![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Happy New Year, Prhartcom! Have a prosperous, productive, and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. ツ Have a great New Year in 2016! ツ With kind regards; Pdebee. (talk)( guestbook) 17:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Have a prosperous, productive, and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! -- Tenebrae ( talk)
Hi i didn't know where to talk to you at i am wanting to create that wiki. Because its a show i am makeing on youtube and i was wanting to have a wiki of it to tell about my Characters and episodes and movies and stuff. How do i do this what you said in my talk say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia? please tell me so i can keep the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goody2shoes3590 ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wishbringer screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly ( talk) 02:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC) -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zork screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly ( talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC) -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you can help me with the harv references. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Prhart..., appreciate your irony: "not notable" is the aim of anonymous writing; glad to see I've acheived that much~-- Shastakath ( talk) 19:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Here; [ My Tharkay edit] Greetings :-)
Hi Phartcom, I see you have reverted my edits on Tintin in Tibet. Pity. I know you are sincere because I have seen this knee-jerk behaviour before in dozens of inexperienced students who have communication problems. The Tintin article in those changed passages is unintelligible. And because you know the story well, and are proud of your version (which is quite a good basis, actually) you probably genuinely do not realise why there is a problem. Writing intelligibly is something me and you and most others have to learn by years of experience, it hardly comes naturally to anybody. Except if your name is Shakespeare or Daniel Defoe.
But there is a short cut which I found handy when I was younger, and which you can apply immediately - ask a friend to read both versions, first yours then mine, and keep your mouth tightly shut while he/she is reading the two versions. And then ask which of the two is clearer. You will then berate your friend, and then after about 48 hours to 2 weeks you will change your mind and reinstall my version. And as you get older, this period of decision time shortens to minutes. And that is when you become a really good editor and team player. Bonne chance, mon ami. I shall not return to this subject, so do not trouble yourself replying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.120.95.90 ( talk) 21:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've gotten everything else in your GA nomination. The only thing I'm confused on is your issue over the ACM/CMA awards. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Prhartcom, new subtopics should not be added to the GAN page without both consensus on the talk page and, once that is achieved, coordination with Legoktm, who operates Legobot, so the bot is programmed to handle the categories. That's how we've always done it in the past: proposed subtopics for GAN, discussed, and coordinated with the bot owner.
Even if people use one of the new subtopics you've just added in their GA nominations, the bot won't recognize them, so the nominations will never appear on the GAN page and hence never be reviewed.
Under the circcumstances, you can understand why I'm reverting the addition of these new subtopics immediately, before people see them. If I'd thought you'd be adding categories to the GAN page—you didn't mention this possibility—I would have mentioned this issue sooner. BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Prhartcom, the changes you made to the WP:GAN page yesterday have affected the StatisticianBot reports. Where the bot used to provide links to the subtopics where articles could be found, it is now providing links to the topic instead. This has affected the /backlog/items pink box on the GAN page. The difference can be seen in this change from earlier today, which modified the links in the /backlog/items light-red box at the top of the GAN page. The same change seems also to have affected the entire GA report page. If you can't figure out which of your edits to WP:GAN has caused this change in behavior, perhaps you could work with the bot owner, Dvandersluis, to identify what the bot is expecting, or to update the bot to work with the changes you've made. As it notes on his talk page, he rarely checks Wikipedia these days, so you'll need to email him to get his attention. It may take him a couple of days to respond, but I've found him to be helpful when we've had issues with the Report page in the past. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, just wanted to let you know that I'm aware of the issue due to @ Prhartcom's email, so thanks for that. I short version is that since the headers are now formatted differently, and StatisticianBot doesn't know to look for the new format of headers, it is only reporting on the categories it finds, which are the level 2 headings. Luckily since those were retained, the bot will at least still report something in the meantime. I'm not sure if I'll be able to get to it this week, but I have provided Prhartcom with some instructions on how he might be able to help via email. I have also added a notice to both the top and bottom of User talk:StatisticianBot to keep people aware in case someone tries to report the bug. — Daniel Vandersluis( talk) 21:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Prhartcom,
I saw you this article from the GA list. The nominator really got topic banned? I didn't even notice. In any case, would you mind reinstating it? I made some edits to the article myself and im often involved in Georgia-related articles. I'm willing to take over the nominator role over if he actually got topic banned, so that the article may still be reviewed for GA. Is that alright with you? Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 22:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Prhartcom. Those comics character infobox appear to have been custom-made specifically for US comics, where dozens of characters are in leagues and alliances and all that stuff. Such parameters don't really make sense in comics like Tintin. Also, linking to a list in an infobox is counter-productive since the whole point of an infobox is to give the info at a glance, isn't it? Consistency is desirable, but not essential on Wikipedia and it's better not to fill parameters just because they exist. Snowy is just a dog who follows his master, he has no "team or affiliation" ! Mezigue ( talk) 14:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Prhartcom. On December 26 you removed my addition (
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Adventures_of_Tintin&oldid=817082246) of a very old Tintin cartoon film based on L'affair du Tournesol that was missing. This film exists, so I am a little disappointed that you just removed the addition without even giving a comment. I don't know how to find a decent reference - maybe you can help me do that. I did, however, put an IMDB link in my edit comment. Here it is a again from 1964,
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0270386/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3
I realize that the english title I submitted is probably not even the right one, maybe you can find the right one for me. Also the film has a french-exclusive article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Affaire_Tournesol_(t%C3%A9l%C3%A9film)
Best regards, Mathias Blicher, Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.93.171 ( talk) 12:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip on the category for religious architecture Good Articles. The Jokhang temple makes much more sense there! Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 18:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Good work on getting Mary Lou Bruner's profound views into the permanent, never to be erased record. I really had a good laugh reading references. This article could be big as she would be a good fit as Trump's VP pick. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 04:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mary Lou Bruner 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/Mary Lou Bruner until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Bearcat ( talk) 21:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
What's your rationale for removing the section on Pinball for modern usages of the Pepper's ghost illusion? Your edit summary says it was "described below", but that was the only mention of pinball in the article. You also mention unsourced additions, but the linked Wikipedia article was sourced. I've even added a second source explicitly referencing Pepper's ghost. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, about six months ago we had a discussion on how to handle a GA review which was in my view inadequate and substandard. Now the same editor, 333-blue, has reviewed the Milos Raonic article and passed it as GA at Talk:Milos Raonic/GA1. Again this review is my opinion completely inadequate and it seems to me our GA process does not have an effective way of dealing with these kind of substandard reviews once they have been concluded. The article itself is fine but the review, and therefore the GA process, is not. Can you give me your opinion on this particular review and advice on how to handle this? Thx. -- Wolbo ( talk) 23:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Prhartcom. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Eric Corbett reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: ). This is about an article you have edited recently, though the report doesn't mention your name. Perhaps you have an idea about how to resolve the dispute. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
As I've already pointed out to you, the statement is already referenced in the body, and any number of other sources exist to back it up. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Stevenmitchell, read the whole article or do a CLT-F and type "cave". You'll see it mentioned twice. The first is in the lead section, which you tried to flag. The second is in the body of the article, where, like everything else in the article body, is correctly cited to its source. Lead sections should actually not include footnotes to citations, since it is a summary only of what is stated and cited further down. Prhartcom ( talk) 21:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Prhart..., appreciate your irony: "not notable" is the aim of anonymous writing; glad to see I've acheived that much~-- Shastakath ( talk) 19:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Doombot —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Yamamoto Ichiro ( talk) 16:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Prhartcom. As a novice reviewer, I still have few doubts about reviewing GAs and am writing an essay where your answers will be summarised. Considering you seem to be experienced and a WikiProject GA watcher, would you kindly answer some questions I have regarding them in general? Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 13:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
You should request semi-protection on your user page (and move protection, too). This will stop vandalism from easily occurring on your user page. Just thought I'd let you know ;-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Helping Hand Barnstar | |
In recognition of your kindness and patience with Zppix despite their resentment. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC) |
Hi, Prharcom. I guess I just figured you had the page watchlisted, but I see after a few days you haven't been by Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#Request for Comment: Quotes and italics on the issue of quote marks vs. italics for features. I know we might have different views, but since you were part of the initial discussion at Little Annie Fanny, it thought it was important that you weigh in at the RfC. With regards, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Prhartcom. It's been a while, how's everything with you? I've listed the article for PR
here as I wish to take it to FA. Feel free to leave comments. Thanks.
—
Ssven2
Speak 2 me 01:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Kim Davis (county clerk) you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Midnightblueowl --
Midnightblueowl (
talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I would recommend input on the DRV it looks like you are for a split. The information must be mentioned somewhere if not on the main article then a side article. Valoem talk contrib 02:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for holding off to avoid the edit conflicts! I'm done for now. As you'll see, I've made a number of edits and left a note on the talk page as well. All the best -- Neutrality talk 16:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Prhartcom. Result of a typo. I was in the process of asking for this to be deleted but you beat me to it.-- Toploftical ( talk) 17:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The article
Kim Davis (county clerk) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Midnightblueowl --
Midnightblueowl (
talk) 11:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Prhartcom. I clicked through to your user page from the GA Nominations Talk page and noticed you were a network security professional, so I thought you might be interested in collaborating on the Blue Coat Systems page, where I have a COI (see here), as it is an IT security company. Right now I'm still digging into the source material and getting knowledgeable. CorporateM ( Talk) 00:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Back in winter as part of an admin dispute about the Jesus page, you said, "Now, I agree with you if you are saying scholarly commentary is being prevented from being added to the historical section when it goes against another editor's faith. No editor should let their faith cloud their adherence to policy. Remind us of any diffs where that is happening and I, for one, will side with you." I'm trying to improve the historical section, and predictably I'm getting pushback from an editor who works with a pro-christian slant. Here's a diff where he removes the mainstream view of the virgin birth related to Isaiah 7:14 (which had been requested on the talk page by two other editors) and restores disputed material that represents a minority, Christian-friendly view. In fact, the minority view is so out of the mainstream that leading experts say it's not even history. You said you would help. I'm just trying to get better history into the history section.
Three Talk threads on this topic: virgin birth discussion, minority views of virgin birth, mavericks.
Thanks in advance. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 15:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Prhartcom - You seem like you know what you are doing in WP. Perhaps you can help. In consultation with other friends of Martin Gardner, it has been agreed that we should change the name of the page Gathering 4 Gardner, Inc. to the simpler and less legalistic name Gathering 4 Gardner. The problem is that the latter name is a redirect page to the first name. I know from experience that if I try to manually switch the contents of the two pages I would be breaking a rule having to do with transclusions or something. Can you help me? Everyone who has worked on the articles agrees. To be explicit: We want to have the second name be the name of the article, and the first name to be a redirect to it. Can you do this or, if not, advise me?-- Toploftical ( talk) 18:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
Tintin | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 564 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Four years now! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:ShakleeLogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Prhartcom, I’ve just been having another look at your entry at WP:ORCP. It may well be time for you to take a serious decision now. Let me know what you think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
In this edit you removed a wikilink with the edit summary: "Remove link to nothing." If you are planning to continue to be a quality control volunteer let me urge you to make sure you do so in compliance with the wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
We do not routinely remove redlinks -- wikilinks to "nothing". Policy only recommends removing them when the quality control volunteer has given meaningful thought as to whether the link in question is a plausible topic for a wikipedia article. This decision cannot be based on the volunteer's gut instinct. The volunteer has to be skilled enough to do a web search, and know how to interpret it, before they can reach an informed conclusion as to whether the redlink is implausible.
I reverted your first reckless edit.
You made a second edit, with the edit summary: "At least spell his name correctly".
I am concerned, first, because this is not an acknowledgement of your original error; second, because this edit also seems disruptive. I have added content that quoted, summarized or paraphrased Vladeck to some other articles -- but not this one. Some other contributor chose to use "Steve Vladeck", as opposed to "Stephen Vladeck". Personally, I have spelled his name as "Stephen", but "Steve" is also a perfectly defensible choice. Vladeck must be a nice guy, because other RS, who comment on his opinions, are comfortable to refer to him, in print, as "Steve Vladeck".
So, I reverted your second edit that also seemed reckless.
I don't know how long you have been contributing to the wikipedia. My contribution dates back to the golden age. Since then the wikipedia has been in a slow motion crisis. In 2007 there was a huge defection of the kind of contributors who add new intellectual content, or keep the existing intellectual content up to date. Articles are no longer being kept up to date. Lots of people who are concerned over this defection say they don't know what triggered it. I think the explanation is simple. Policy changes, and the introduction of overly poorful overly powerful automated editing tools changed the balance of catabolism and anabolism, making it too easy for the hard work of those who contribute or maintain intellectual content to do their work. Far too many quality control volunteers are extremely uncivil. Why should a hard-working volunteer keep working hard to keep the wikipedia up to date if that requires butting heads with quality control volunteers who make drive-by edits, like removing wikilinks without even doing a meaningful web search first, to see whether the link in question is to a topic that could plausibly be a policy compliant article?
Of course no one objects to well thought out quality control efforts, done with regard to being civil to the good faith contributors who added the content. But it is essential for those quality control volunteers to do their best to be civil. And it is essential for them to do their best to perform their activities carefully, and in conformance to policy and guideline.
If you really think you have a good reason to spell his name differently, why not offer that reason on the talk page? Geo Swan ( talk) 15:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Prhartcom. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2017! |
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!
![]() |
Hi, just random, but about this editor, he has a tendancy to assume bad faith. You once warned him too, [ [1]], only for him to revert without replying. He did it several times too, example [ [2]]. Recently, he did it again [ [3]] [ [4]]. I have beought this to you because you were the earliest one I know to warn him. So, do you think he must be spoken to? No one ever gives him the severe warnings even if he freely gives them, and he has continued to frequently act in bad faith. 2600:1:F184:3FBA:1D5E:E6EC:4B47:1622 ( talk) 16:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC) I am not out to attack him nor hurt him. I just want your opinion on what should be done about his attitude toward IPs and newcomers who are not always vandals. And frequently calling even vandlas names in edit summaries is not good either. 2600:1:F184:3FBA:1D5E:E6EC:4B47:1622 ( talk) 16:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Prhartcom,
I hope that you're well. I'm contacting you, as suggested by Dweller, to hear from some community members who believed I was not yet ready last year for adminship.
As an SPI clerk, the tools would be immensely helpful for facilitating my work (blocking socks, seeing deleted edits, merging cases), which is why - after further prodding from colleagues - I am preparing for another run. Since last year, I've gotten involved with AFD, and have maintained a lengthy CSD log. Among other work, I've written an article and gotten it to GA, gotten Operation Infinite Reach to GA and then FA, and heavily expanded Carré d'As IV incident to GA status (all three also got DYKs). I've also gotten involved with copyediting for the WP:GOCE. My SPI work includes nearly 200 cases filed for registered users alone. Some more details may be found here.
I would truly value your opinion on this.
Thanks,
GAB gab 21:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm bringing this here, as that page continues to test my sanity. Again, thank you for the kind words, and my apologies for having been somewhat of a dick to you. Tact has never been my strong suit. I don't suffer fools gladly, and I definitely don't suffer trolls gladly. You, as it turns out, are neither. I was obviously quite wrong about you and your intentions. Sadly, I don't think I can say the same for some of the other regulars at that article. YMMV; in fact I'm fairly sure it does. Joefromrandb ( talk) 05:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Prhartcom. 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)
![]() |
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018! |
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!
![]() |
![]() |
Happy Holidays |
From Stave one of Dickens
A Christmas Carol So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD| Talk 23:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC) |
How nice! MarnetteD, you were essentially the first editor I met on Wikipedia. I remember it was around this time: Sock puppet Ah, those were the days. :-D Happy Christmas to you as well, old friend! — Prhart com♥ 02:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending!
—
Ssven2
Looking at you, kid 10:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others. This case will address the behaviour of Joefromrandb and editors who have interacted poorly with them. However, on opening, who those editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence on the relevant page about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review. Evidence about editors already listed can be posted directly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 11, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 ( talk) 18:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. We would like to remind you that the case is still open and evidence will be accepted until 11 February. Evidence may be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence according to the instructions of this page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 ( talk) 12:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Prhartcom, could you please add some examples of the tone in the edit summaries you refer to? That is, the "unmistakable tone of a person who considers themselves far superior to everyone else; that no one deserves his respect". Thank you, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Prhartcom. 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)
![]() |
Happy Christmas! | |
Hello P, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD| Talk 19:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |
![]() |
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2019! |
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!
![]() |
Hello, I'm
Masumrezarock100. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to
User_talk:Prhartcom. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. You should always be polite regardless whom you are communicating with.
This type of edit summary is unhelpful and childish.
Masum Reza
📞 09:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Happy New Year, Prhartcom! Have a prosperous, productive, and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. ツ Have a great New Year in 2016! ツ With kind regards; Pdebee. (talk)( guestbook) 17:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Have a prosperous, productive, and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia! -- Tenebrae ( talk)
Hi i didn't know where to talk to you at i am wanting to create that wiki. Because its a show i am makeing on youtube and i was wanting to have a wiki of it to tell about my Characters and episodes and movies and stuff. How do i do this what you said in my talk say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia? please tell me so i can keep the wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goody2shoes3590 ( talk • contribs) 16:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wishbringer screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly ( talk) 02:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC) -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zork screenshot.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly ( talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC) -- Marchjuly ( talk) 02:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, you can help me with the harv references. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 23:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Prhart..., appreciate your irony: "not notable" is the aim of anonymous writing; glad to see I've acheived that much~-- Shastakath ( talk) 19:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC) Here; [ My Tharkay edit] Greetings :-)
Hi Phartcom, I see you have reverted my edits on Tintin in Tibet. Pity. I know you are sincere because I have seen this knee-jerk behaviour before in dozens of inexperienced students who have communication problems. The Tintin article in those changed passages is unintelligible. And because you know the story well, and are proud of your version (which is quite a good basis, actually) you probably genuinely do not realise why there is a problem. Writing intelligibly is something me and you and most others have to learn by years of experience, it hardly comes naturally to anybody. Except if your name is Shakespeare or Daniel Defoe.
But there is a short cut which I found handy when I was younger, and which you can apply immediately - ask a friend to read both versions, first yours then mine, and keep your mouth tightly shut while he/she is reading the two versions. And then ask which of the two is clearer. You will then berate your friend, and then after about 48 hours to 2 weeks you will change your mind and reinstall my version. And as you get older, this period of decision time shortens to minutes. And that is when you become a really good editor and team player. Bonne chance, mon ami. I shall not return to this subject, so do not trouble yourself replying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.120.95.90 ( talk) 21:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I've gotten everything else in your GA nomination. The only thing I'm confused on is your issue over the ACM/CMA awards. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Prhartcom, new subtopics should not be added to the GAN page without both consensus on the talk page and, once that is achieved, coordination with Legoktm, who operates Legobot, so the bot is programmed to handle the categories. That's how we've always done it in the past: proposed subtopics for GAN, discussed, and coordinated with the bot owner.
Even if people use one of the new subtopics you've just added in their GA nominations, the bot won't recognize them, so the nominations will never appear on the GAN page and hence never be reviewed.
Under the circcumstances, you can understand why I'm reverting the addition of these new subtopics immediately, before people see them. If I'd thought you'd be adding categories to the GAN page—you didn't mention this possibility—I would have mentioned this issue sooner. BlueMoonset ( talk) 16:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Prhartcom, the changes you made to the WP:GAN page yesterday have affected the StatisticianBot reports. Where the bot used to provide links to the subtopics where articles could be found, it is now providing links to the topic instead. This has affected the /backlog/items pink box on the GAN page. The difference can be seen in this change from earlier today, which modified the links in the /backlog/items light-red box at the top of the GAN page. The same change seems also to have affected the entire GA report page. If you can't figure out which of your edits to WP:GAN has caused this change in behavior, perhaps you could work with the bot owner, Dvandersluis, to identify what the bot is expecting, or to update the bot to work with the changes you've made. As it notes on his talk page, he rarely checks Wikipedia these days, so you'll need to email him to get his attention. It may take him a couple of days to respond, but I've found him to be helpful when we've had issues with the Report page in the past. BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, just wanted to let you know that I'm aware of the issue due to @ Prhartcom's email, so thanks for that. I short version is that since the headers are now formatted differently, and StatisticianBot doesn't know to look for the new format of headers, it is only reporting on the categories it finds, which are the level 2 headings. Luckily since those were retained, the bot will at least still report something in the meantime. I'm not sure if I'll be able to get to it this week, but I have provided Prhartcom with some instructions on how he might be able to help via email. I have also added a notice to both the top and bottom of User talk:StatisticianBot to keep people aware in case someone tries to report the bug. — Daniel Vandersluis( talk) 21:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Prhartcom,
I saw you this article from the GA list. The nominator really got topic banned? I didn't even notice. In any case, would you mind reinstating it? I made some edits to the article myself and im often involved in Georgia-related articles. I'm willing to take over the nominator role over if he actually got topic banned, so that the article may still be reviewed for GA. Is that alright with you? Bests - LouisAragon ( talk) 22:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Prhartcom. Those comics character infobox appear to have been custom-made specifically for US comics, where dozens of characters are in leagues and alliances and all that stuff. Such parameters don't really make sense in comics like Tintin. Also, linking to a list in an infobox is counter-productive since the whole point of an infobox is to give the info at a glance, isn't it? Consistency is desirable, but not essential on Wikipedia and it's better not to fill parameters just because they exist. Snowy is just a dog who follows his master, he has no "team or affiliation" ! Mezigue ( talk) 14:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Prhartcom. On December 26 you removed my addition (
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Adventures_of_Tintin&oldid=817082246) of a very old Tintin cartoon film based on L'affair du Tournesol that was missing. This film exists, so I am a little disappointed that you just removed the addition without even giving a comment. I don't know how to find a decent reference - maybe you can help me do that. I did, however, put an IMDB link in my edit comment. Here it is a again from 1964,
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0270386/?ref_=fn_al_tt_3
I realize that the english title I submitted is probably not even the right one, maybe you can find the right one for me. Also the film has a french-exclusive article https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Affaire_Tournesol_(t%C3%A9l%C3%A9film)
Best regards, Mathias Blicher, Denmark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.93.171 ( talk) 12:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip on the category for religious architecture Good Articles. The Jokhang temple makes much more sense there! Rachel Helps (BYU) ( talk) 18:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Good work on getting Mary Lou Bruner's profound views into the permanent, never to be erased record. I really had a good laugh reading references. This article could be big as she would be a good fit as Trump's VP pick. HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 04:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mary Lou Bruner 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/Mary Lou Bruner until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Bearcat ( talk) 21:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
What's your rationale for removing the section on Pinball for modern usages of the Pepper's ghost illusion? Your edit summary says it was "described below", but that was the only mention of pinball in the article. You also mention unsourced additions, but the linked Wikipedia article was sourced. I've even added a second source explicitly referencing Pepper's ghost. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, about six months ago we had a discussion on how to handle a GA review which was in my view inadequate and substandard. Now the same editor, 333-blue, has reviewed the Milos Raonic article and passed it as GA at Talk:Milos Raonic/GA1. Again this review is my opinion completely inadequate and it seems to me our GA process does not have an effective way of dealing with these kind of substandard reviews once they have been concluded. The article itself is fine but the review, and therefore the GA process, is not. Can you give me your opinion on this particular review and advice on how to handle this? Thx. -- Wolbo ( talk) 23:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello Prhartcom. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Eric Corbett reported by User:Curly Turkey (Result: ). This is about an article you have edited recently, though the report doesn't mention your name. Perhaps you have an idea about how to resolve the dispute. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 03:02, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
As I've already pointed out to you, the statement is already referenced in the body, and any number of other sources exist to back it up. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Stevenmitchell, read the whole article or do a CLT-F and type "cave". You'll see it mentioned twice. The first is in the lead section, which you tried to flag. The second is in the body of the article, where, like everything else in the article body, is correctly cited to its source. Lead sections should actually not include footnotes to citations, since it is a summary only of what is stated and cited further down. Prhartcom ( talk) 21:40, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Prhart..., appreciate your irony: "not notable" is the aim of anonymous writing; glad to see I've acheived that much~-- Shastakath ( talk) 19:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing— Doombot —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Yamamoto Ichiro ( talk) 16:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi Prhartcom. As a novice reviewer, I still have few doubts about reviewing GAs and am writing an essay where your answers will be summarised. Considering you seem to be experienced and a WikiProject GA watcher, would you kindly answer some questions I have regarding them in general? Ugog Nizdast ( talk) 13:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
You should request semi-protection on your user page (and move protection, too). This will stop vandalism from easily occurring on your user page. Just thought I'd let you know ;-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 16:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Helping Hand Barnstar | |
In recognition of your kindness and patience with Zppix despite their resentment. Sam Sailor Talk! 17:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC) |
Hi, Prharcom. I guess I just figured you had the page watchlisted, but I see after a few days you haven't been by Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#Request for Comment: Quotes and italics on the issue of quote marks vs. italics for features. I know we might have different views, but since you were part of the initial discussion at Little Annie Fanny, it thought it was important that you weigh in at the RfC. With regards, -- Tenebrae ( talk) 18:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Prhartcom. It's been a while, how's everything with you? I've listed the article for PR
here as I wish to take it to FA. Feel free to leave comments. Thanks.
—
Ssven2
Speak 2 me 01:19, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Kim Davis (county clerk) you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Midnightblueowl --
Midnightblueowl (
talk) 19:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I would recommend input on the DRV it looks like you are for a split. The information must be mentioned somewhere if not on the main article then a side article. Valoem talk contrib 02:46, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for holding off to avoid the edit conflicts! I'm done for now. As you'll see, I've made a number of edits and left a note on the talk page as well. All the best -- Neutrality talk 16:36, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Prhartcom. Result of a typo. I was in the process of asking for this to be deleted but you beat me to it.-- Toploftical ( talk) 17:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The article
Kim Davis (county clerk) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Kim Davis (county clerk) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can
nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Midnightblueowl --
Midnightblueowl (
talk) 11:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Prhartcom. I clicked through to your user page from the GA Nominations Talk page and noticed you were a network security professional, so I thought you might be interested in collaborating on the Blue Coat Systems page, where I have a COI (see here), as it is an IT security company. Right now I'm still digging into the source material and getting knowledgeable. CorporateM ( Talk) 00:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Back in winter as part of an admin dispute about the Jesus page, you said, "Now, I agree with you if you are saying scholarly commentary is being prevented from being added to the historical section when it goes against another editor's faith. No editor should let their faith cloud their adherence to policy. Remind us of any diffs where that is happening and I, for one, will side with you." I'm trying to improve the historical section, and predictably I'm getting pushback from an editor who works with a pro-christian slant. Here's a diff where he removes the mainstream view of the virgin birth related to Isaiah 7:14 (which had been requested on the talk page by two other editors) and restores disputed material that represents a minority, Christian-friendly view. In fact, the minority view is so out of the mainstream that leading experts say it's not even history. You said you would help. I'm just trying to get better history into the history section.
Three Talk threads on this topic: virgin birth discussion, minority views of virgin birth, mavericks.
Thanks in advance. Jonathan Tweet ( talk) 15:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Prhartcom - You seem like you know what you are doing in WP. Perhaps you can help. In consultation with other friends of Martin Gardner, it has been agreed that we should change the name of the page Gathering 4 Gardner, Inc. to the simpler and less legalistic name Gathering 4 Gardner. The problem is that the latter name is a redirect page to the first name. I know from experience that if I try to manually switch the contents of the two pages I would be breaking a rule having to do with transclusions or something. Can you help me? Everyone who has worked on the articles agrees. To be explicit: We want to have the second name be the name of the article, and the first name to be a redirect to it. Can you do this or, if not, advise me?-- Toploftical ( talk) 18:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |
Tintin | |
---|---|
... you were recipient no. 564 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Four years now! -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:ShakleeLogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 17:59, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Prhartcom, I’ve just been having another look at your entry at WP:ORCP. It may well be time for you to take a serious decision now. Let me know what you think. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 07:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
In this edit you removed a wikilink with the edit summary: "Remove link to nothing." If you are planning to continue to be a quality control volunteer let me urge you to make sure you do so in compliance with the wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
We do not routinely remove redlinks -- wikilinks to "nothing". Policy only recommends removing them when the quality control volunteer has given meaningful thought as to whether the link in question is a plausible topic for a wikipedia article. This decision cannot be based on the volunteer's gut instinct. The volunteer has to be skilled enough to do a web search, and know how to interpret it, before they can reach an informed conclusion as to whether the redlink is implausible.
I reverted your first reckless edit.
You made a second edit, with the edit summary: "At least spell his name correctly".
I am concerned, first, because this is not an acknowledgement of your original error; second, because this edit also seems disruptive. I have added content that quoted, summarized or paraphrased Vladeck to some other articles -- but not this one. Some other contributor chose to use "Steve Vladeck", as opposed to "Stephen Vladeck". Personally, I have spelled his name as "Stephen", but "Steve" is also a perfectly defensible choice. Vladeck must be a nice guy, because other RS, who comment on his opinions, are comfortable to refer to him, in print, as "Steve Vladeck".
So, I reverted your second edit that also seemed reckless.
I don't know how long you have been contributing to the wikipedia. My contribution dates back to the golden age. Since then the wikipedia has been in a slow motion crisis. In 2007 there was a huge defection of the kind of contributors who add new intellectual content, or keep the existing intellectual content up to date. Articles are no longer being kept up to date. Lots of people who are concerned over this defection say they don't know what triggered it. I think the explanation is simple. Policy changes, and the introduction of overly poorful overly powerful automated editing tools changed the balance of catabolism and anabolism, making it too easy for the hard work of those who contribute or maintain intellectual content to do their work. Far too many quality control volunteers are extremely uncivil. Why should a hard-working volunteer keep working hard to keep the wikipedia up to date if that requires butting heads with quality control volunteers who make drive-by edits, like removing wikilinks without even doing a meaningful web search first, to see whether the link in question is to a topic that could plausibly be a policy compliant article?
Of course no one objects to well thought out quality control efforts, done with regard to being civil to the good faith contributors who added the content. But it is essential for those quality control volunteers to do their best to be civil. And it is essential for them to do their best to perform their activities carefully, and in conformance to policy and guideline.
If you really think you have a good reason to spell his name differently, why not offer that reason on the talk page? Geo Swan ( talk) 15:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Prhartcom. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2017! |
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!
![]() |
Hi, just random, but about this editor, he has a tendancy to assume bad faith. You once warned him too, [ [1]], only for him to revert without replying. He did it several times too, example [ [2]]. Recently, he did it again [ [3]] [ [4]]. I have beought this to you because you were the earliest one I know to warn him. So, do you think he must be spoken to? No one ever gives him the severe warnings even if he freely gives them, and he has continued to frequently act in bad faith. 2600:1:F184:3FBA:1D5E:E6EC:4B47:1622 ( talk) 16:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC) I am not out to attack him nor hurt him. I just want your opinion on what should be done about his attitude toward IPs and newcomers who are not always vandals. And frequently calling even vandlas names in edit summaries is not good either. 2600:1:F184:3FBA:1D5E:E6EC:4B47:1622 ( talk) 16:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Prhartcom,
I hope that you're well. I'm contacting you, as suggested by Dweller, to hear from some community members who believed I was not yet ready last year for adminship.
As an SPI clerk, the tools would be immensely helpful for facilitating my work (blocking socks, seeing deleted edits, merging cases), which is why - after further prodding from colleagues - I am preparing for another run. Since last year, I've gotten involved with AFD, and have maintained a lengthy CSD log. Among other work, I've written an article and gotten it to GA, gotten Operation Infinite Reach to GA and then FA, and heavily expanded Carré d'As IV incident to GA status (all three also got DYKs). I've also gotten involved with copyediting for the WP:GOCE. My SPI work includes nearly 200 cases filed for registered users alone. Some more details may be found here.
I would truly value your opinion on this.
Thanks,
GAB gab 21:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm bringing this here, as that page continues to test my sanity. Again, thank you for the kind words, and my apologies for having been somewhat of a dick to you. Tact has never been my strong suit. I don't suffer fools gladly, and I definitely don't suffer trolls gladly. You, as it turns out, are neither. I was obviously quite wrong about you and your intentions. Sadly, I don't think I can say the same for some of the other regulars at that article. YMMV; in fact I'm fairly sure it does. Joefromrandb ( talk) 05:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Prhartcom. 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)
![]() |
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018! |
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!
![]() |
![]() |
Happy Holidays |
From Stave one of Dickens
A Christmas Carol So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD| Talk 23:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC) |
How nice! MarnetteD, you were essentially the first editor I met on Wikipedia. I remember it was around this time: Sock puppet Ah, those were the days. :-D Happy Christmas to you as well, old friend! — Prhart com♥ 02:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
May all your endeavours have a fruitful beginning and prosperous ending!
—
Ssven2
Looking at you, kid 10:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others. This case will address the behaviour of Joefromrandb and editors who have interacted poorly with them. However, on opening, who those editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence on the relevant page about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review. Evidence about editors already listed can be posted directly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 11, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 ( talk) 18:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. We would like to remind you that the case is still open and evidence will be accepted until 11 February. Evidence may be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence according to the instructions of this page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 ( talk) 12:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Prhartcom, could you please add some examples of the tone in the edit summaries you refer to? That is, the "unmistakable tone of a person who considers themselves far superior to everyone else; that no one deserves his respect". Thank you, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 09:26, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Prhartcom. 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)
![]() |
Happy Christmas! | |
Hello P, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD| Talk 19:42, 19 December 2018 (UTC) |
![]() |
We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2019! |
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless!
![]() |
Hello, I'm
Masumrezarock100. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction, such as your addition to
User_talk:Prhartcom. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. You should always be polite regardless whom you are communicating with.
This type of edit summary is unhelpful and childish.
Masum Reza
📞 09:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |