Teahouse Invitation
![]() |
Hi Pesticide1110! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Arbcom 2021 Elections voter message
Original title: Apologies
Apologies, my intention was not to offer a bad tone of any kind, simply to be clear and direct so that you avoid further problems. You don't need to reply to this and can of course remove it. 331dot ( talk) 11:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Original title: My reply to your email
Thank you for your email. You asked me to delete the redirect I created for Stelth Ulvang, following your post at the Teahouse. I am replying here as I don't see this an off-wiki matter. It's not a major problem to delete the redirect if you need me to, though you or anyone else are free to usurp the redirect yourself and insert content there about Stelth Ulvang. In effect, the current redirect serves as a placeholder, so I was trying to be helpful. Whether you choose to do this via a draft submitted to WP:AFC, or simply paste in content is up to you. That said, without requesting a technical move over redirect, you would lose the editing history, which I guess you'd probably like to keep?
But I see you've now just blanked your sandbox of the content abut Ulvang. So, could you'd kindly clarify your intentions wrt the article? I'll happily either delete the redirect, or attempt the move for you when you're ready. (I'm a new administrator here, so it's a learning curve for me, and I'll happily try to fix it for you and learn the process of retaining histories when moving). Just let me know. Nick Moyes ( talk) 16:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stelth Ulvang is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stelth Ulvang until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. scope_creep Talk 08:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully
harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stelth Ulvang, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be
blocked from editing.
This is not at all acceptable behaviour. Threatening other editors is not okay. Stop it.
Jack Frost (
talk) 03:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Pesticide1110, don't add any more to that Afd. You don't keep adding a mountain of muck. Everybody knows what your view is. Leave it be until its finished. scope_creep Talk 09:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Original title: Your sandbox translations
I have revdeleted these translations. The original documents are likely copyrighted. Copyright holders also hold copyright in translations of their works. Even if the work is public domain, Google, or whatever tool you used to machine translate it, still hold copyright in the translation. In any case, it really isn't necessary to post this here. You can just post the url of the translation from Google Translate. People can read it there just as well as they can read it in your sandbox. Spinning Spark 14:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Cheers Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 14:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
https://translate.google.com/translate?u=<url of site you want to translate>
although it's probably a good idea to check that it will translate first before you do it.
Spinning
Spark 15:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Original title: Hard to say
It's a tough call. A clear lack of WP:BEFORE in many cases. They seem to not believe in GNG, and want anything deleted that doesn't obviously meet SNG, and do no research. They fail to engage. They used to nominate lots of articles, before this still active topic ban. There was a recent string of nominations by a blocked sock-puppet, and who was the first to shout delete on almost all of them ... yeah. I don't think any were deleted in the end (though some redirected). At the same time, I'm not sure many who are closing are going to give him much weight. See also this (though that's hardly the AFD I want to die on!). Part of the problem is that any individual comment isn't so bad. But the some total is very questionable. I'm not sure I'm helping ... Nfitz ( talk) 19:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Original title: Comments at Afd
Hello, and happy 2021 to you. I wanted to reach out to you here, rather than the AfD so as not to muck up that discussion. Normally comments are not changed in deletion discussions unless one uses the strike-out feature; additional material can be added as a separate comment. This helps to preserve the discussion. After you changed your comment, it now reads a bit like I was casting an aspersion, which I was not. Netherzone ( talk) 17:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Original title: Minor thing
Hello again, hope things are well. I noticed this edit: [8]. It's fairly harmless, and unlikely to cause the downfall of WP as we know it. But per WP:REDACT, you shouldn't edit like that, editors who notice are unlikely to think it "mature". Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Recovery | |
For your improvement to Megan Smolenyak during the deletion discussion, you sure turned the article around! Netherzone ( talk) 19:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC) |
Original title: Re: De Gea
Hi, thanks for your message. I wouldn't say that the style of play section of De Gea's page was inflated or unjustified praise, seeing as everything is reliably sourced; more than anything, it related to his style before 2018, and it does note that crosses were initially a weakness of his, on which he had improved, and he did also improve with his feet and act as a sweeper for a time initially. However, given that he has struggled in all of these areas in more recent seasons, and the section does appear to be somewhat outdated, as demonstrated by statistical analyses, on top of his inconsistent performances, I have included some more recent sources and criticisms over his style, or areas in which he has declined. Best regards, Messirulez ( talk) 15:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Teahouse Invitation
![]() |
Hi Pesticide1110! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC) |
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Arbcom 2021 Elections voter message
Original title: Apologies
Apologies, my intention was not to offer a bad tone of any kind, simply to be clear and direct so that you avoid further problems. You don't need to reply to this and can of course remove it. 331dot ( talk) 11:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Original title: My reply to your email
Thank you for your email. You asked me to delete the redirect I created for Stelth Ulvang, following your post at the Teahouse. I am replying here as I don't see this an off-wiki matter. It's not a major problem to delete the redirect if you need me to, though you or anyone else are free to usurp the redirect yourself and insert content there about Stelth Ulvang. In effect, the current redirect serves as a placeholder, so I was trying to be helpful. Whether you choose to do this via a draft submitted to WP:AFC, or simply paste in content is up to you. That said, without requesting a technical move over redirect, you would lose the editing history, which I guess you'd probably like to keep?
But I see you've now just blanked your sandbox of the content abut Ulvang. So, could you'd kindly clarify your intentions wrt the article? I'll happily either delete the redirect, or attempt the move for you when you're ready. (I'm a new administrator here, so it's a learning curve for me, and I'll happily try to fix it for you and learn the process of retaining histories when moving). Just let me know. Nick Moyes ( talk) 16:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stelth Ulvang is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stelth Ulvang until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. scope_creep Talk 08:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully
harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stelth Ulvang, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be
blocked from editing.
This is not at all acceptable behaviour. Threatening other editors is not okay. Stop it.
Jack Frost (
talk) 03:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Pesticide1110, don't add any more to that Afd. You don't keep adding a mountain of muck. Everybody knows what your view is. Leave it be until its finished. scope_creep Talk 09:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Original title: Your sandbox translations
I have revdeleted these translations. The original documents are likely copyrighted. Copyright holders also hold copyright in translations of their works. Even if the work is public domain, Google, or whatever tool you used to machine translate it, still hold copyright in the translation. In any case, it really isn't necessary to post this here. You can just post the url of the translation from Google Translate. People can read it there just as well as they can read it in your sandbox. Spinning Spark 14:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Cheers Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 14:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
https://translate.google.com/translate?u=<url of site you want to translate>
although it's probably a good idea to check that it will translate first before you do it.
Spinning
Spark 15:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Original title: Hard to say
It's a tough call. A clear lack of WP:BEFORE in many cases. They seem to not believe in GNG, and want anything deleted that doesn't obviously meet SNG, and do no research. They fail to engage. They used to nominate lots of articles, before this still active topic ban. There was a recent string of nominations by a blocked sock-puppet, and who was the first to shout delete on almost all of them ... yeah. I don't think any were deleted in the end (though some redirected). At the same time, I'm not sure many who are closing are going to give him much weight. See also this (though that's hardly the AFD I want to die on!). Part of the problem is that any individual comment isn't so bad. But the some total is very questionable. I'm not sure I'm helping ... Nfitz ( talk) 19:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Original title: Comments at Afd
Hello, and happy 2021 to you. I wanted to reach out to you here, rather than the AfD so as not to muck up that discussion. Normally comments are not changed in deletion discussions unless one uses the strike-out feature; additional material can be added as a separate comment. This helps to preserve the discussion. After you changed your comment, it now reads a bit like I was casting an aspersion, which I was not. Netherzone ( talk) 17:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Original title: Minor thing
Hello again, hope things are well. I noticed this edit: [8]. It's fairly harmless, and unlikely to cause the downfall of WP as we know it. But per WP:REDACT, you shouldn't edit like that, editors who notice are unlikely to think it "mature". Happy editing! Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Recovery | |
For your improvement to Megan Smolenyak during the deletion discussion, you sure turned the article around! Netherzone ( talk) 19:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC) |
Original title: Re: De Gea
Hi, thanks for your message. I wouldn't say that the style of play section of De Gea's page was inflated or unjustified praise, seeing as everything is reliably sourced; more than anything, it related to his style before 2018, and it does note that crosses were initially a weakness of his, on which he had improved, and he did also improve with his feet and act as a sweeper for a time initially. However, given that he has struggled in all of these areas in more recent seasons, and the section does appear to be somewhat outdated, as demonstrated by statistical analyses, on top of his inconsistent performances, I have included some more recent sources and criticisms over his style, or areas in which he has declined. Best regards, Messirulez ( talk) 15:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)