 118,239 from over 170,000 to prepare for a possible FAC. LittleJerry ( talk) 18:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Laser brain (or anyone else??), I have a draft of an article that I would love some advice on, particularly in terms of notability. Would you please take a look? I've had no edits yet, so please assume good intention. Thanks! Albus89 ( talk) 15:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Albus89/sandbox/Griffin_Anthony
Laser brain , thanks so much for the advice! I appreciate your time. Albus89 ( talk) 18:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll move this here as the "restrictions", which I've suddenly realised, may include speaking about IB in general in particular discussions, but then confusingly, go on to say that I can speak about them in general in general discussions. Anyway, you ask why do people keep starting IB discussions? In short, because they can. ArbCom are complicit in this continued disruption as they have never addressed the problem. They allow for people on the pro-IB side of the argument to be as disruptive as they damned well like; people like the editor you've seen on Kubrick refuse to take no for an answer, are allowed to start discussion after discussion after discussion in the hope they get the answer they want, and put on a passive-aggressive, faux display of pleasantry. As far as ArbCom are concerned, it's far easier, as I've said with regards to Eric at Moors murders, to deal with the result rather than the cause which is why I find myself being limited to just one comment, while HAL and people like them continue to disrupt the project. Hope all things are good with you. Cassianto Talk 06:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Every now and then, I look at the discussion, sooo tempted to go but determined (for my peace of mind) not to. Just facts: It has been said "This article was written about 4 years ago, it's not had a box since then.". The article was created in 2001, had an infobox from 2005, and looked like this in 2015. I have no time to check for how much longer. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
An apparently "new user", according to Gerda, who seemed very quick to welcome them after three very productive years, has just happened upon the Kubrick RfC by way of "coincidence". So not only has this RfC been undermined by HAL333's blatant canvassing, there's also now the possibility of socking taking place. And here are the rally cries on reddit. Cassianto Talk 11:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your support in my recent unsuccessful RfA. Your words were much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC) |
one of the better comments I've seen throughout this mess. — Ched ( talk) 00:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler was the only one opposing Mullum Malarum's FAC. Everyone else was in favour of it, including Mr rnddude who withdrew without giving a verdict. Fowler's actions were widely criticised, so how can his lone views be considered consensus? -- Kailash29792 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I’m just a tad over a month in on my nom for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almost There (album)/archive3 and I was wondering if there was any input you could give about its chances at this point. It has four supports and no opposes and the sample issue resolved, so I’m wondering if I need to see out more feedback or if it’s fine to wait it out at this point. I’d rather not have to go through a fourth FAC so better to know sooner rather than later, right? If you can’t give an answer that’s fine, just figured I’d ask. Toa Nidhiki05 20:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Laser brain, I hope you are well. I'm looking to get a source review for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2019 Tour Championship/archive1 but been a little unsuccessful. Do you know who I might be able to sweet talk/badger for a review for this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I had pinged you earlier to comment here, you got time? -- Kailash29792 (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Clara Schumann just had her bicentenary of birth, and I did what I could the day before to improve. One thing I didn't like was that she was called Clara throughout, which is somewhat reasonable having to mention her more famous husband again and again, but I think is still disrespectful. I'd like you to go over it, sort of an unofficial peer rewiew, if I can interest you. (GAN is open, in case you - or someone watching - have more time.) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
If you wish to continue discussing Eric Corbett and his work, you can now freely do so here. Due to the quantity and quality of his work, there will be many times when he and his work needs to be re-evaluated, discussed. I intend this page to remain active as long as Eric’s own page is protected and/ or censored. I shall moderate the page, but other than archiving when necessary I will only remove comments which are abusive or insulting. Anything goes, Eric was an undeniably controversial figure who drew differing opinions, but so long as the language is acceptable and polite, I will let all comments stand. Giano (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Image | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
You've probably gotten some of these Featured Article Medals for your writing. This one is for your work as a coord, with my thanks for your devotion, competence and good sense. It's awardable to people who have helped with three or more FAs ... so I think you and Ian qualify (awarded jointly). - Dank ( push to talk) 02:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC) |
Your block of I am your lord and saviour hit four apparently unrelated users (which I checked using the Editor Interaction Analyser. The specific users were KNHaw, Nuke87654, GeoffCapp, and Carrite. This is really surprising to me. I've never seen four users hit by a single autoblock before. -- Yamla ( talk) 15:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I hope all is well. I currently have this at FAC (it's been running for three weeks and has seven supports plus image and source reviews cleared). Would you mind if I added a second nom? No worries if you'd rather I wait for a bit longer. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 13:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
You have at least one supporter for this. - SchroCat ( talk) 23:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Dearest Laser, good luck to the most deserving Arb candidate. I look forward to seeing you do more of what you already do so well in so many ways; it is hard to imagine a better fit or more qualified person, and I suspect you will find the work most rewarding. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Enes bi ( talk) 14:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
maybe you have missed it. I left a follow up question at your Q&A. Leaky caldron ( talk) 11:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Andy. I have a follow-up question for you that is now up on your candidate question page for the 2019 ACE. It relates to your first edit at WP (Jan. 23, 2008) and whether you had other previous accounts at WP. Please do attend to it, it is important. Thank you. —tim //// Carrite ( talk) 17:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for dropping out, it was the correct decision. Sorry if the tone was excessively harsh, but the clock was ticking until voting began and there was no indication that you were going to venture back to answer any further questions. One must admit that the precedent of "winning by ignoring" was set with a 125-0 result in May 2009. All the best. —tim /// Carrite ( talk) 03:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
G'day Andy, sorry to see your withdrawal. FWIW, I reckon you would have made a good Arb, and we need content-focussed people on the committee. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Andy, I just noticed your withdrawal. You were my first pick; I was thrilled to see your name on the list. As long as I've known you (a decade or so), I've been impressed with your cool, level-headedness, your fairness, your clue, the way you and all the FAC coords I've ever known go about your business, quietly and without complaint, adding to value the project each and every day with zero drama. In my view you're the perfect candidate for the committee. I've not logged in for a few days or a week and haven't looked at the candidate questions so have no idea what happened here, but whatever caused your withdrawal, I'm sorry it happened. We need unity and we need strong candidates or there will be more problems down the road. Anyway, enough words, I just wanted to leave you a note. I never thank you enough, anyway, for all you do. So thanks for all your work and thanks for being willing to step up. I'm sure I'll be seeing you around. Victoria ( tk) 01:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Also gutted to see this: you were my first choice too. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm really saddened to see this. As Victoria has said above, you were easily the best candidate up for nomination. It's a dark day for the future of this failing project and is another nail in its coffin. Cassianto Talk 08:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Victoriaearle and others, thanks for the kind words. It really was just some introspection about the time commitment. A friend emailed me and expressed in a more polite manner that answering the candidate questions in a timely fashion is important. I realized that I live in a world where unless a building is burning down, there's nothing that can't wait for me to go to a beer festival for two days. Carrite has nothing to do with it, and if I couldn't handle an inquiry like his on my talk page, I couldn't very well claim to have a suitable disposition for a arbitrator either. -- Laser brain (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Awww, this really is a shame. I would've been more than happy to support your nomination, especially considering those outstanding mediation skills of yours that I've only just now discovered... Homeostasis07 ( talk/ contributions) 02:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear Laser brain, I understand that it is normally impossible to present two articles at FAC concurrently, however Ian Rose indicated in a recent review [3] that this is possible if [the first article is] clearly getting close to promotion (i.e. it's had its source review, and several reviewers have indicated support for promotion) then you can ask a coord for leave to nominate another article. I believe this is the case currently with Userkaf which has already received 3 supports and a source review and is now in the Older Nominations section at FAC. Thus, I was wondering if it would be acceptable that I submit Sahure at FAC now ? Iry-Hor ( talk) 09:57, 19 November 2019 (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. |
Maybe, just maybe I find your "house keeping" to be controversial! lol (talk page stalker) Crash Under ride 14:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
People with level heads are always needed here-in both admin and non-admin capacities. Hope you'll take a little time out and consider coming back. We hope ( talk) 15:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
FYI, per the ANI discussion, User:RickinBaltimore has unblocked Cassianto. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
(all said above.) Anmccaff ( talk) 16:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to deal with this edit, and I'm hoping you might give me advice. I carefully checked the sources, and then removed unsourced content. Should I revert, and get into an edit war over unsourced content? Go to ANI? Report this one revert as edit waring? This editor habitually adds unsourced content, and the pattern seems to be that I tag their talk page with another "final warning", and nothing happens. Thanks for your input. Magnolia677 ( talk) 00:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I saw that you left but shamefully didn't write then to say please come back. Events in the last few days have persuaded me that I ought to. I'd like to try to persuade you that administrators are not usually "held on a special platter". I've been blocked four times since I became an admin, and have only just avoided a fifth. I hope the example of my long block log can demonstrate to you that sometimes admins do get their just desserts. When they don't, it is a failure of individuals not the project. Best wishes, DrKay ( talk) 19:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Gojira (band), an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Oh, yeah, you left... Hope you're doing well. All the best, Drmies ( talk) 14:59, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Laser brain. 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)
Just saw this pop up on my watchlist. Hoping that the project is lucky enough to see you returning to the project for good, but don't want to get people's hopes up. Either way, hope all is well. ceran thor 04:58, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
You already know how pleased I am to see you back, Andy... Now if you're looking to review something, I'd welcome your input on this FAC... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 22:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
I know I said it over there but I'll say it here too - It's great to have you back! :), Happy editing, – Davey2010 Talk 16:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC) |
![]() | |
Four years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Merry Christmas Laser brain!!
Hi Laser brain, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia!
,
–
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year
13:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and best wishes in all things! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
I just thought that the finger looked like a reproduction organ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltomas2003 ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Dear Laserbrain, The Reason why I nominated Tokyo Mirage Sessions FE is because I felt like all around it was deserving of a TFA, I want to understand why you removed by featured article nominations, it feels like a slap to the face. Can you please tell me why? Eltomas2003 ( talk) 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Why do I have to be a major contributor to an article in order for it to be a FA candidate, also lets be friends! Eltomas2003 ( talk) 16:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
I saw this comment of yours; wanted to respond but did not want to flood Ceoil's talk page any further. Just want to say I share many of your sentiments. I thought it was silly for Ceoil to edit war, but perhaps it's the natural response to warnings in general. Your work is always appreciated. Thank you. From a silent admirer, Alex Shih ( talk) 05:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello can you please help Daniel Genis writer about the Pavle Stanimirovic page very important if you can help so you can make the page better and for it not to get taken down . John of #%%$ Is on a war path and it's personal. Please object and contact Daniel Genius please . Thank you a friend of a friend. Chateaux Margo ( talk) 15:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I see you also left for an extended time. I am pretty much gone for good, although occasionally real life forces me to rub internet shoulders with another Wikipedia outrage, and I briefly entertain the notion that I can just pop in for a moment and fix the issue. After beating my head on the wall, I come back to my senses :)
From what happened to Ceoil, it looks like participation must be way down, and besides the age-old problems with the admin corps, there seems to be a new standard in both clerks and arbs.
I forgot my old yahoo password, so have another email, but hope you are well! Heck, if you can still stomach the shenanigans, you should probably be an arb-- the newcomers can learn a lot from you! Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Laser Brain,
I recently spent a bit of time with the Joseph Bishara entry. You went an undid all my updates. Let me walk you through the why I did the changes.
- Occupations: Since Bishara works in both the music and film industry, it is necessary to identify him as a music producer as it is very different from a film producer. Changing Actor to Creature Performer is to clarify that he is monster costume operator, not one of the extras in the background.
- Citations: The change to the citation style allow the visual editor to correctly add in new citations. The citation style of the page is not the most current format used on Wikipedia. It will cause issues as new contributors add material to the page.
- Yesterday's Tear: Yesterday's Tears is a song by Zakk Wylde ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4EILN3dVZA). Yesterday's Tear (no "s") was Bishara's band ( https://www.discogs.com/artist/4246062-Yesterdays-Tear) that was latter renamed Drown
- Exploring vs Improvising some: Improvisation has the connotation of Jazz when it comes to music. The musicians did not jazz it up but they did experiment within Bishara's figures and systems. So the word "improvise" is inaccurate and misleading.
- Demon: Bishara's official crew credit for The Conjuring 2 identifies him as "Demon" not winged creature ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3065204/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast identifying) ( https://www.popsugar.com/entertainment/Who-Plays-Demon-Conjuring-2-41604276?stream_view=1#photo-41604289).
I am going to undo your actions in reference to the above as these edits improve the functionality and accuracy of the entry. SyrLA ( talk) 21:32, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Laser Brain,
Thank for accepting my contribution to the Bishara's entry. And also your patience with the process.
I was thrilled that you included the credit of "Demon". I looked at your original source and noted that they incorrectly stated the role as "Winged Creature". I was at a bit of an impasse but your solution was wonderfully stated.
Thank you again, SyrLA ( talk) 19:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Was that necessary? I already left a warning on his page in my own words and there haven't been any reverts since then. Templates tend to piss people off. MaxBrowne ( talk) 03:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
Why delete edits to an article where even the source article that has been cited for viewer ratings admits that the figure is improbable? As I stated in the article, if you add up the populations of all the countries the concert was broadcast to then you reach a figure in excess of 1.5 billion, but you cannot reasonably expect every single person in a country to own a TV set, and of those that did at the time not everyone tuned in to watch the concert. The figure of 1.5 billion therefore must be considered dubious (albeit should be left on the page with a citation to that effect). By removing edits to the contrary you're flying in the face of common sense, not to mention ignoring the very source material that is currently used to 'prove' the viewer ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.138.35 ( talk) 11:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.
Thank you!
... it is a delight to see you back editing again. I hope all is well. Cheers – SchroCat ( talk) 14:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
I replied to your post on my talk page. Senor Cuete ( talk) 18:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
As a recent participant in the discussion over at the Stanley Kubrick talk page, I wanted to discuss the possibility of an RfC on the inclusion of a by-default-collapsed infobox. I brought this here because I believe asking it at the talk page until ready to present something as an RfC would be counterproductive at this point as there is too much hot blood over there at the moment.
The idea about a collapsed infobox was a considerable part of the last RfC on the topic, and suggested as a future avenue for discussion. The general idea is that many people who want an infobox will be satisfied by one that is collapsed, and those that oppose an infobox for asthetic reasons essentially get their wish. You had a different idea, about an infobox being a "magnet for those wishing to introduce unsourced parameters" and I think we could address this by proposing that only relevant and directly sourced parameters be added to a by-default-collapsed infobox.
What do you think of this idea and do you think it is a possible avenue to find a compromise for this article? — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 05:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
This is new territory for me. On one hand, I feel like ignoring it, but socking is a serious charge. One day, I might like to make the discography a Featured list candidate and a charge like this on the talk page may put some off. Also, more broadly, this may be a case of WP:NOTHERE. Any ideas (AN personal sanctions, demand a retraction, etc.)? — Ojorojo ( talk) 20:09, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
You might be interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Borodino class battlecruiser/archive2 after opposing the first nom back in '10.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 22:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.
If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.
Hello Laser Brain,
I´m sorry for not explaining my edit. The reason I removed the part saying that adding an extension was "too expensive" is that, in the very next sentence, it is made clear that an extension was added. This clearly indicates that the reason the extension was not added straight away was not because it was too expensive, as that would have meant that no extension could be added (on account of it being too expensive). It was merely indicative of the fact that the priorities were not with safety at that moment. Since that time two extensions have been added, enabling that airport to be used by wide body aircraft. I´ll leave it up to you to decide if those extension were made for safety reasons or to enable those bigger air planes. One thing is for sure, whatever the reason, the extension wasn´t "too expensive" after all.... I have edited again to say that an extension was "very expensive", I hope that has your approval, and if not, that you will give me your side of the argument before removing my edit.
Kind regards, God-Himself ( talk) 09:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
This is a rather embarrassing question. I'm having trouble formatting the name of a new article. I can't seem to put a portion of the article's title in italics, as per the typical IUPAC nomenclature (the page is for a chemical compound). I've added a link (still red) to the compound on the page for Benzene, under Benzene derivatives.
Thanks.
ThreePhaseAC ( talk) 04:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Italicized'' part of page title}}
will display as "Italicized part of page title". --
Izno (
talk)
16:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)It's already been closed, Andy. Perhaps it was too difficult too answer. Cassianto Talk 18:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed your block of User:PerhapsXarb. This seems very harsh. The editor looks like a well-meaning, constructive but sometimes misguided newbie, not someone "Clearly not here to contribute to the encyclopedia". I presume (but feel free to correct me) that the edits to Talk:Stanley Kubrick are what caused the block (they are what caused me to notice the editor), but wanting an infobox (or not wanting an infobox) are not signs of someone "not here to contribute", ceryainly not when their other edits are actual contributions and useful suggestions (again, considering they are a newbie). Of course, if they would be a sock of some known troll, then a bock would be justified, but then a clearer block summary would have helped.
Can you please reconsider the block and/or explain it? Fram ( talk) 12:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for this catch. I completely misread and thought I was on featured topics for some reason. Sorry about that!
Sock
(tock talk)
17:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
( [1]) -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 15:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm requesting that you undo the closing at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Friends_(Beach_Boys_album)/archive1. Most of the issues that JG66 brought up were immediately addressed. Their only remaining concerns was to perhaps add a detail about the album cover (it is unknown whether there is even anything to add) and to reorganize the citation style. We don't need two weeks to revise the books citations (the task is about 30 minutes at best) and I was actually waiting for one more editor to voice an opinion before going through with it.--- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 04:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
addendum Completed revising the citation style...-- Ilovetopaint ( talk) 05:19, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
—SerialNumber54129 paranoia / cheap sh*t room 13:13, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
That couldn't have been easy. Whatever happened, at least one person besides me told the truth. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 19:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm still working through the issues. Please don't archive it just yet. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 15:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello again! Thank you for the help with the source review with my current FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lady Blue (TV series)/archive1). I believe that it is ready for promotion as it has already received an image review and source review and a fair amount of commentary. I was wondering in this circumstance, if I could put up another FAC, or if I should wait. I completely understand if it is not advisable, but I just wanted to check in about this. Thank you in advance, and have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 ( talk) 20:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Laser Brain,
I made that edit because the timeline reflect that Mick played bass in the mid-2000's and I believe the page for the album "A Bigger Bang" also reflects this.
Thanks! EPBeatles ( talk) 23:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
i made a compromise edit for now on the Nine inch nails article. you can revert the edit if you disagree with the edit. we'll have the compromise edit until we reach a consensus on the talk page. I'll start the talk page discussion soon once i'm done with a few things. Statik N ( talk) 01:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I submitted the article for copyediting but haven't gotten a response yet. LittleJerry ( talk) 02:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi there. Look I'm not mad or anything but I just want to say something. I know the FAC wasn't going to pass, but I think it would have been a much better idea to leave it open. This article sat at peer review for more than 3 months ( see here) and only received two reviews (and I think I had to initiate a trade review to get at least one of those). By comparison I got four unsolicited reviews in less than 2 weeks at FAC. More importantly my reviewers had not reached a consensus about the best ways to move forward. One thought the article should have a sub-section on military prisons, one did not, one person thought the History section should be entirely rewritten, though nobody else commented on it etc. At this stage there's no clear consensus on how to move forward with the article. I'm going to renominate it for peer review, mostly because if I don't the fact that I didn't may get brought up against me at the next FAC for this article, but I anticipate about as much interest in the new peer review as the old one, so I don't see any major improvements coming out of it. Anyway I guess what I'm saying is I really think the goal of FAC shouldn't be to just put stars in the corner, rather it should be to just improve articles in general. I mean, I don't care if it wasn't going to pass. It was getting better and now it's just going to go back to stagnating because very few editors comment on peer reviews. Freikorp ( talk) 03:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello. A few days ago, I posted a question here asking why you closed my John Adams FAC so soon. Since you did not respond then, I'm wondering if you would do so now. Thank you. Display name 99 ( talk) 11:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Hello to all! I do not intend to write a regular peer review newsletter but there does occasionally come a time when those interested in contributing to peer review should be contacted, and now is one. I've mailed this out to everyone on the peer review volunteers list, and some editors that have contributed to past discussions. Apologies if I've left you off or contacted you and you didn't want it. Next time there is a newsletter / mass message it will be opt in ( here), I'll talk about this below - but first:
The list is here in case you've forgotten: WP:PRV. Kadane has kindly offered to create a bot that will ping editors on the volunteers list with unanswered reviews in their chosen subject areas every so often. You can choose the time interval by changing the "contact" parameter. Options are "never", "monthly", "quarterly", "halfyearly", and "annually". For example:
{{PRV|JohnSmith|History of engineering|contact=monthly}}
- if placed in the "History" section, JohnSmith will receive an automatic update every month about unanswered peer reviews relating to history.{{PRV|JaneSmith|Mesopotamian geography, Norwegian fjords|contact=annually}}
- if placed in the "Geography" section, JaneSmith will receive an automatic update every yearly about unanswered peer reviews in the geography area.We can at this stage only use the broad peer review section titles to guide what reviews you'd like, but that's better than nothing! You can also set an interest in multiple separate subject areas that will be updated at different times.
I don't think we need a WikiProject with a giant bureaucracy nor all sorts of whiz-bang features. However over the last few years I've found there are times when it would have been useful to have a list of editors that would like to contribute to discussions about the peer review process (e.g. instructions, layout, automation, simplification etc.). Also, it can get kind of lonely on the talk page as I am (correct me if I'm wrong) the only regular contributor, with most editors moving on after 6 - 12 months.
So, I've decided to create " WikiProject Peer review". If you'd like to contribute to the WikiProject, or make yourself available for future newsletters or contact, please add yourself to the list of members.
We plan to do some advertising of peer review, to let editors know about it and how to volunteer to help, at a couple of different venues (Signpost, Village pump, Teahouse etc.) - but have been waiting until we get this bot + WikiProject set up so we have a way to help interested editors make more enduring contributions. So consider yourself forewarned!
And... that's it!
I wish you all well on your Wikivoyages, Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Re "Also, anyone who wants to collaborate on a proposal to nuke ITN and DYK permanently, let me know." I would strongly support such an effort, and would be happy to look over a draft of said proposal and offer suggestions. Alas, I am dealing with health issues of a family member and wouldn't be able to put a lot of time into such an effort. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello. All the problems you have with the article had been taken care of expect sourcing. Should all the sources be looked at? I can tell you that any information I added is properly cite and paraphrased. LittleJerry ( talk) 21:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I'd like clarification on this. It is my understanding that a user's talk page should ONLY be used for discussing unblock attempts while blocked, and not to request edits from other users. Please help me understand where it says the latter is allowed. -- Tarage ( talk) 19:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
You applied indefinite semi-protection to Talk:Autism more than 5 years ago. Is there any reason why it can't now been unprotected? -- David Biddulph ( talk) 11:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Andy, just checking in re this conversation; with Sarastro1 inactive this month, would you be able to take a look? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 12:09, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to help, I am grateful, and while it probably seems like a stupid question--what is a PMC? Can you tell how I ended up with two different ones since I used the template and since I'm pretty sure I just filled it in once? I have been on Wp about a year and a half, and there is still more that I don't know than I do know. I apologize for what must seem like obvious nonsense to you. Even with your knowledge and skill, it will be a full day just getting ref #8 fixed--which I still don't know how to do--and there are 150 of them. I appreciate any suggestions. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 02:53, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Part of lack of focus on FAC is also the quagmire that is all these daughter lion articles. I feel the main page ( lion) is under control but the forking is out of control. Am trying to reign it in with proposed mergers etc. but then you get to see how low traffic areas struggle to get a consensus happening. Sigh... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
It's funny, areas I edit in are generally pretty quiet but there are some contentious groups of articles, including the largest stars, the most poisonous snakes, largest eagles, and...lions.....sigh... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Just chiming in here Laser brain, but after seeing the talk page at lion, does it seem like the behavior problems are escalating? I'll admit I've gone cross-eyed trying to figure out what's all going on at big cat articles too. I've run into Leo1pard at AfD's and seen some pointy behavior already to the point I thought a topic ban might be needed, but I didn't realize how much more of a mess was going on outside of the snapshot I'd seen. I'll admit I don't have the energy right now to pull things together for an ANI, so I figured I'd pose the question here since it looks like you maybe have a better read on whether things are getting worse or just settling into a dull roar that us periphery watchers just don't want to deal with right now. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 22:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Laser brain - an approach from me may be unwelcome at present, and I quite understand that. But I did want to say I think you handled a very challenging situation very well and I see no reason at all for you to consider resigning. Best regards. KJP1 ( talk) 17:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I see that you recently blocked IP 66.69.132.230 following a good-faith but misguided systematic bypassing of redirects. 66.25.201.147 now appears to be swimming in the same duckpond and may need a watchful eye. Thanks, Certes ( talk) 21:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Laser brain. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I've done the tweaks for Joseph Bishara - mostly getting rid of the score/d repetition, but a couple of other minor ones too. In terms of the structure, I think you've got it about right, given the level of information available. I tend to let the content determine the sectioning, and this is about how I would have done it with the same amount of info.
It's one of those cases where a good press article and interview could change the whole article by building up the early life with some decent background information on the man and his music. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 09:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you! |
![]() |
|
![]() |
Happy Saturnalia | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC) |
![]() | |
Five years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Austral season's greetings |
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC) |
Hello Laser brain: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 07:54, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Your summation here was a bit vaguer than usual. How do you suggest I proceed? Thanks. Homeostasis07 ( talk) 19:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I found you on the volunteers Peer Review list of music section. I wanted to ask you if it would be possible to check this discography. Eurohunter ( talk) 20:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diligence |
Thanks for your useful comments on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Becky Lynch/archive1. ImmortalWizard (chat) 19:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC) |
Thank you for your help last year, including the FA work leading to a tricentenary appearance! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 17:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
You are amazing for preventing vandalism. Inalol ( talk) 19:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
The WikiChevrons | |
For your work on Mark XIV bomb sight you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:23, 4 January 2019 (UTC) |
All issues at the FAC are now resolved and there are a few supports.
I'm rusty with the process. What happens with the FAC nomination now? Does it sit for a set period of time before being reviewed by one of the coordinators?
Please excuse the question.
Thanks -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 11:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Dweller: Hey there! At this time it's just a matter of when one of us makes the next pass through the list on the lookout for things that are ready for promotion. We'll assess the existing comments and consensus, ensure the proper image and source reviews are in place and resolved, etc. -- Laser brain (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you listed yourself (or was listed) as a volunteer at Peer review. If possible, could you take a look at the article 1989 (Taylor Swift album) and give some input? Thanks very much, HĐ ( talk) 04:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Would it be prudent to block Mr Fink ( talk) 15:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
for a while, considering that it's the same user as Douglas Markatop whom you just blocked?--Dude, were you going to leave your comments or not?! ;) No, seriously, it's been over a week since you said you were going to weigh in on the FAC, so I wanted to check in. I'm worried that the article is going to fail yet again because of lack of reviews, so it'd be really really great if you chimed in soon. Thanks for your willingness to do so. Christine (Figureskatingfan) ( talk) 05:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I hope all is well. I currently have Sinking of SS Princess Alice with seven supports, no opposes and a clean bill of health in terms of sources and images (it's been running over three weeks). Would you be OK if I added a second nom that came out of PR yesterday? Many thanks - SchroCat ( talk) 15:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, that didn't take long... It would not have occurred to me to nominate National Popular Vote Interstate Compact for featured status, but now that it failed, I wonder what is wrong with it. Could you perhaps briefly elaborate? KarlFrei ( talk) 07:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
He just doesn't get it. [2] Doug Weller talk 07:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello!
Would you be amenable to reopening The Infinity Gauntlet's FAC? The month's warning was given in March 18, but it's already closed (even though I was going there to help with the review).
Thanks very much!
@ Argento Surfer: -- Neopeius ( talk) 20:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-xpm-1997-08-19-9708190347-story.html
Crawlspace here. Dont know how to correctly communicate yet. Still learning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawlspace ( talk • contribs)
99721829Max ( talk) 03:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what you said in my talk page. 99721829Max ( talk) 03:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, based on your closing comments here, I do want to ask for some helpful suggestions—the other comments were useful, like peer reviews themselves, which I'm grateful for because when I did put the article out for peer review (asking specifically for style/ce help, because I know that's where it's lacking), only minor things came back. I also worry about GOCE because of how obscure the topic is; some of the editors are great, whilst some aren't afraid to vivisection an article and I wouldn't want anything lost. There doesn't seem to be much interest in old Venezuelan film on Wikipedia, but if you know of other avenues for style help beyond the comments you already gave, I'd really appreciate them. Thank you, Kingsif ( talk) 01:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering if I could get your feedback on a new article I put through AFC, Draft:Trimaco, Inc.. I really appreciated your help and advice with the NRG Energy article and want to make sure I am following the correct process for a paid editor. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for improving the article? Thanks, Kelsey246! ( talk) 22:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Laser brain, I noticed you were listed as a volunteer on this page, so I thought maybe you could give John Denver's article a look. He is an iconic musician and it would be nice to nominate his article for GA in the near future. I have been editing citations, but I'm not really experienced enough to spot smaller details. Your resistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, NightBag10 ( talk) 13:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Why on earth did you archive this? There is an ongoing conversation with an issue I’m trying to resolve. This is the second time you have closed a nomination of this article when there were conversations active within the last week, and Jo-Jo Eumerus and literally started this discussion, which was ongoing, only a week ago to get the ball rolling. Last time you did this the guy who was starting a review never responded to attempts to re-engage, and then I had to wait another two weeks to re-nominate it. Now, after this being shut down in the middle of discussion, I have to wait weeks again after spending a month waiting for someone to comment at all? I don’t see how this helps, especially on an article that was inches away from passing in the first run. Toa Nidhiki05 17:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hey. Do you think that the lion article may be too large. I reduced it from over 172,000 to 168,008 but is it still bigger than tiger (158,840) and elephant (145,126). Wolf was recently reduced to 118,239 from over 170,000 to prepare for a possible FAC. LittleJerry ( talk) 18:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Laser brain (or anyone else??), I have a draft of an article that I would love some advice on, particularly in terms of notability. Would you please take a look? I've had no edits yet, so please assume good intention. Thanks! Albus89 ( talk) 15:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Albus89/sandbox/Griffin_Anthony
Laser brain , thanks so much for the advice! I appreciate your time. Albus89 ( talk) 18:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll move this here as the "restrictions", which I've suddenly realised, may include speaking about IB in general in particular discussions, but then confusingly, go on to say that I can speak about them in general in general discussions. Anyway, you ask why do people keep starting IB discussions? In short, because they can. ArbCom are complicit in this continued disruption as they have never addressed the problem. They allow for people on the pro-IB side of the argument to be as disruptive as they damned well like; people like the editor you've seen on Kubrick refuse to take no for an answer, are allowed to start discussion after discussion after discussion in the hope they get the answer they want, and put on a passive-aggressive, faux display of pleasantry. As far as ArbCom are concerned, it's far easier, as I've said with regards to Eric at Moors murders, to deal with the result rather than the cause which is why I find myself being limited to just one comment, while HAL and people like them continue to disrupt the project. Hope all things are good with you. Cassianto Talk 06:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Every now and then, I look at the discussion, sooo tempted to go but determined (for my peace of mind) not to. Just facts: It has been said "This article was written about 4 years ago, it's not had a box since then.". The article was created in 2001, had an infobox from 2005, and looked like this in 2015. I have no time to check for how much longer. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:46, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
An apparently "new user", according to Gerda, who seemed very quick to welcome them after three very productive years, has just happened upon the Kubrick RfC by way of "coincidence". So not only has this RfC been undermined by HAL333's blatant canvassing, there's also now the possibility of socking taking place. And here are the rally cries on reddit. Cassianto Talk 11:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for your support in my recent unsuccessful RfA. Your words were much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC) |
one of the better comments I've seen throughout this mess. — Ched ( talk) 00:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler was the only one opposing Mullum Malarum's FAC. Everyone else was in favour of it, including Mr rnddude who withdrew without giving a verdict. Fowler's actions were widely criticised, so how can his lone views be considered consensus? -- Kailash29792 (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I’m just a tad over a month in on my nom for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Almost There (album)/archive3 and I was wondering if there was any input you could give about its chances at this point. It has four supports and no opposes and the sample issue resolved, so I’m wondering if I need to see out more feedback or if it’s fine to wait it out at this point. I’d rather not have to go through a fourth FAC so better to know sooner rather than later, right? If you can’t give an answer that’s fine, just figured I’d ask. Toa Nidhiki05 20:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Laser brain, I hope you are well. I'm looking to get a source review for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2019 Tour Championship/archive1 but been a little unsuccessful. Do you know who I might be able to sweet talk/badger for a review for this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 13:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I had pinged you earlier to comment here, you got time? -- Kailash29792 (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Clara Schumann just had her bicentenary of birth, and I did what I could the day before to improve. One thing I didn't like was that she was called Clara throughout, which is somewhat reasonable having to mention her more famous husband again and again, but I think is still disrespectful. I'd like you to go over it, sort of an unofficial peer rewiew, if I can interest you. (GAN is open, in case you - or someone watching - have more time.) -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 19:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
If you wish to continue discussing Eric Corbett and his work, you can now freely do so here. Due to the quantity and quality of his work, there will be many times when he and his work needs to be re-evaluated, discussed. I intend this page to remain active as long as Eric’s own page is protected and/ or censored. I shall moderate the page, but other than archiving when necessary I will only remove comments which are abusive or insulting. Anything goes, Eric was an undeniably controversial figure who drew differing opinions, but so long as the language is acceptable and polite, I will let all comments stand. Giano (talk) 10:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Image | Description |
---|---|
![]() |
You've probably gotten some of these Featured Article Medals for your writing. This one is for your work as a coord, with my thanks for your devotion, competence and good sense. It's awardable to people who have helped with three or more FAs ... so I think you and Ian qualify (awarded jointly). - Dank ( push to talk) 02:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC) |
Your block of I am your lord and saviour hit four apparently unrelated users (which I checked using the Editor Interaction Analyser. The specific users were KNHaw, Nuke87654, GeoffCapp, and Carrite. This is really surprising to me. I've never seen four users hit by a single autoblock before. -- Yamla ( talk) 15:51, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Andy, I hope all is well. I currently have this at FAC (it's been running for three weeks and has seven supports plus image and source reviews cleared). Would you mind if I added a second nom? No worries if you'd rather I wait for a bit longer. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 13:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
You have at least one supporter for this. - SchroCat ( talk) 23:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Dearest Laser, good luck to the most deserving Arb candidate. I look forward to seeing you do more of what you already do so well in so many ways; it is hard to imagine a better fit or more qualified person, and I suspect you will find the work most rewarding. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Enes bi ( talk) 14:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
maybe you have missed it. I left a follow up question at your Q&A. Leaky caldron ( talk) 11:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Andy. I have a follow-up question for you that is now up on your candidate question page for the 2019 ACE. It relates to your first edit at WP (Jan. 23, 2008) and whether you had other previous accounts at WP. Please do attend to it, it is important. Thank you. —tim //// Carrite ( talk) 17:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for dropping out, it was the correct decision. Sorry if the tone was excessively harsh, but the clock was ticking until voting began and there was no indication that you were going to venture back to answer any further questions. One must admit that the precedent of "winning by ignoring" was set with a 125-0 result in May 2009. All the best. —tim /// Carrite ( talk) 03:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
G'day Andy, sorry to see your withdrawal. FWIW, I reckon you would have made a good Arb, and we need content-focussed people on the committee. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 00:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Andy, I just noticed your withdrawal. You were my first pick; I was thrilled to see your name on the list. As long as I've known you (a decade or so), I've been impressed with your cool, level-headedness, your fairness, your clue, the way you and all the FAC coords I've ever known go about your business, quietly and without complaint, adding to value the project each and every day with zero drama. In my view you're the perfect candidate for the committee. I've not logged in for a few days or a week and haven't looked at the candidate questions so have no idea what happened here, but whatever caused your withdrawal, I'm sorry it happened. We need unity and we need strong candidates or there will be more problems down the road. Anyway, enough words, I just wanted to leave you a note. I never thank you enough, anyway, for all you do. So thanks for all your work and thanks for being willing to step up. I'm sure I'll be seeing you around. Victoria ( tk) 01:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Also gutted to see this: you were my first choice too. - SchroCat ( talk) 08:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm really saddened to see this. As Victoria has said above, you were easily the best candidate up for nomination. It's a dark day for the future of this failing project and is another nail in its coffin. Cassianto Talk 08:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Victoriaearle and others, thanks for the kind words. It really was just some introspection about the time commitment. A friend emailed me and expressed in a more polite manner that answering the candidate questions in a timely fashion is important. I realized that I live in a world where unless a building is burning down, there's nothing that can't wait for me to go to a beer festival for two days. Carrite has nothing to do with it, and if I couldn't handle an inquiry like his on my talk page, I couldn't very well claim to have a suitable disposition for a arbitrator either. -- Laser brain (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Awww, this really is a shame. I would've been more than happy to support your nomination, especially considering those outstanding mediation skills of yours that I've only just now discovered... Homeostasis07 ( talk/ contributions) 02:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Dear Laser brain, I understand that it is normally impossible to present two articles at FAC concurrently, however Ian Rose indicated in a recent review [3] that this is possible if [the first article is] clearly getting close to promotion (i.e. it's had its source review, and several reviewers have indicated support for promotion) then you can ask a coord for leave to nominate another article. I believe this is the case currently with Userkaf which has already received 3 supports and a source review and is now in the Older Nominations section at FAC. Thus, I was wondering if it would be acceptable that I submit Sahure at FAC now ? Iry-Hor ( talk) 09:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)