![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
I responded at
the user's talk.
|
---|
Regarding the Battle of Green IslandRegarding the Battle of Green Island, Ami Ayalon, the commando commander says to an Israeli that of the 40 people who actually fought on the island, only 2, were not injured or killed, and the goal was to occupy the Green Island on the channel of the Hudson Union Society. This video Израильский эсминец Эйлат ( talk) 14:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Ami Ayalon, former Head of Israel's Secret Service Talks About Operation Bulmus 6. That's the name of the video Израильский эсминец Эйлат ( talk) 14:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC) I did the same in compliance with the neutral sources on Wikipedia, especially since this is a confession from the commando commander to the Israeli himself Израильский эсминец Эйлат ( talk) 14:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC) |
– wbm1058 ( talk) 16:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Concerning the Battle of the Green Island Blomus 6, you very much agree with the inclusion of Ami Ayalon's confession. Modern event numbering ( talk) 15:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Wbm1058. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:පණ්ඩුශාක්ය රජතුමා, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
DYK hall of fame and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 20#DYK hall of fame until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Wbm. Not sure I follow the issue with this rcat. Cleaning up the Suez (company, 1858–2008) situation is on my to-do list at the moment—will require an AWB/JWB run, a retargeting to the DAB, a month or two to make sure there's no residual pageviews, and then an RfD to delete—and maintaining ADR tags on any redirects related to that incorrect name will help in fixing it. I do regret that it happened at all; another user moved the page to mirror the frwiki demarcation, silently usurping the PTOPIC of Suez (company). I retargeted that to the DAB per standard practice and set about fixing the 100+ backlinks. I erred in not looking closely enough into the other user's titling decision. I saw that they'd used the correspong title to frwiki, but I overlooked that frwiki covers both Suez Canal Company and Suez (company, 1997–2008) in a single article, noticing that only about halfway through my dabfix efforts. All of the 1858 links do now point to the same place those links pointed to before all of this, but through an incorrect/unprintworthy redirect, yes. If your allusion to a "mess" is asking me to clean up the 1858 situation sooner rather than later, I'll get right on that, but I don't follow the issue with the ADR tag. I've seen dozens of cases before where foo-bar is an ADR for foo–bar. I think one of the AnomieBOTs tags such things out of course, in fact. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 15:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
[[Suez (company)|Suez]] has operated the concession since 1975
or similar, with sources referring to all three iterations of the company. Not to mention the somewhat confusing delineation, which imply that Suez stopped existing from 2008 to 2015, which it did not; there were actually two companies with "Suez" in the name in that timespan. There's also a lot of cross-article inconsistency. The article on
Suez (company, 1997–2008) traces the company's history back to Algemeene Nederlandsche Maatschappij ter begunstiging van de volksvlijt in 1822 (unsourced), while the article on its successors and predecessors say nothing of the sort. And then lots of bad piping in the topic area that has led to things like
this, and to the obscuring of redlinks like
Lyonnaise des Eaux . So I dunno. Do you think a SIA at
Suez (company) would be worthwhile? Would allow for a brief history section and some discussion of predecessors and spin-offs, in addition to those three. Or could do something like
List of predecessors and successors to the Suez Canal Company.Also, FWIW, I'm a fan of ADR tags, because they help avoid situations where, say, a misspelling of a song's name gets left behind as a redirect to the parent album after the song's article is created. From time to time I check
CAT:AVOID2RUPDATE and clear out the ones that accumulate, and often it's things that might have gone unnoticed for years otherwise. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
16:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Hello, Wbm1058,
I'm not sure what exactly is going on with this article, but the page has an AFD tag to a previous discussion that concluded the page should be deleted. Did you mean to start a new AFD discussion? Or should this article be deleted as a CSD G4? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Sappony is current an article about the state-recognized tribe. Why did you delete its talk page? I'm going to rebuild. Please look at the article and please don't delete the talk page again. Thank you, Yuchitown ( talk) 15:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown
#REDIRECT
Talk:Saponi
, a redirect to the talk page of a different article. Feel free to create a new talk page from scratch. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
15:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this. As far as AWB was concerned it was just an article in a list :-) Neils51 ( talk) 20:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
The article Marie D. Jones has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Lack of WP:RS. Most artistic creations do not appear to be of significant merit (failing WP:CREATIVE)
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
BriefEdits (
talk)
22:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Movenotice. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 15:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
You recently moved Sunflower to Helianthus. Please could you move it back as per the recent move discussion. Thanks. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 18:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, wbm1058. Please reconsider the position you took regarding the title of the John Lott article. You went ahead with a choice that was clearly not supported by a consensus. If this had come from just another editor, it would have been identified as a serious breach of guidelines and the editor possibly reported. But you're an administrator, and an experienced one at that. We had as near a consensus as we could possibly have in "gun rights advocate" (not my choice, but I agreedn for what it's worth), and all that remained really was the title change. Perhaps you mistook my joking reference as to who would enforce the change, i.e. to avoid another technical mistake by me, etc. You were certainly not called to resolve some outstanding impasse; there was none such. Your intervention, was, to put be clearly, a case of WP:SUPERVOTE. So, again, I ask you in good faith to reconsider. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Been noticing that the relists on the WP:RM page no longer sport the short underscores beneath the "Discuss" links. Hope this modification is on purpose and not "something gone awry". Curious, though as to why you'd remove them, because they were a telltale relist at-a-glance, and seemed useful to me. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 02:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mud Coffee 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.
You were the article's last major contributor, back in 2014, so I figured you should know. Tisnec ( talk) 17:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Outdoor products and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 3#Outdoor products until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
06:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
If a user is site banned for advocacy, socking, or disruptive behavior, aren't we still supposed to remove their edits, especially controversial ones? Atsme 💬 📧 16:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Wbm1058,
I noticed that I had converted Yinhu station into a disambiguation page recently.
The following pages link to this:
Thank you.
Aravindhan Ravikumar ( talk) 13:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that I". Heh. Disambiguation of these train stations can be annoyingly complex because of the design of the templates used in infoboxes and such. wbm1058 ( talk) 13:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi there - I'm writing regarding your closure of the
merge request for the
North Caucasian languages template.
User:DA1's statement to the effect that Having three separate Templates for the same broader language family is redundant and unhelpful as a navbox. See existing and more established precedents such as
Template:Semitic languages and
Template:Turkic languages
is fundamentally disingenuous. Unlike either the
Semitic languages or the
Turkic languages, the "North Caucasian languages" as a familial unit have not been accepted as consensus among Caucasologists and the proposal continues to be controversial (see e.g. Johanna Nichols's Nikolaev and Starostin's "North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary" and the Methodology of Long-Range Comparison: an assessment, paper presented at the 10th Biennial Non-Slavic Languages (NSL) Conference, Chicago, 8–10 May 1997).
A more apposite comparison for the North Caucasian languages would be
Nostratic or
Altaic, similarly controversial higher-level proposed family nodes which rightly do not have merged templates. Though having the separate NWC and NEC templates might be considered "redundant and unhelpful" as User:DA1 claims, the merged NC template goes beyond that into "misleading and perhaps even wrong". If I could, I'd like to request a re-evaluation of the merge decision, and a reversion to the separate templates if possible. Thanks very much :)
58.179.70.149 (
talk)
03:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Requested move/end has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿)
20:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
My request at WP:RFHM was removed without action, so now I am asking you.
Talk:Sarray has two deleted RMCD bot edits that were mistakenly moved from Sarray. Could you please get those two bot edits back to the history of the article Sarray? GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 01:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to undo a faulty closure (it was my own) on 2023 Nigerian general election, but when I went to WP:RM/CD to relist it manually, it warned me that RMCD bot will override attempts to edit the page. Should I still try manually relisting? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 13:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Why should this result in an error per Special:Diff/913468459/977902992? What was that change trying to accomplish? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 04:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
What is the criteria you are using to mass remove {{ R for convenience}}? This was a good removal given your recent bold change to the rcat (which was long overdue in my opinion). However, that reasoning is not shared with [2] [3] [4] [5].. so I have to wonder what you were actually doing here..? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 05:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Wbm1058
I'm guessing that it was this edit [6] by you which produced the flurry of Category:ISO 639 name xyz-type categories currently listed at Special:WantedCategories. Is that right?
If so, is there any guidance on how to create them? It would be handy to have them cleared before the next update of Special:WantedCategories brings in another flood of new stuff. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Update: Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 14#ISO 639 name from code templates the ISO 639 name templates were all deleted two years ago – so I can clear this from my unresolved issues list. I just belatedly looked into this after I noticed this 17 May 2022 edit to my sandbox, which was populating Category:ISO 639 name template errors. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I’ve been trying to edit the article 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya riots. However some other editors keep reverting to the original content. The original article is historically inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading. I’ve added the correct information along with links to references. Please fix this issue and ensure the article is correct and factual. Thank you CamillRose ( talk) 03:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Clovermoss. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Sub-Gaussian norm, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Clovermoss (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1100036332 – thanks. I had just restored the version that was there previously and did not notice that it included a piped target before hitting publish. DanCherek ( talk) 22:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the Erastus B. Wolcott talk page, (not the statue article) I saw that it had been deleted per G6 and I was wondering if you could let me know why exactly it was deleted. Thanks! Heeps of Wiki (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
#REDIRECT [[Talk:Erastus B. Wolcott (statue)]]
{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
}}
The article List of Grey's Anatomy home video releases has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Lacks notability. Article has no text at all, is mainly sourced to webshops, lists rather trivial info. We are WP:NOT a database of DVD releases.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
14:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Grey's Anatomy home video releases 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 until the discussion has finished.
Fram ( talk) 16:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher Education to Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education. Would you be able to help or at least advise on the move of Wikipedia:WikiProject 1000 Women in Religion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Religion? There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Talkpage template issue for WikiProject Women in Religion (was WikiProject 1000 Women in Religion). TSventon ( talk) 08:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
|importance=Low
" as the tool suggested or recommended. I see that you also successfully used the tool to make an edit before mine. If, after I fixed the links to the file maintained by a bot, as described above, you are still seeing problems with the Rater tool or anything else, let me know and describe the difference between expected and actual behavior in as much detail as you can. Bugs in Rater would be reported at
WT:RATER, but the author of that tool has not been active on Wikipedia recently. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
20:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Would you mind taking a look at U:BrownHairedGirl's activity on my talk and on this RM, and see if it violates the terms of her listing on WP:EDRC? I'm trying to avoid taking this directly to ANI, so if you agree the actions are in violation, would you either take the required action or bring it up on ANI yourself? Much obliged! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
"When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion."I'm currently juggling too many balls and to avoid dropping one I'm going to be working last-in, first-out. – wbm1058 ( talk) 12:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly.I took that advice. Be disappointed if that's how you are, but I do not wish to engage with you. UtherSRG (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I note that Wbm1058 has removed [7] from this page my reply [8] to UtherSRG, with the edit summary "my talk page is not the proper forum in which to raise administrator accountability issues with any administrator other than myself. WP:ADMINABUSE".
This is problematic. It was not my choice to use this venue for ADMINACCT; UtherSRG chose to raise the matter here, and it involves me. Secondly, my concerns relate to both UtherSRG and Wbm1058, both of whom failed not notify me. Feel free to close this discussion if you want to, but please restore my comment as part of the record.
I have no wish to continue this discussion any further, but UtherSRG has misrepresented the situation and by challenge to those misrepresentations should not be expunged. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Re Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. No harm, no foul, I guess. I just hit the space bar and saved before I caught my fingers. Didn't know it would be noticed. Thanks. — Maile ( talk)
Hi Wbm1058
Thank you for closing the State funerals RM, and for providing an extended rationale. You clearly put a lot of work into this.
Much of your extended rationale seemed sound, until it came to the point where you pronounced on consistency. As you rightly noted, I nominated 40 articles together, to ensure consistency: that was the complete set of all articles whose title began "Death and state funeral of". Yes, there is one article with a similar title, but Death and two state funerals of Kalākaua is an unusual situation of two funerals, so it will inevitably be an exception to any rule, and would require special consideration. Your claim that omitting the two-funeral exception breaks consistency among the 40 single-funeral articles seems to be at best jesuitical.
Secondly, I unequivocally and completely reject your complaint about the volume of my posts on the page, and in particular your threat to label that as uncivil and invoke sanctions. That is most unpleasant.
I note that your close makes no criticism or reproach whatsoever of the many editors whose posts made no reference at all to any policy or guidelines, contrary to WP:RMCOMMENT. That is a strange and troubling omission, particularly when your analysis of policy supports my application of it, and especially when you single my comments out for criticism. It seems quite perverse to instead criticise the editor who did repeatedly point to policy.
Criticising me for critiquing policy-free or fact-faulty comments is bad enough, but threatening me with sanctions for it is very nasty. It's not just nasty to me personally; it's a nasty threat to the whole community's ability to scrutinise contributions to consensus-forming discussions about the encyclopedia, because a glib falsehood can be asserted in one line, but deconstructing it can require many paragraphs. Applying a word- or character count threshold, as you did, has the effect of structurally biasing the discussion in favour of glib falsehoods, and against scrutiny.
See e.g. Bearcat's false 188-character assertion what they don't share is the common element of lying in state. That's central to the definition of a state funeral, and not central to the definition of a ceremonial-but-non-state funeral
I don't know whether Bearcat deliberately stated a falsehood, or whether he asserted something which he believed to be true but didn't check. And it doesn't really matter which applies, because either way it was a demonstrable falsehood -- not a misinterpretation, but an unequivocally false assertion. My reply [9] setting out the evidence was 1,826 characters, almost ten times as long as the original, and unavoidably so because setting out evidence takes a lot of word and links.
So, you reproach and threaten me because I posted to repeatedly challenge the lack of a policy basis, and because I posted at length to disprove a falsehood asserted by an admin whose failures here were a failure in their duty uphold high standards.
I really really really beg of you to stop and take a long hard look at what this does to Wikipedia. I cannot know your intention, and I will not attempt to guess; but the effect of what you did here is deter any editor from challenging flawed contributions to a consensus-forming discussion. The effect of what you did here is to signal to editors that despite WP:RMCOMMENT they can completely ignore policy and guidelines, without fear of reproach, and without risk of any de-weighting of their comments.
And above all, the effect of what you did here is to signal to editors that even if they are an admin bound by policy to uphold high standards, they can try to sway a consensus-forming discussion by forcibly asserting demonstrable falsehoods, and failing to retract them ... and that whoever disproves the falsehood may be threatened for verbosity.
Whatever considerations lead to your approach to discussion, its effect is to impede critical debate and lower the quality of decision-making, by reducing scrutiny of unevidenced, policy-free assertions and of false assertions of fact. That is absolutely no way to build an encyclopedia; in fact it could be a very effective part of a plan to undermine the encyclopedia, if that was someone's goal. (For avoidance of doubt, I must say explicitly that I do not believe or suspect that your goal is to undermine the encyclopedia.)
So I want to say unequivocally that I will pay no heed whatsoever to your threat, other than to note its damaging effect on critical debate and to say that I personally will not change my conduct in response to such anti-intellectual bullying.
Best wishes, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Template:OTRS topicon has been
nominated for merging with
Template:VRT topicon. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Jonatan Svensson Glad (
talk)
21:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | |
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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)
01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 ( talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} |
![]() |
Donner60 ( talk) 02:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello Wbm1058: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 18:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
From my family to yours: Merry Christmas! TheSandDoctor Talk 18:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Can you look into the "Update Redirect" discussion on the Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation) page. I don't like where User:Shaded0 is taking this discussion.-- Limpscash ( talk) 05:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you look at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RAF910 discussion where User:Shaded0 is making some very serious accusations. He tried to ping you but I don't think it worked.-- Limpscash ( talk) 06:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
We are being targeted by someone call Lightbreather on Twitter. Please see the sites below:
https://twitter.com/Lightbreather?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
I'm not sure what to make of this. Is this the same Wikipedia User:Lightbreather that has been blocked?-- Limpscash ( talk) 06:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Greetings! I have re-copied your prior comment supporting or opposing the move of Modern sporting rifle to AR-15 style rifle to a new Requested Move section here: Talk:Modern sporting rifle#Requested move 22 February 2018.
I wanted to stop by and give you this courtesy notice, in case you want to add, delete, or amend your comments in any way. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 03:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I've kept this thread open for several years without having time to pay much attention to the topic. Still it seems as ever the problems with guns aren't going away as there are nearly constant reports of shootings on the nightly news. I'm happy at least that @ Lightbreather: was allowed back onto Wikipedia in 2022, and I just dropped a note on her talk. And now I'm going to finally move this thread to the end of my 2022 archive. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think we should do OR and change the caps when the sources use the capitalized form. This was my point in the page move discussion, but I was outnumbered. The sourcing supports " Celtic Reconstructionism", and many of the places where you changed it are sourced to that form. Best, - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your comment at [10] - but there didn't seem to be a response to it. Please have a look at the WMF bylaws - which ensures that over half of the board is community-elected, and couldn't be bought (if they were, then the community could elect replacements). Plus, the CC-BY-SA license provides the opportunity for a fork if need be. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 22:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Any idea why my changes were automatically reverted by this bot (it is a bot, correct?)? They were valid contributions but were immediately reverted. Joelikesagoodstory ( talk) 18:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC) I'm new to wiki and I thought this was a bot account for some reason. May I ask why my previous revisions were reverted so I can better learn from my mistakes? Joelikesagoodstory ( talk) 18:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
...For explaining what was going on with your bot. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Just an FYI, while film articles are expected to contain spoilers, we don't generally want them in edit summaries. LOL. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:18, 29 December 2022 (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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
I responded at
the user's talk.
|
---|
Regarding the Battle of Green IslandRegarding the Battle of Green Island, Ami Ayalon, the commando commander says to an Israeli that of the 40 people who actually fought on the island, only 2, were not injured or killed, and the goal was to occupy the Green Island on the channel of the Hudson Union Society. This video Израильский эсминец Эйлат ( talk) 14:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Ami Ayalon, former Head of Israel's Secret Service Talks About Operation Bulmus 6. That's the name of the video Израильский эсминец Эйлат ( talk) 14:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC) I did the same in compliance with the neutral sources on Wikipedia, especially since this is a confession from the commando commander to the Israeli himself Израильский эсминец Эйлат ( talk) 14:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC) |
– wbm1058 ( talk) 16:01, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Concerning the Battle of the Green Island Blomus 6, you very much agree with the inclusion of Ami Ayalon's confession. Modern event numbering ( talk) 15:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, Wbm1058. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that
Draft:පණ්ඩුශාක්ය රජතුමා, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months
may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please
edit it again or
request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 00:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
DYK hall of fame and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 20#DYK hall of fame until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Thryduulf (
talk)
20:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Wbm. Not sure I follow the issue with this rcat. Cleaning up the Suez (company, 1858–2008) situation is on my to-do list at the moment—will require an AWB/JWB run, a retargeting to the DAB, a month or two to make sure there's no residual pageviews, and then an RfD to delete—and maintaining ADR tags on any redirects related to that incorrect name will help in fixing it. I do regret that it happened at all; another user moved the page to mirror the frwiki demarcation, silently usurping the PTOPIC of Suez (company). I retargeted that to the DAB per standard practice and set about fixing the 100+ backlinks. I erred in not looking closely enough into the other user's titling decision. I saw that they'd used the correspong title to frwiki, but I overlooked that frwiki covers both Suez Canal Company and Suez (company, 1997–2008) in a single article, noticing that only about halfway through my dabfix efforts. All of the 1858 links do now point to the same place those links pointed to before all of this, but through an incorrect/unprintworthy redirect, yes. If your allusion to a "mess" is asking me to clean up the 1858 situation sooner rather than later, I'll get right on that, but I don't follow the issue with the ADR tag. I've seen dozens of cases before where foo-bar is an ADR for foo–bar. I think one of the AnomieBOTs tags such things out of course, in fact. -- Tamzin cetacean needed (she/they) 15:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
[[Suez (company)|Suez]] has operated the concession since 1975
or similar, with sources referring to all three iterations of the company. Not to mention the somewhat confusing delineation, which imply that Suez stopped existing from 2008 to 2015, which it did not; there were actually two companies with "Suez" in the name in that timespan. There's also a lot of cross-article inconsistency. The article on
Suez (company, 1997–2008) traces the company's history back to Algemeene Nederlandsche Maatschappij ter begunstiging van de volksvlijt in 1822 (unsourced), while the article on its successors and predecessors say nothing of the sort. And then lots of bad piping in the topic area that has led to things like
this, and to the obscuring of redlinks like
Lyonnaise des Eaux . So I dunno. Do you think a SIA at
Suez (company) would be worthwhile? Would allow for a brief history section and some discussion of predecessors and spin-offs, in addition to those three. Or could do something like
List of predecessors and successors to the Suez Canal Company.Also, FWIW, I'm a fan of ADR tags, because they help avoid situations where, say, a misspelling of a song's name gets left behind as a redirect to the parent album after the song's article is created. From time to time I check
CAT:AVOID2RUPDATE and clear out the ones that accumulate, and often it's things that might have gone unnoticed for years otherwise. --
Tamzin
cetacean needed (she/they)
16:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Hello, Wbm1058,
I'm not sure what exactly is going on with this article, but the page has an AFD tag to a previous discussion that concluded the page should be deleted. Did you mean to start a new AFD discussion? Or should this article be deleted as a CSD G4? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Sappony is current an article about the state-recognized tribe. Why did you delete its talk page? I'm going to rebuild. Please look at the article and please don't delete the talk page again. Thank you, Yuchitown ( talk) 15:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown
#REDIRECT
Talk:Saponi
, a redirect to the talk page of a different article. Feel free to create a new talk page from scratch. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
15:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for this. As far as AWB was concerned it was just an article in a list :-) Neils51 ( talk) 20:24, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
The article Marie D. Jones has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Lack of WP:RS. Most artistic creations do not appear to be of significant merit (failing WP:CREATIVE)
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
BriefEdits (
talk)
22:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:Movenotice. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 15:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
You recently moved Sunflower to Helianthus. Please could you move it back as per the recent move discussion. Thanks. YorkshireExpat ( talk) 18:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
Greetings, wbm1058. Please reconsider the position you took regarding the title of the John Lott article. You went ahead with a choice that was clearly not supported by a consensus. If this had come from just another editor, it would have been identified as a serious breach of guidelines and the editor possibly reported. But you're an administrator, and an experienced one at that. We had as near a consensus as we could possibly have in "gun rights advocate" (not my choice, but I agreedn for what it's worth), and all that remained really was the title change. Perhaps you mistook my joking reference as to who would enforce the change, i.e. to avoid another technical mistake by me, etc. You were certainly not called to resolve some outstanding impasse; there was none such. Your intervention, was, to put be clearly, a case of WP:SUPERVOTE. So, again, I ask you in good faith to reconsider. Take care. - The Gnome ( talk) 08:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Been noticing that the relists on the WP:RM page no longer sport the short underscores beneath the "Discuss" links. Hope this modification is on purpose and not "something gone awry". Curious, though as to why you'd remove them, because they were a telltale relist at-a-glance, and seemed useful to me. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. put'r there 02:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mud Coffee 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.
You were the article's last major contributor, back in 2014, so I figured you should know. Tisnec ( talk) 17:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Outdoor products and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 3#Outdoor products until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Steel1943 (
talk)
06:12, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
If a user is site banned for advocacy, socking, or disruptive behavior, aren't we still supposed to remove their edits, especially controversial ones? Atsme 💬 📧 16:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi Wbm1058,
I noticed that I had converted Yinhu station into a disambiguation page recently.
The following pages link to this:
Thank you.
Aravindhan Ravikumar ( talk) 13:22, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
I noticed that I". Heh. Disambiguation of these train stations can be annoyingly complex because of the design of the templates used in infoboxes and such. wbm1058 ( talk) 13:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi there - I'm writing regarding your closure of the
merge request for the
North Caucasian languages template.
User:DA1's statement to the effect that Having three separate Templates for the same broader language family is redundant and unhelpful as a navbox. See existing and more established precedents such as
Template:Semitic languages and
Template:Turkic languages
is fundamentally disingenuous. Unlike either the
Semitic languages or the
Turkic languages, the "North Caucasian languages" as a familial unit have not been accepted as consensus among Caucasologists and the proposal continues to be controversial (see e.g. Johanna Nichols's Nikolaev and Starostin's "North Caucasian Etymological Dictionary" and the Methodology of Long-Range Comparison: an assessment, paper presented at the 10th Biennial Non-Slavic Languages (NSL) Conference, Chicago, 8–10 May 1997).
A more apposite comparison for the North Caucasian languages would be
Nostratic or
Altaic, similarly controversial higher-level proposed family nodes which rightly do not have merged templates. Though having the separate NWC and NEC templates might be considered "redundant and unhelpful" as User:DA1 claims, the merged NC template goes beyond that into "misleading and perhaps even wrong". If I could, I'd like to request a re-evaluation of the merge decision, and a reversion to the separate templates if possible. Thanks very much :)
58.179.70.149 (
talk)
03:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Requested move/end has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung,
mello
hi! (
投稿)
20:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
My request at WP:RFHM was removed without action, so now I am asking you.
Talk:Sarray has two deleted RMCD bot edits that were mistakenly moved from Sarray. Could you please get those two bot edits back to the history of the article Sarray? GeoffreyT2000 ( talk) 01:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm trying to undo a faulty closure (it was my own) on 2023 Nigerian general election, but when I went to WP:RM/CD to relist it manually, it warned me that RMCD bot will override attempts to edit the page. Should I still try manually relisting? — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 13:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Why should this result in an error per Special:Diff/913468459/977902992? What was that change trying to accomplish? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 04:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
What is the criteria you are using to mass remove {{ R for convenience}}? This was a good removal given your recent bold change to the rcat (which was long overdue in my opinion). However, that reasoning is not shared with [2] [3] [4] [5].. so I have to wonder what you were actually doing here..? – MJL ‐Talk‐ ☖ 05:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Wbm1058
I'm guessing that it was this edit [6] by you which produced the flurry of Category:ISO 639 name xyz-type categories currently listed at Special:WantedCategories. Is that right?
If so, is there any guidance on how to create them? It would be handy to have them cleared before the next update of Special:WantedCategories brings in another flood of new stuff. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Update: Per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 August 14#ISO 639 name from code templates the ISO 639 name templates were all deleted two years ago – so I can clear this from my unresolved issues list. I just belatedly looked into this after I noticed this 17 May 2022 edit to my sandbox, which was populating Category:ISO 639 name template errors. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:15, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I’ve been trying to edit the article 1974 Anti-Ahmadiyya riots. However some other editors keep reverting to the original content. The original article is historically inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading. I’ve added the correct information along with links to references. Please fix this issue and ensure the article is correct and factual. Thank you CamillRose ( talk) 03:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Clovermoss. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Sub-Gaussian norm, and have marked it as unreviewed. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Clovermoss (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Special:Diff/1100036332 – thanks. I had just restored the version that was there previously and did not notice that it included a piped target before hitting publish. DanCherek ( talk) 22:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the Erastus B. Wolcott talk page, (not the statue article) I saw that it had been deleted per G6 and I was wondering if you could let me know why exactly it was deleted. Thanks! Heeps of Wiki (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
#REDIRECT [[Talk:Erastus B. Wolcott (statue)]]
{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from move}}
}}
The article List of Grey's Anatomy home video releases has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
Lacks notability. Article has no text at all, is mainly sourced to webshops, lists rather trivial info. We are WP:NOT a database of DVD releases.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
articles for deletion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
Fram (
talk)
14:53, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Grey's Anatomy home video releases 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 until the discussion has finished.
Fram ( talk) 16:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you moved Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher Education to Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education. Would you be able to help or at least advise on the move of Wikipedia:WikiProject 1000 Women in Religion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Religion? There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Talkpage template issue for WikiProject Women in Religion (was WikiProject 1000 Women in Religion). TSventon ( talk) 08:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
|importance=Low
" as the tool suggested or recommended. I see that you also successfully used the tool to make an edit before mine. If, after I fixed the links to the file maintained by a bot, as described above, you are still seeing problems with the Rater tool or anything else, let me know and describe the difference between expected and actual behavior in as much detail as you can. Bugs in Rater would be reported at
WT:RATER, but the author of that tool has not been active on Wikipedia recently. –
wbm1058 (
talk)
20:09, 29 September 2022 (UTC)Would you mind taking a look at U:BrownHairedGirl's activity on my talk and on this RM, and see if it violates the terms of her listing on WP:EDRC? I'm trying to avoid taking this directly to ANI, so if you agree the actions are in violation, would you either take the required action or bring it up on ANI yourself? Much obliged! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
"When a relisted discussion reaches a resolution, it may be closed at any time according to the closing instructions; there is no required length of time to wait before closing a relisted discussion."I'm currently juggling too many balls and to avoid dropping one I'm going to be working last-in, first-out. – wbm1058 ( talk) 12:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Want to skip the drama? Check the Recently Active Admins list for admins who may be able to help directly.I took that advice. Be disappointed if that's how you are, but I do not wish to engage with you. UtherSRG (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
I note that Wbm1058 has removed [7] from this page my reply [8] to UtherSRG, with the edit summary "my talk page is not the proper forum in which to raise administrator accountability issues with any administrator other than myself. WP:ADMINABUSE".
This is problematic. It was not my choice to use this venue for ADMINACCT; UtherSRG chose to raise the matter here, and it involves me. Secondly, my concerns relate to both UtherSRG and Wbm1058, both of whom failed not notify me. Feel free to close this discussion if you want to, but please restore my comment as part of the record.
I have no wish to continue this discussion any further, but UtherSRG has misrepresented the situation and by challenge to those misrepresentations should not be expunged. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Re Death and state funeral of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. No harm, no foul, I guess. I just hit the space bar and saved before I caught my fingers. Didn't know it would be noticed. Thanks. — Maile ( talk)
Hi Wbm1058
Thank you for closing the State funerals RM, and for providing an extended rationale. You clearly put a lot of work into this.
Much of your extended rationale seemed sound, until it came to the point where you pronounced on consistency. As you rightly noted, I nominated 40 articles together, to ensure consistency: that was the complete set of all articles whose title began "Death and state funeral of". Yes, there is one article with a similar title, but Death and two state funerals of Kalākaua is an unusual situation of two funerals, so it will inevitably be an exception to any rule, and would require special consideration. Your claim that omitting the two-funeral exception breaks consistency among the 40 single-funeral articles seems to be at best jesuitical.
Secondly, I unequivocally and completely reject your complaint about the volume of my posts on the page, and in particular your threat to label that as uncivil and invoke sanctions. That is most unpleasant.
I note that your close makes no criticism or reproach whatsoever of the many editors whose posts made no reference at all to any policy or guidelines, contrary to WP:RMCOMMENT. That is a strange and troubling omission, particularly when your analysis of policy supports my application of it, and especially when you single my comments out for criticism. It seems quite perverse to instead criticise the editor who did repeatedly point to policy.
Criticising me for critiquing policy-free or fact-faulty comments is bad enough, but threatening me with sanctions for it is very nasty. It's not just nasty to me personally; it's a nasty threat to the whole community's ability to scrutinise contributions to consensus-forming discussions about the encyclopedia, because a glib falsehood can be asserted in one line, but deconstructing it can require many paragraphs. Applying a word- or character count threshold, as you did, has the effect of structurally biasing the discussion in favour of glib falsehoods, and against scrutiny.
See e.g. Bearcat's false 188-character assertion what they don't share is the common element of lying in state. That's central to the definition of a state funeral, and not central to the definition of a ceremonial-but-non-state funeral
I don't know whether Bearcat deliberately stated a falsehood, or whether he asserted something which he believed to be true but didn't check. And it doesn't really matter which applies, because either way it was a demonstrable falsehood -- not a misinterpretation, but an unequivocally false assertion. My reply [9] setting out the evidence was 1,826 characters, almost ten times as long as the original, and unavoidably so because setting out evidence takes a lot of word and links.
So, you reproach and threaten me because I posted to repeatedly challenge the lack of a policy basis, and because I posted at length to disprove a falsehood asserted by an admin whose failures here were a failure in their duty uphold high standards.
I really really really beg of you to stop and take a long hard look at what this does to Wikipedia. I cannot know your intention, and I will not attempt to guess; but the effect of what you did here is deter any editor from challenging flawed contributions to a consensus-forming discussion. The effect of what you did here is to signal to editors that despite WP:RMCOMMENT they can completely ignore policy and guidelines, without fear of reproach, and without risk of any de-weighting of their comments.
And above all, the effect of what you did here is to signal to editors that even if they are an admin bound by policy to uphold high standards, they can try to sway a consensus-forming discussion by forcibly asserting demonstrable falsehoods, and failing to retract them ... and that whoever disproves the falsehood may be threatened for verbosity.
Whatever considerations lead to your approach to discussion, its effect is to impede critical debate and lower the quality of decision-making, by reducing scrutiny of unevidenced, policy-free assertions and of false assertions of fact. That is absolutely no way to build an encyclopedia; in fact it could be a very effective part of a plan to undermine the encyclopedia, if that was someone's goal. (For avoidance of doubt, I must say explicitly that I do not believe or suspect that your goal is to undermine the encyclopedia.)
So I want to say unequivocally that I will pay no heed whatsoever to your threat, other than to note its damaging effect on critical debate and to say that I personally will not change my conduct in response to such anti-intellectual bullying.
Best wishes, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 19:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Template:OTRS topicon has been
nominated for merging with
Template:VRT topicon. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
Jonatan Svensson Glad (
talk)
21:04, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
![]() | |
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:40, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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)
01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 ( talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} |
![]() |
Donner60 ( talk) 02:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello Wbm1058: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, TheSandDoctor Talk 18:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
From my family to yours: Merry Christmas! TheSandDoctor Talk 18:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Can you look into the "Update Redirect" discussion on the Talk:AR-15 (disambiguation) page. I don't like where User:Shaded0 is taking this discussion.-- Limpscash ( talk) 05:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you look at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#RAF910 discussion where User:Shaded0 is making some very serious accusations. He tried to ping you but I don't think it worked.-- Limpscash ( talk) 06:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
We are being targeted by someone call Lightbreather on Twitter. Please see the sites below:
https://twitter.com/Lightbreather?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
I'm not sure what to make of this. Is this the same Wikipedia User:Lightbreather that has been blocked?-- Limpscash ( talk) 06:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Greetings! I have re-copied your prior comment supporting or opposing the move of Modern sporting rifle to AR-15 style rifle to a new Requested Move section here: Talk:Modern sporting rifle#Requested move 22 February 2018.
I wanted to stop by and give you this courtesy notice, in case you want to add, delete, or amend your comments in any way. Regards, AzureCitizen ( talk) 03:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I've kept this thread open for several years without having time to pay much attention to the topic. Still it seems as ever the problems with guns aren't going away as there are nearly constant reports of shootings on the nightly news. I'm happy at least that @ Lightbreather: was allowed back onto Wikipedia in 2022, and I just dropped a note on her talk. And now I'm going to finally move this thread to the end of my 2022 archive. – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think we should do OR and change the caps when the sources use the capitalized form. This was my point in the page move discussion, but I was outnumbered. The sourcing supports " Celtic Reconstructionism", and many of the places where you changed it are sourced to that form. Best, - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 20:08, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your comment at [10] - but there didn't seem to be a response to it. Please have a look at the WMF bylaws - which ensures that over half of the board is community-elected, and couldn't be bought (if they were, then the community could elect replacements). Plus, the CC-BY-SA license provides the opportunity for a fork if need be. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 22:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Any idea why my changes were automatically reverted by this bot (it is a bot, correct?)? They were valid contributions but were immediately reverted. Joelikesagoodstory ( talk) 18:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC) I'm new to wiki and I thought this was a bot account for some reason. May I ask why my previous revisions were reverted so I can better learn from my mistakes? Joelikesagoodstory ( talk) 18:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
...For explaining what was going on with your bot. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:13, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Just an FYI, while film articles are expected to contain spoilers, we don't generally want them in edit summaries. LOL. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)