Winged Blades of Godric,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year
00:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Greetings,
You recently made a revert on one of my edits here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mamata_Banerjee&oldid=818045280
I added criticisms to the criticisms section from a reputed source from a reputed source (The Hindu newspaper)
Any particular reason for reverting that?
Ghulamkhan3219 ( talk) 07:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks folks Ghulamkhan3219 ( talk) 14:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear Mr, I just Newbies who want to write an article about my fav football club I have a fav football club that play in highest level in my country Indonesia, but when I try to write about my club's Super Star (Hari Nur Yulianto) in english version, They deleted my article. even 2 times. you know, in Indonesian version the article about Hari Nur Yulianto keep existing.
How can this article keep existing in wikipedia? as a newbies I need your help Luthfi Waskitojati ( talk) 09:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for message. In normal circumstances I might look again, and perhaps attempt to head off the 'postcode lottery' which Wikipedia seems to have become. As a former journalist, editor and author, I'm all for editorial rules and guidelines, but only if they are applied consistently and fairly, and experience leads me to conclude this is not (and perhaps has never been) the case. Some editors pass an article with a nod and a cheery wave, while others seem determined to treat it as some kind of Spanish Inquisition. Picknick99 ( talk) 10:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed the proposed deletion and added more information on Miroslav Juhn and more references. I also now mentioned that he is considered one of the forerunners of the Praxis School. Nbanic ( talk) 12:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to make sure I don't get lost in your spam filter, apologies if you've seen it already. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. While I definitely think the article should be kept, not sure it can be speedied. Of the 6 criteria, only 1 or 3 would seem to be able to be used. #3 would not seem to apply, since the nom did attempt to find out if the place did exist, and #1 doesn't seem to fit since the nom was not withdrawn. What are your thoughts? Onel5969 TT me 21:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your close here. I see the Tfd notice is still at Module:Break/doc and you might like to remove that. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi WBG, are you planning to add a "summary of the conclusions" for this RfC? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I have taken a count of the participants on the second RfC on Talk:Kashmir conflict. Those in favour of keeping the controversial sections number 6 and are outnumbered by those in favour of removal (they have 7). The latter also have more policy based arguments. What should be the next appropriate step? I will refrain from any action myself on the article until you say whether the removals are to be done or not at this time. Awaiting your instructions. JosephusOfJerusalem ( talk) 11:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Were you going to do anything with this? -- wooden superman 14:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
It is a generally accepted standard, not a rule that must be followed (i.e.
occasional exceptions may apply).
When disambiguation is required, use (TV series)., it also lists a bunch of exceptions, and there is no explicit prohibition on (telenovela). This goes further with the "exceptions may apply".
Hi, I was looking at your helpful comments on other pages and was wondering if you could advise on whether this page meets the standards of Wikipedia articles or how it can be improved? Much appreciated! Arjundhar ( talk) 08:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks!! Arjundhar ( talk) 09:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Arjundhar ( talk) 11:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Here. – Ammarpad ( talk) 20:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi!
You recently closed this discussion /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_December_21 deciding that the template FilmAffinity should be deleted. I was wondering how you interpreted consensus since there are 4 deletes and 3 keeps. Moreover, the Wikipedia guidelines state that consensus depends on the quality of the arguments, not the quantity, and the ones that vote "delete" don't offer objective information or anything really valuable, even one user, according to Wikipedia guidelines, is showcasing incivility. I hope you can reconsider the deletion.
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.61.46.126 ( talk) 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, WBoG - just wondering if you saw this comment re: unblock-redact? Atsme 📞 📧 12:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyvio tagging. Do you see anything I missed? I have flu and am not thinking straight and could use a second pair of eyes. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Conor Lamb. 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. Casprings ( talk) 04:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Was ist das? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I just thought I'd let you know that that doesn't come under Danny's department. They finally were a lot of help over the ACTRIAL, but not really willingly. There are no technical issues in extending the CU feature. It's standard MediaWiki stuff which is used on dozens of websites not connected in any way with Wikipedia. If anything, it's a legal thing in the US, but I run a lot of Internet projects that hold user data and it's kept for years. I can go back 10 years on phpBB forum software to smoke out socks - or for as long as my server has capacity. Our online stores keep data as long as we need for recurring customers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Please check the Draft:Animal Aid Unlimited and add some fine tunes. Thanks Souravdas1998 - talk to me? 08:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
How was my edit in indigenous psychology a copyrighted material? I just lifted up some parts of the Filipino psychology Wikipedia article. Isn't that allowed? I also checked Google and I cannot find similar entries. Thank you! Isko1901 ( talk) 08:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Found this today after another discussion: WP:OFCOURSE. I think it nicely explains the nuances between numbers only and consensus based decision making. I was happy to see it, because I was going to write WP:NUMBERSMATTER at some point making similar arguments. No need to do that now. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
Just so :) Cheers! >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 11:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC) |
![]() |
Thank You | |
Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 05:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC) |
My comments in my edit summary were not directed at you or in reference to your talk page note. I had not seen your talk page note when I had responded. I was responding to the comments on the arbcom page about my Wanton grudgery. I don't know Cass. Cass' civility is not something that should be handled by arbcom. As the first part of my comments would suggest, this is something that I feel that any admin can take care of if there is sufficient reason. The TAGTEAMing is the issue that I feel is of issue as it may suggest meatpuppetry. I describe who ever this alleged TAGTEAM is a gaggle of goons. I do not know who is in this tagteam. I really did not pay attention to who was listed nor do I care. Anyone offering hollow iVotes should be ignored when determining a consensus. A generic support vote with no comment or a comment that on some level is based on policy should be ignored. Anyway I digress. I apologies because it seems as if you took my actions as being directed at you and that was not my intention. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 16:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Winged Blades of Godric,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
–
Davey2010
Merry Xmas / Happy New Year
00:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Greetings,
You recently made a revert on one of my edits here https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Mamata_Banerjee&oldid=818045280
I added criticisms to the criticisms section from a reputed source from a reputed source (The Hindu newspaper)
Any particular reason for reverting that?
Ghulamkhan3219 ( talk) 07:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks folks Ghulamkhan3219 ( talk) 14:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear Mr, I just Newbies who want to write an article about my fav football club I have a fav football club that play in highest level in my country Indonesia, but when I try to write about my club's Super Star (Hari Nur Yulianto) in english version, They deleted my article. even 2 times. you know, in Indonesian version the article about Hari Nur Yulianto keep existing.
How can this article keep existing in wikipedia? as a newbies I need your help Luthfi Waskitojati ( talk) 09:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for message. In normal circumstances I might look again, and perhaps attempt to head off the 'postcode lottery' which Wikipedia seems to have become. As a former journalist, editor and author, I'm all for editorial rules and guidelines, but only if they are applied consistently and fairly, and experience leads me to conclude this is not (and perhaps has never been) the case. Some editors pass an article with a nod and a cheery wave, while others seem determined to treat it as some kind of Spanish Inquisition. Picknick99 ( talk) 10:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
I removed the proposed deletion and added more information on Miroslav Juhn and more references. I also now mentioned that he is considered one of the forerunners of the Praxis School. Nbanic ( talk) 12:28, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Just to make sure I don't get lost in your spam filter, apologies if you've seen it already. :) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 03:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi. While I definitely think the article should be kept, not sure it can be speedied. Of the 6 criteria, only 1 or 3 would seem to be able to be used. #3 would not seem to apply, since the nom did attempt to find out if the place did exist, and #1 doesn't seem to fit since the nom was not withdrawn. What are your thoughts? Onel5969 TT me 21:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your close here. I see the Tfd notice is still at Module:Break/doc and you might like to remove that. Johnuniq ( talk) 09:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi WBG, are you planning to add a "summary of the conclusions" for this RfC? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 13:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I have taken a count of the participants on the second RfC on Talk:Kashmir conflict. Those in favour of keeping the controversial sections number 6 and are outnumbered by those in favour of removal (they have 7). The latter also have more policy based arguments. What should be the next appropriate step? I will refrain from any action myself on the article until you say whether the removals are to be done or not at this time. Awaiting your instructions. JosephusOfJerusalem ( talk) 11:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Were you going to do anything with this? -- wooden superman 14:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
It is a generally accepted standard, not a rule that must be followed (i.e.
occasional exceptions may apply).
When disambiguation is required, use (TV series)., it also lists a bunch of exceptions, and there is no explicit prohibition on (telenovela). This goes further with the "exceptions may apply".
Hi, I was looking at your helpful comments on other pages and was wondering if you could advise on whether this page meets the standards of Wikipedia articles or how it can be improved? Much appreciated! Arjundhar ( talk) 08:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks!! Arjundhar ( talk) 09:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Arjundhar ( talk) 11:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Here. – Ammarpad ( talk) 20:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi!
You recently closed this discussion /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_December_21 deciding that the template FilmAffinity should be deleted. I was wondering how you interpreted consensus since there are 4 deletes and 3 keeps. Moreover, the Wikipedia guidelines state that consensus depends on the quality of the arguments, not the quantity, and the ones that vote "delete" don't offer objective information or anything really valuable, even one user, according to Wikipedia guidelines, is showcasing incivility. I hope you can reconsider the deletion.
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.61.46.126 ( talk) 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, WBoG - just wondering if you saw this comment re: unblock-redact? Atsme 📞 📧 12:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyvio tagging. Do you see anything I missed? I have flu and am not thinking straight and could use a second pair of eyes. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 12:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Conor Lamb. 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. Casprings ( talk) 04:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Was ist das? Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I just thought I'd let you know that that doesn't come under Danny's department. They finally were a lot of help over the ACTRIAL, but not really willingly. There are no technical issues in extending the CU feature. It's standard MediaWiki stuff which is used on dozens of websites not connected in any way with Wikipedia. If anything, it's a legal thing in the US, but I run a lot of Internet projects that hold user data and it's kept for years. I can go back 10 years on phpBB forum software to smoke out socks - or for as long as my server has capacity. Our online stores keep data as long as we need for recurring customers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 12:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Please check the Draft:Animal Aid Unlimited and add some fine tunes. Thanks Souravdas1998 - talk to me? 08:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
How was my edit in indigenous psychology a copyrighted material? I just lifted up some parts of the Filipino psychology Wikipedia article. Isn't that allowed? I also checked Google and I cannot find similar entries. Thank you! Isko1901 ( talk) 08:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Found this today after another discussion: WP:OFCOURSE. I think it nicely explains the nuances between numbers only and consensus based decision making. I was happy to see it, because I was going to write WP:NUMBERSMATTER at some point making similar arguments. No need to do that now. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
Just so :) Cheers! >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 11:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC) |
![]() |
Thank You | |
Thank you for reviewing articles during the 2018 NPP New Year Backlog Drive. Always more to do, but thanks for participating. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 05:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC) |
My comments in my edit summary were not directed at you or in reference to your talk page note. I had not seen your talk page note when I had responded. I was responding to the comments on the arbcom page about my Wanton grudgery. I don't know Cass. Cass' civility is not something that should be handled by arbcom. As the first part of my comments would suggest, this is something that I feel that any admin can take care of if there is sufficient reason. The TAGTEAMing is the issue that I feel is of issue as it may suggest meatpuppetry. I describe who ever this alleged TAGTEAM is a gaggle of goons. I do not know who is in this tagteam. I really did not pay attention to who was listed nor do I care. Anyone offering hollow iVotes should be ignored when determining a consensus. A generic support vote with no comment or a comment that on some level is based on policy should be ignored. Anyway I digress. I apologies because it seems as if you took my actions as being directed at you and that was not my intention. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 16:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)