If you're going to complate about how this particular template is overkill, then you might as well do the same for all of other film related templates on Wikipedia. This Batman template isn't the only one (e.g. Back to the Future, Terminator, Rocky, Die Hard, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.) that mentions the movies, actors, crew, msuic, and other sorts of marketing tie-ins like video games or theme park attractions.
This template is the most in-depth one in relation to the Burton-Schmuacher Batman films on Wikipedia. Naturally, with four films, numerous characters to be featured, and different production crews, there's going to be a wealth of information. The video games and other sorts of merchandise (which typically don't get as much coverage as the films themselves), are purely an expected offshoot of this. The soundtrack also falls under this table.
There's already individual templates for Batman related video games, the Batmobiles and what not, so giving them their own template as you suggest would be pretty redundant. Plus, why should a there be an individual template for the characters created for the films, when there's pretty limited number to begin with? The key is that they're related (regardless of how you want to define it) to the films in question, instead of merely having the Batman namesake. Don't you think that people visting Wikipedia, want to have easier access to the info about the Batman Returns video game or the Batman & Robin roller coster rides and what not!? TMC1982 ( talk) 1:20 a.m., 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I've nominated three more of your templates for deletion, by the way, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 20#Batman film series templates. -- Conti| ✉ 13:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
"Ploppy" is an infantile onomatopoeic term for feces in common use in the UK. For evidence of this, see the first Google hit for "ploppy", which is http://fatsquirrel.org/software/ploppy/ , and the third Google hit, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ploppy+pants ) The Blackadder character Mr. Ploppy is also a reference to this: "My father, Daddy Ploppy was known as Ploppy the slopper". "Dookie" might be a U.S. equivalent in terms of offensiveness; mildly offensive, infantile, but not the sort of thing you want all over edit logs and other users' pages. The other term is a variant of the above. -- The Anome ( talk) 17:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't notice that, although it has happened to me once or twice before - every now and then, in a seemingly unrelated bit of text, a css link will be inserted a way away from where I'm actually typing. I think it's a bug in Lupin's popups when using Safari - if you follow the link it takes you to what I think is part of the code for a popup. Gb T/ c 21:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You removed "bite me" from the blacklist, as not being offensive. I've restored it: see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bite%20me for the generally accepted interpretation of this phrase, which is clearly offensive. -- The Anome ( talk) 18:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know (if you didn't) that you're probably going to be asked by a few people to undo your addition of {{ hiddencat}} - just look what happened last time someone tried that. I don't have a view myself, I'm just letting you know. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 16:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I've stopped the bot. Today the interwiki has been updated and I think that the update is not correctly. Until developers don't fix the problem, I won't run the bot again. Thanks. Muro de Aguas (write me) 16:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology ( C)( T) 07:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
I just received an e-mail confirmation from Dr. Peter Singer about his COMING SOON blurb. (His quote was ""A film that manages to be both hilarious and disturbing, to entertain while it raises deep questions about the things we are, and are not, prepared to tolerate regarding the treatment of nonhuman animals.") This itself makes this film one of the most important discussions about Zoophilia and certainly more relevant than films like Stealing Harvard and the like. If you're genuinely interested in reating an informative and all-encompassing article about Zoophilia I see no way you can leave out a film that praised in this way by someone of Dr. Singer's stature. Why don't you write him a brief e-mail yourself to confirm it. There aren't that many films that raise deep political questions and I dont think he'll mind some brief e-mails on the subject. Somna
Here's a better version. What do you think?: EasterBunnyWalker ( talk) 12:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering which part of Template:Future television you were citing when you removed the template? (I did use rollback on it, but I accidentally clicked the icon (so I'm not calling you a vandal or anything). However, I probably would have reverted it manually anyway.) -- Scorpion 0422 23:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Conti. Not following you at User:Mjpresson/secretpage, where you undeleted saying it's not G7 ... seems like both G7 and U1 to me: user subpage, not a talk page, no content on the page of any importance in any edit that I can see, and deletion requested by user. Why not get rid of the page? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 18:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
"Aren't movies inherently notable?" Heck, no! Haven't you ever read our standards for notability of films? Like books and records, many of them are nowhere near notability by our standards. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what just happened [1]. Obviously, I never intended to add a copy of the copyright notice in the middle of the page. Dragons flight ( talk) 19:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly this. I am going through the 500 or so districts adding referenced population, area and capital details. Works best for me this way, can't see too many others caring about developing these districts. See the diff. You are free to help out adding data into the empty links. I will have all the data added in a day or two. Don't worry about it. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not a blanket ban -- only applies to a certain type of editor, who should be real unlikely to use those. NawlinWiki ( talk) 23:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
You noted here that the abuse filter has been disabled. If so, could you please remove the restrictions from my account that resulted from the false positive? Thanks. — AjaxSmack 01:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Every filter puts a load on every edit. This load requires the servers do some processing before the edit is accepted. It was reported (by MZMcBride) that the filter load was so high, that on some edits where a lot of content is added would simply time out. Some of the large pages were in fact uneditable! So I tried to reduce this load to a manageable amount by removing filters that had less than 10 or so hits. It appears to have reduced this problem somewhat. Prodego talk 03:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You turned off disallow for Special:AbuseFilter/135. I'm interested in getting it turned back on since it catches a large amount of vandalism. A couple questions:
Thanks. — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason there's no "massive editing going on right now" is because of the HUGE mass of material that needs to be added to bring this article to updated condition; most of us who know of it are sickened by the story and also put off by not so much its complexity as all its permutations and vastness; it really needs a split, too, with the actual raids thesmelves split off as a separate article from the court case, and the mounting scandal connected to but now distinct and much larger than either also needing attention; I've avoided too many direct edits myself because I'm pretty POV on what's going on in the case, and also because of the exhaustive in-line citing that will be needed to expand it properly. But if for now there's no editing going on and that's a need of the tempalte parameters, so be it; one concern is that reporting on court proceedings needs especial care, as speculative material and interpretation of evidence - evidnece now available, but previously sealed - is tricky; although, Wikipedia's servers are (mostly) in the US and not bound by Canadian court restrictions; Canadian editors are, however.... Skookum1 ( talk) 15:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
-- IRP ☎ 20:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
...is a general warning used on some "warn only" filters. (re [2]) Disallow filters should use MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed. – xeno talk 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if this is the case, please inform the football project, and consider using a bot to alter about (roughly) 200 other football season articles also using the template. Either keep it at all seasons or remove it from all. By the way, any further discussion on this topic should be done at the project talk page since this affects quite a number of articles. Have a nice day, Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 15:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Conti, I agree that the Segunda División 2008-09 is mostly edited by me in which I concentrate a lot of information into each edit (not like other articles where people take about 8 or more edits to update a simple league table). So it may seem that the article is not edited much, where in fact the whole information of the article changes every weekend. By the way there are other articles which are edited less and still have the template. Take Beta Ethniki 2008–09. It has the current sport template and is edited as much as mine or I would say less as it has less information. In last year's Segunda División 2007-08 the current sport template was lest for the whole season without a problem. I would suggest that you either leave them all with the template or delete them from all the articles which are not considered as "massively" edited. I would even consider that La Liga 2008-09 is not heavily edited. There are always many unconstructive edits from IP addresses which add nothing to the article or simply vandalise it. Does that mean that it is heavily edited? Yours slightly concerned, Qampunen ( talk) 09:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Except theirs been a conesensus to use the template on seasonal articles even when not active for years now, as the season is clearly an ongoing meteorological event which is what the template warns about. Also these guidelines were put into place by you without any obvious consensus.17:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the timing you will see i commented to you before i reverted you. Also please have a bit of paitence when awaiting a response as im currently trying to sort out the 2009 PTS which has had 4 depressions in the last week. Also i think that all of the Current seasonal articles should have the Template as they are current meterological events regardless of what the rules for category Current events says because they are current events. i also do not have the time to go through evrey archive of the WPTC to look for the consensus because their are over 200. Any further disscussion would be best put on the WPTC talkpage. Also note i have not reverted your removall of the template on the 2008/09 SHEM articles as their season was virtually over at the time Jason Rees ( talk) 23:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as i am concerned i have made my postion known and am waiting for other project members to comment on it Jason Rees ( talk) 18:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
did you mean to say that? Simply south ( talk) 21:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay. That's fair enough. I'll probably put it back up on that article in a couple of weeks' time however when the final tournament gets underway. There'll be games every day (I think), so would be being updated enough to merit it, I feel. Ը२ձւե๓ձռ 17 18:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
What do u mean there is no editing the ladders get updated every week as do the results which has a link just leave it it doesn't affect anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nem1991 ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I must have brushed the keyboard. Hadn't realized I reverted you. Amerique dialectics 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You said that the template should only be on articles which receive a high number of edits. However, what I mean is that there are some articles which receive a lot of edits but these edits are most of the time minor edits and most of the time these edits can be concentrated into 1 or 2 edits. When I edit Segunda División I make a few edits, but these edits are concentrated with lots of information which almost entirely changes the information of the article. In other articles, the same information would be entered with a higher number of edits. Does this mean that the template is only for articles which receive a high number of edits?
In my opinion, I think the content of the edits is far more important than the number of edits. I'm not sure if I am explaining myself clearly. Do you understand me? Qampunen ( talk) 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
LNFA 2009 is a competition ongoing. Moreover, I never talk to robots. The robots are useless. Bye. -- Raymond Cruise ( talk) 12:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have created an RfC for a proposed change to the username policy in regards to corporate names. I invite your input. Thanks. Gigs ( talk) 01:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
No, Conti. I promised that I would not introduce the template until editing was going on. This IP address is from a Spanish person who updates Spanish teams, mainly. No problem, Conti. I will introduce the template when updating is going on and remove it afterwards. Good evening. Qampunen ( talk) 23:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Competition is current. Template will be taken away on 21 June. Do not take away template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.25.118 ( talk) 23:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. You win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.25.118 ( talk) 09:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know and I agree with you. You learn something every day ;) Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 23:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
My mistake, at least part of it. I shouldn't have removed the {{update}} template. My apologies. I restored it. The link to the article on Robot Chicken is legitimate, as its releavance is sourced in the sentence that follows. Ward3001 ( talk) 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Blatant_Promotion_RfC#Proposal_5_--_Reflect_consensus_in_twinkle_and_templates Gigs ( talk) 02:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that another editor had deliberately inserted that section as being pivotal to the article and thought that especially as the matter is in the middle of a contentious Afd, the matter should be discussed. Maybe bring the issue up on the article's talk page, rather than here (my interest is only peripheral)? Cheers, Esowteric ( talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The template says that the article is a current event and that information may change as the event progresses. It does not warn us that heavy editing is going on. If that is so, why doesn't the template say that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.76.157 ( talk) 16:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I added Template:Future television series to the Stargate Universe article because WP:WikiProject Television#Upcoming TV says "{{ Future television series}} For programs/series that have been announced, but are not yet airing." Now that i read the guidelines for Template:Future television series, i have reverted my edit. Thanks for the info! Powergate92 Talk 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Why did you remove the current related tag on Ahmad Khatami? Warrior4321 talk Contribs 16:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I had not seen your removal of the template previously, and there was no discussion on that in the talk page. Nor would I agree with it, as this is clearly a current event in which news is being generated constantly, and therefore would be the kind of article in which a current template is warranted. I suggest that we discuss this on the talk page. -- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 15:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC) OK, I think your point has finally penetrated my thick skull, and I have removed the template. -- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 16:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I understand, as the crisis that is taking place after coup in Honduras has not come to an end, the information in that section could undergo changes as international media and social organizations overcome the limitations in communication in the country. I think that this situation warrants placing the template. If my perception is not correct, I have no problem with removing the template. Greetings! -- Enigmaticland ( talk) 23:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The GOES-O spaceflight is current until 7 July 2009, as stated in the article text.
—
Ω (
talk) 14:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Icon (airline), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I'll actually be listing it at AfD, silly template! GrooveDog ( talk) ( Review) 05:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Conti. Thank you for implementing Future template guidelines. However, it would be appreciated if before removing templates you would check the impacts of your actions and take measures to fix any of this. As the Template:Future pipeline also includes the autocategorisation function, removing this template removed all these articles from the Category:Future pipelines. Hope you will take a care to avoid this happen again. Beagel ( talk) 21:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to explain my edit to you personally before taking it to the WP:EL talk page. I tagged the WP:ELNEVER section as policy because, unlike the rest of this external links guidelines page, it documents policy as defined at WP:LINKVIO; this subsection is not a guideline, it's a summation of the relevant parts of the WP:C policy. When a subsection of a guideline page states a WP policy, in my opinion it's worthwhile from a formatting and usability standpoint to make the distinction that the subsection is a standard (not advisory like the rest of the page), and edits need to be kept in line with the associated LINKVIO policy. Do you feel that this is a distinction worth making, and if so do you have a suggestion about how to make that distinction? If a policy tag isn't appropriate, how about a box around the relevant paragraph with a disclaimer along the lines of, "The following section of this page is official WP:C policy..." (along the lines of WP:NFC#Policy). -- Muchness ( talk) 13:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I knew that line would only last a few minutes. My autistic germaphobic child, who is a firm believer in all cryptozoological creatures, just read in a new book (new to her, anyway), that you can become a werewolf by contracting an HIV-like virus, and she was having a complete nervous breakdown. I put that line in as "proof". See, to her, mythological doesn't meant it isn't real. And nowhere in the article did it actually point that out, assuming--of course--that it was obvious. Well, not to her.
No matter. If you hadn't taken it out, I would have. No harm done, I think. It wasn't actually inaccurate.
I have, however, kept my edited version up on my computer!! Samantha1961 ( talk) 18:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It was not a revert on the airport, I never looked at the history of the article. However, I would caution implementing guidelines for usage of all these templates based on an RFC with a total of five whole editors. And the discussion above the RFC could hardly be considered consensus. I mean the whole "Note that every article on Wikipedia has a General disclaimer indicating that the article contents may not be accurate" is nice and all, but we still have a ton of clean up templates that we use (for instance NPOV/OR/RS/V types) to warn readers about content. After all, at least on my screen, there is no disclaimer on the articles themselves, and even if there were, most people would not read them. Just like the future templates should be unnecessary because it is obvious, so would the "this article is unreferenced" be obvious when not seeing any references. But we still do it to make sure the reader understands to take the article with an extra grain of salt. I think this really helps with foreign language readers, where proposed and similar words might not be quite as well understood, but a big banner at the top saying "caution" or such might be more effective. In the end, I don't care either way as I rarely edit future things, let alone use the template. Just some food for thought before going on campaigns to remove what I think had been a fairly commonly used template category. Aboutmovies ( talk) 20:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just wondering why the template should not be used on the page. It is certainly about a television show that has not aired yet and it certainly contains information that only appears in advertisements or previews.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 00:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I won't use it. But may I ask you - How many sport articles are edited hundreds of times a day? One? Two? Not many? Shall I say none? I really believe that if that is the purpose of the template (to warn us that the article will be edited hundreds of times a day) then the template should say so. The template just says "This is a current sport-related event. Information may change as the event progresses." It does not say "This a heavily edited current sport-related event. The information will change very rapidly as hundreds of edits occur every day" (for example). I think it should, because there are countless of editors, including me, who are confused and that disagree with it, as the template does not specify that the article will be heavily edited that day with hundreds of edits. Yours concerned. Qampunen ( talk) 10:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
If the proposal is accepted, as it seems likely, is it your intnetion to accept the offer of the bot to remove them automatically? If so, you'll want to amke sure that the bot doesn't remove the template from Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates, to preserve the history. Is it your intention to wipe clean Category:Temporal templates and the associated template, or merely add wording to note that their use is deprecated? If the former, you'll ahve to take steps to preserve the template on the discussion page. My apologies if this is all obvious to you, I just imagined the bot wiping out all the templates, and some future editor wondering what the template looked like.-- SPhilbrick T 20:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually, I don't think I represent hundreds of users, I don't have a split personality or anything like that, but this article does contain certain facts which are changing rapidly. The way I understand this guideline, this template should not be used if, for example, there is a new host announced for a certain competition, or if there are new qualified teams, or if there was a draw for the event, or if a venue of a certain event has changed, or if there are some retroactively found facts about the event after it has finished, since all of these information are significant, but don't make the event described in the article "current" and there really would be thousands of articles marked with this template in that case. But if an event is in progress, then it can be described as current, since the results, tables and the other data making the core of the article are, well... "changing rapidly" and there is not that many competitions going on at a certain moment to make an inflation of the usage of this template. So, the template should stay and I really don't get your point, neither can I see anything in the guidelines saying it should be removed.-- Vitriden ( talk) 11:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms. I would have no problem if the MoS had gone the other way, but it did not. If I have inadvertantly broken some links (I am trying to avoid this and correct it where I have done it) please help fix these without again violating the MoS. — SlamDiego ←T 10:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Glancing at the articles that you give as examples, it seems that only their titles are in violation of the MoS; in their bodies, they follow the MoS. — SlamDiego ←T 10:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you tagged Template:Launching ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as one of the future templates that you are proposing to do away with. Launching is a template used during "current" launch campaigns, at around the time of launch, so should be considered a "current" template, not a "future" template. -- G W … 15:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that you've been going through removing the various box-office leaders boxes from articles. Could you make sure that for each article you remove a box from, that an equivalent line is included in the main article prose stating the same information where one doesn't already exist? My fear is that these boxes were used for such a long time to contain this information — oftentimes to the exclusion of the information in the main body in older film articles — and you might be removing a lot of information that will not be easily recovered without a lot of effort in the future. I think a little extra effort in the removal process will save a lot of work and/or lost information down the road. – Fierce Beaver ( talk) 18:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Re this. I am still working on this. It is still underconstruction, so I put the tag back in. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Conti,
I saw your recent edit on the
Bobby Newman article I created; at the moment it is a stub article.
I was wondering if you could help me work and expand on it.
Thanx!
ATC .
Talk 00:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Per my suggestion which you can now see here, I've moved the bulk of the long dispute with Ohms Law and MusicFan at Deprecating future templates to the talk page. Since this involved moving your comments I thought you should be notified. I did this because I felt others not involved in the dispute were being put off from sharing their opinions on the issue because of out dispute. I did leave the first few comments on the main page, and posted a link to the continuation on the talk page. If you object in some way let me know. Equazcion ( talk) 01:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I undid your redirect. If you'd like to discuss this let me know. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 04:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
As is being utilised here. While there have been some periods of rapid editting that has mostly passed apart from the addition and removal of speculations from non-registerred edittors. -- Falcadore ( talk) 00:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll put this up here, because the WP:DFUTURE is now meant as an archive and not meant to be edited any longer. (DANG!) Frankly, I've just missed the whole caboodle until now and just stumbled on a "deprecated" message with a future software article; that's why I started to look for information. Uh-huh, again some dude which wants to make himself immortal by his great proposal; 100 different users commenting to it meaning "All of Wikipedians" (like the jury in the U.S. court!). So if 80% say "deprecated", this is projected onto the point of view of the rest. Uh-huh. OK, let's give an example. Software not released yet: Azure Services Platform. Categories I can find there are: Microsoft and Cloud Platforms. Fantastic. So all you bigmouths that promised us future categories as replacement of our beloved future... templates (as readable on the captions of the templates now deprecated) , where did you hide them? Currently, things look like this: a bot is going to auto-delete the "deprecated" templates in a few days, and then there will be no new "future category"! I'm not as stupid to believe the bot will auto-INSERT a new category after it has deleted the future template. Not a cat in hell's chance I'm gonna buy that story. -andy 92.229.113.76 ( talk) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For starting this RFC with a great result. The last one has been deleted. Garion96 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
There is a discussion at the Village Pump regarding using AWB to semi-automatically remove WP:Words to avoid. You got this notice because you have participated in a discussion regarding this in the recent past. Your input is welcomed. Gigs ( talk) 03:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to comment at User talk:Starblueheather#Washington Post polls. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 22:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Conti has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
What was the implausible redirect? - 142.167.81.93 ( talk) 03:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
In re: [6] How can you say "per Afd" when that was clearly not the result? -- œ ™ 15:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed the {{ current spaceflight}} template from Progress M-05M. Since it is due to dock tomorrow, I feel that it is still appropriate for it to be tagged as current until that time, and that is certainly within the spirit in which the guidelines for the current spaceflight tag were written. Do you have any objections to it being restored until docking is complete. -- G W … 18:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
When you revert per BRD, please explain your objection to the B when you initiate the D. If you don't explain your objection (and "find consensus first" is not an explanation of your objection), then it's not a revert per BRD, and the B should stand. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 15:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I reverted per this statement at WP:BRD: "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." Over five hours went by after you made the Revert, and never provided a reason beyond invoking BRD, which is not in accordance with BRD. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yea, when it was uploaded here originally, it was uploaded wrong (noob mistake... it's confusing even to long-timers). Dr. Steel gave written permission for all the images on this article to be used. However he didn't use the magic words "CC-BY-SA 3.0" except for the first image; he said he would be resending written permission shortly to rectify the misunderstanding. Sorry for the confusion. -- Jonnybgoode44 ( talk) 18:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you know who has valiantly trimmed the population of articles with {{
current sport}}?
Is the {{
Current MLB season}} recent, and what do you suggest on removing it?
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 02:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the article of PlaneShift video game has been moved to the Incubator for improvements as suggested by other admins. Many new sources have been added, including scanned magazine articles, computer programming and open source books. I think it's ready to be evaluated and moved to the main space. Please review it and move the article to the main space if you think it's ready. Here is the article Thanks. Xyz231 ( talk) 10:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Did you see the updated editsummary at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TedderBot 5? tedder ( talk) 06:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because of your participation in this discussion, now continued at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. – xeno talk 13:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
"If you block everyone who opposes your actions, there won't be anyone left opposing your actions, and you can therefore declare consensus."
Maybe you hate ED so much because you can't block anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.181.119 ( talk) 17:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Not on ED, bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.36.83 ( talk) 10:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you did a group removal of the find a grave template from several pages. I also noticed that most have been reverted by other editors. I understand that you don't like and I can understand removing it from some articles as you are "Verifying" that the information is already referenced in the article. But judging by the short time in between edits it does not appear to be the case. I would ask you to not do a mass removal strategy like that anymore. The conversation on the External links did not garner the concensus to do this and the EL instructions do not state it either as you would indicate in your edit comments. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(interjection) At the moment, I'm ambivalent and watching the debate at the PUMP and here but I would like to request ceasing the removal until some form of community decision may be made for harmony's sake. At the present, it can be confusing for editors. Somewhere a consensus should be reached so that everyone can get on the same page and we're not all reverting one another owing to the confusion. Let's get it clarified first....I've seen this come up several times but have never seen a clear consensus. Either way, thank you for considering my request.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕)) 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Good thing I have two. *BANG!* Oh that's just unfair... *thump* Half Shadow 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
As I remarked on ANI, your
definition of tag-teaming seems rather more commensurate with the standard one... Hans Adler over there was honest enough to admit that he was using a lower threshold, whereas Giano naturally takes the, "Well unless they all publish their emails and chats I don't suppose we shall ever know the depth of it," approach :P
But I agree, I don't think it's tag-teaming at all. Several people independently agreeing with each other
has a different name here. (I can't post this on Giano's talkpage because he'll immediately delete it because I'm allegedly a troll. At least some things change!) Best, ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
most serene─╢ 10:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Whenever you move an image like this one:
can you check the article it was on and change the file name on it? File:(2) cover.jpg was being redirected to File:Olivia Newton-John - (2) album cover.jpg and was transcluded on the article, but did not show up as it being on the article, and was subsequently marked for deletion. — Moe ε 03:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for uncovering my nefarious plan to... uh.. my obvious sock puppetry intended to.. uh... what was it I was doing wrong, again? Thanks anyhow. Locke's Ghost 11:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you are mass removing the find a grave links without consensus using an automated tool. Since we are still duscussing it I don't think you should be doing that. -- Kumioko ( talk) 23:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
For your information:
Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Request_to_remove_various_temporal_templates_from_Twinkle
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 03:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, which you contributed to. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Just wanted to point out, in case you did not notice, that you didn't actually vote (oppose, keep, Merge etc.) on the page Talk:Android (operating system)#Requested move Chaosdruid ( talk) 12:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Conti, WP:3RR 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Conti, the beauty of using the find a grave template is that it links to the Wikipedia article on Find a grave. In that sense, readers are free to make an informed judgment on its worth. Frankly, there is no harm in having a link to a different picture that specifically shows the headstone up close. You are really saying there is 'no reason, but its policy.' Linking to find a grave gives readers a chance to look at their articles and make their own judgment. As to gravesites, cemeteries and pictures of them, find a grave is in that business, and does a credible job. the cemetery articles are particularly good, as they oftimes pull together disparate famous personages who share the same cemetery -- there are historic and cultural implications in that. If they don't have an article with useful information (e.g., Atilla the Hun then removing it might make sense. But that is a judgment that should be done on a case-by-case basis. I am not even going into the removal from the Minton article of the reference to Find a grave. In this particular case it was corroborative of facts verified in professional journals. There was no reason to remove it, other than 'adherence to policy.' I did not revert it then because it was a war that I did not feel like fighting. I don't participate in these ongoing and incessant policy discussions mainly because I am just a first line editor -- more than 85% of my edits are contributions to articles. I have better things to do than get into discussions that go nowhere. I would suggest that inferring merit (or lack thereof) from the number of participants in these discussions, or their position, is an unwarranted inference. It merely means that lots of editors are turned off by the exercise in mental and verbal masturbation. It may seem like fun at the time, but nobody is going to get pregnant, and nothing is being accomplished. At bottom, the amorphous policies are to blame here. You and I are wasting time arguing over a marginal link. Its presence does no harm, although it creates a reason to debate far in excess of its effect on the article. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 12:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a very few extremely persistent sockpuppets that I use rev delete on. Generally, those that have been disrupting the same articles for years, generating autoconfirmed socks to defeat the semi-protection. I'm basically trying to make things as difficult for them as possible. Wiki-11233 falls into that category.— Kww( talk) 18:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
[7] Priceless! — Ched : ? 08:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it's an old joke. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 18:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Please don't edit articles like Robopocalypse to leave lines like "Sources like Robert Crais and Booklist have compared the book to Michael Crichton's novels." unreferenced. It's like littering. Dimension31 ( talk) 14:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I see no need to use a euphemism ever. Why can't we just come out and say "died"? We know what you're saying; don't dodge it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 17:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Conti, this is just to let you know that I have mentioned and diffed a dispute you had with Cirt ( talk · contribs) a few months ago, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, -- J N 466 21:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I've noticed you suggested article on this subject. If you are going to write it, we could join forces: I am going to write the same article in Lithuanian Wikipedia. We could share sources, ideas on structure, pictures and so on. What do you think -- Windom ( talk) 16:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I hope you are good looking and not gay.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
ONE. LETTER. DIFFERENCE. I don't know how to dumb it down any more than that. -- TheTruthiness ( talk) 19:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_7#Network_templates. A new discussion about the same templates has been restarted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_19#Network_templates_2. Feel free to express your thoughts at the new discussion.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).
If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds ( talk) 10:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
the user who started the sockpuppetry case on me is clearly against My Little Pony. when i saw the message that User:Michaeldsuarez left on my page, because User:Night Ranger failed to do so, i read the part about defending yourself against sock claims. stupidly, i added Template:User alternative account name to Badmachine, which linked Daniel Brandt to my doppleganger account, and therefore, my dox. sadly i had to db-author both pages, and recreate so that my dox are not as easily accessible to the Brandt team. while reading the BORING wp policy pages, i saw this.
Those created by known and respected long-standing contributors, whose aim is clearly more to showcase our work and WP:NOT#CENSORED and that are not designed for self-amusement or for sexual provocation may be kept but even so have at times been MFD'ed multiple times or closed as "no consensus".
i am sure you can see the deleted revisions of my userpage. that penis image was my favorite image on the entire project, and as such, i wanted to showcase it. it was the only image on my page, so its not like i was making a pr0n gallery or something. do you think this has a chance at deletion review? if so, would the revision that exposes my dox to the Brandt team be exposed again? thanks conti. and sry if i seem like i am a troll. i just like the internet and internet related articles. i dont know why everyone thinks i am a troll just because i have learned how to deal with them. - badmachine 13:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Conti,
My name is Jonathan Obar
user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community
HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 02:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Nice user page! ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 20:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC) |
You deleted my references and WIPED STUFF! How is it original research if it is referenced???? Why make it impossible to re-add stuff????????????
Wikipedia is weird! You seem to delight in just being jerks to everyone who comes on and tries to improve it. Why don't you want truthful articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.223.96 ( talk) 15:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but there was nothing original about it. These people are quite simply wrong. I was quoting plot synopsis! These people were quoting nothing! There is nothing to disagree about. 100 people can lie to you and 1 tell the truth. Truth isn't a popularity contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.223.96 ( talk) 16:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
If 1 person tells the truth and 100 people lie, that doesn't make that 1 person wrong. Truth has nothing to do with popularity. My links prove that I was telling the truth. End of story. Anyone who encourages the liars is doing the wrong thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.223.96 ( talk) 16:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Please don't delete other users' comments on talk pages or discussion pages, as you did here unless there is an extremely good reason to do so, such as removing a clear copyright violation. If this becomes a regular problem it could lead to blocks or other sanctions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
hello. i dont see why "convenience link"s are necessary.. if people followed that notion, the Viagra article would be filled with "convenience link"s. - badmachine 16:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.
For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 18:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI, that quote "Blocking should be a last resort, not a first step" was added for emphasis to the policy by an editor in light of the recent strident enforcement. However the earlier emphasis on not blocking has been there for a very long time. -- Avanu ( talk) 10:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your edit summary here, who precisely was edit warring over a "typo"? What does removing sourced information have to do with a "typo"? Nightscream ( talk) 15:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Just thought I'd point out that this source explicitly says the following in the "South and East Asia and Oceania" section:
"According to the Hindu tradition of erotic painting and sculpture, a human copulating with an animal is actually a human having intercourse with a God incarnated in the form of an animal. Copulation with a sacred cow or monkey is believed to bring good fortune."
I decided to see if it was real or not, and indeed, it is real. Since I realise that people might question it, it might be worth putting in the quote above rather then a sentence.
(I have copied this to the zoophilia talk page). MarkB40n ( talk) 18:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_follow_up_on_Bwilkins. Ian.thomson ( talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
You
reverted my addition of a {{
disambiguation needed}}
template to the infobox of the
xkcd article, apparently on the grounds that no further disambiguation was possible and/or necessary. Perhaps I failed to make clear in my edit summary that "I've looked at this" meant "I looked at
the disambiguation page."
As far as I understand relevant guidelines, it is impermissible (within article namespace) to link to a disambiguation page with the intent to mean "everything on the disambiguation page applies here." I was indeed unsuccessful at repairing the disambiguation link in the sense of choosing only one meaning. Any suggestions on what I should have done here? -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 00:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
First of all, my apologies for speaking in English. I doubt you would figure out what I want from you if I'd try to use all the French that I know. :) Anyhow: I'm currently checking various categories for copyright violations over at Commons, and I found your images that way. You upload a great deal of medical images on Commons. Could you tell me where you got all those images from? I'm guessing that's part of your job or something, but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks in advance! -- Conti ( d) 1 décembre 2012 à 19:44 (CET)
HI J.F.Y.I I just read your comment on Talk:Victoria_Leigh_Soto#A_School_Named_after_Victoria_Soto and added my two cents have a read if you like =)
have a nice day -- Fox2k11 ( talk) 22:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
In general, it's usually better to replace a section header with an {{anchor|title of section}} than to delete the section header entirely, as you did here. Deleting a section header without replacing it with an anchor will cause all incoming links to that section to become broken, so I created an anchor for the section header that you deleted. Jarble ( talk) 17:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
User:AGK/Purpose of ArbCom is a page you may be interested in keeping an eye on.
It occurred to me after our conversation that the DB lists are really based on number of pages or revisions on the wiki (I can't remember which off-hand), but we'd be much more interested in number of active users (or rather, number of active disputes, which is really difficult to quantify). We could pull the active user stats easily enough, I suppose (it's a stored value). But I think AGK is headed in the right direction by better defining and clarifying ArbCom's role here. It's a more realistic goal (for now) than trying to disband ArbCom. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Conti. Will you weigh in on this matter? I'm at the end of my rope with this editor, given the overlinking and the other stuff. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey, again. If you do decide to weigh in on the above message I left you, which no longer seems necessary to me, I ask that you read the email I just sent you first. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
references
Thank you for quality contributions on referencing, with
precise edit summaries, for a great user page and other ways to make people smile, - repeating: you are an
awesome Wikipedian (20 February 2010)!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Conti. I see you removed the address of the home at 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio. I actually don't care one way or the other if it's included, but I just wanted to point out two things. First, the full address is still in the article twice; once each in the infobox and body. Second, I noticed that a similar article, Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard, does in fact include the full address of confinement in the infobox; it also has the street name in the body. Again, I'll defer to your judgment on this, but shouldn't at least the street name be included from where you have removed the full address? After all, the name "Seymour Avenue" is now very closely associated with the crime. I will support whatever you decide, but of course there's no guarantee that others won't object. ;) -- 76.189.109.155 ( talk) 17:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Update: Since Epeefleche has started a new thread below regarding this matter, there's no need to continue the discussion here. -- 76.189.109.155 ( talk) 20:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Your view as expressed in an edit summary is as follows: "Please do not include private details like personal addresses unless there is a very good reason to do so. "It has been reported" is not a very good reason, and in this case the information is entirely irrelevant."
You do recognize, I hope, that you are simply expressing (while reverting a second time, in short order) a personal view or two of yours. First -- this "private detail" has no blp concern vis-a-vis the person to whom it relates. That person does not live there at this time.
Second, reflecting the address is relevant. We know that because RSs in such large numbers reflect it. At wp, as at article deletion discussions and naming discussions and the like, we look to what RSs do to ascertain relevance as a matter of course. It is in the wp DNA. It lets us avoid POV deletions -- of articles, of names of articles, etc. It keeps individual editors from baldly (with zero objective basis) saying that an article or name, etc., is "entirely irrelevant." Some editors have been known to make such declarations, based on their personal views, as emphatically as they can, to try to intimidate others. That's not good practice. Better practice is to look at objective treatment in RSs. Did RSs think it relevant enough to reflect? In large number? Then that is a good clue that, if we are to look at this from a non-personal-point-of-view perspective, that it may well be relevant to the same audience -- those who read RSs and who read wp articles.
Is it relevant to report that it happened in the U.S.? Why? In Cleveland? Why? At the address in question? Why? The RSs report all three -- for obvious reasons -- and it is relevant IMHO for us to include as well. For the same obvious reasons. It's perhaps somewhat heavy-handed for any one editor, in the face of that, to make loud yet-unsupported personal-point-of-view assertions of the type that you made. And just engage in multiple reverts, with edit summaries.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 19:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
"any depiction or simulation of sexual activity or lasciviousness involving one or more persons"
The context of the image and documentation of surrounding events make it pretty clear that the image is a depiction of sexual activity. How to handle the dark side of history is a known problem. Geni ( talk) 21:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The section on the allegations about vandalism seem useful for balance and NPOV, otherwise Wikipediocracy only has correct allegations noted. This allegation pointed out a software error, which has apparently been fixed.
Wikipedia does a lot of things right, and these things have been reported in the reliable sources. I've tried to note corrections by Wikipedia, that have been documented in reliable sources, for NPOV and Due Weight concerns. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The bong picture was censored from Russia-language WP, and so it illustrates the article nicely. One could have a more descriptive caption, such as "This picture was censored from Russian language WP, as documented by Wikipediocracy" with a little work. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Conti who? pronunciation? buzzword disambiguation needed is how? why? timeframe? non-primary source needed a vague needs copy edit clarification needed expand acronym person. when defined as? ambiguous jargon unbalanced opinion? dubious specify neutrality is disputed
Not on my watch! — C M B J 01:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, we can take it to talk -- Kendrick7 talk 00:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, it seems your custom sig has a small issue. Since DYK discussions take place within a template the divider between your user page link and user talk link functions as wiki-markup. This kept the second half of your sig and subsequent comments from appearing. You may want to tweak that a bit to avoid such issues in the future.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
For your information.
Template talk:Current#Reworking this template
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 06:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm questioning the mark "Good Article" of the Fursuit. Since you were one of those who contributed to it, I ask your opinion. Keplerbr ( talk) 12:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Fursuit, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sourcewatch logo.png. 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) 02:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton ( talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot ( talk) 00:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Conti. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Trackr, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trackr 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/Trackr 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. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message ( talk to me) ( My edits) @ 09:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Conti. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Conti.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Conti. 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.
Hello, Conti. 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. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Conti. 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)
Hello, Conti. 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)
Hello, Conti. 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)
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
You stated in your revert of our edit that, and we quote, "no artist uploads their art there, unlike all the other sites listed." and this statement is simply false.
Many artists have and many still do, post their work to the website in question.
It has also been a cornerstone of the growth of the furry fandom, many people having gotten into the subculture THROUGH that website.
Now, a lot of posts are by others, that's true. But there is a lot of artists who use it as another way to spread their reach and upload their content there.
So... maybe add it back in?
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. / Johan (WMF)
18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Nine years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 08:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of retroactive continuities 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.
JeffUK ( talk) 10:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello Conti, you will get another message in a moment about your -sysop flag; I've removed your -efm flag as you have not worked on filters in 10 years. If you need this again, please let us know at WP:EFN. Thank you for your prior service in this area. — xaosflux Talk 02:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions have been removed.
Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux Talk 02:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
If you're going to complate about how this particular template is overkill, then you might as well do the same for all of other film related templates on Wikipedia. This Batman template isn't the only one (e.g. Back to the Future, Terminator, Rocky, Die Hard, Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.) that mentions the movies, actors, crew, msuic, and other sorts of marketing tie-ins like video games or theme park attractions.
This template is the most in-depth one in relation to the Burton-Schmuacher Batman films on Wikipedia. Naturally, with four films, numerous characters to be featured, and different production crews, there's going to be a wealth of information. The video games and other sorts of merchandise (which typically don't get as much coverage as the films themselves), are purely an expected offshoot of this. The soundtrack also falls under this table.
There's already individual templates for Batman related video games, the Batmobiles and what not, so giving them their own template as you suggest would be pretty redundant. Plus, why should a there be an individual template for the characters created for the films, when there's pretty limited number to begin with? The key is that they're related (regardless of how you want to define it) to the films in question, instead of merely having the Batman namesake. Don't you think that people visting Wikipedia, want to have easier access to the info about the Batman Returns video game or the Batman & Robin roller coster rides and what not!? TMC1982 ( talk) 1:20 a.m., 6 January 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) I've nominated three more of your templates for deletion, by the way, see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 20#Batman film series templates. -- Conti| ✉ 13:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
"Ploppy" is an infantile onomatopoeic term for feces in common use in the UK. For evidence of this, see the first Google hit for "ploppy", which is http://fatsquirrel.org/software/ploppy/ , and the third Google hit, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ploppy+pants ) The Blackadder character Mr. Ploppy is also a reference to this: "My father, Daddy Ploppy was known as Ploppy the slopper". "Dookie" might be a U.S. equivalent in terms of offensiveness; mildly offensive, infantile, but not the sort of thing you want all over edit logs and other users' pages. The other term is a variant of the above. -- The Anome ( talk) 17:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I didn't notice that, although it has happened to me once or twice before - every now and then, in a seemingly unrelated bit of text, a css link will be inserted a way away from where I'm actually typing. I think it's a bug in Lupin's popups when using Safari - if you follow the link it takes you to what I think is part of the code for a popup. Gb T/ c 21:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You removed "bite me" from the blacklist, as not being offensive. I've restored it: see http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bite%20me for the generally accepted interpretation of this phrase, which is clearly offensive. -- The Anome ( talk) 18:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Just letting you know (if you didn't) that you're probably going to be asked by a few people to undo your addition of {{ hiddencat}} - just look what happened last time someone tried that. I don't have a view myself, I'm just letting you know. - Jarry1250 ( t, c) 16:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I've stopped the bot. Today the interwiki has been updated and I think that the update is not correctly. Until developers don't fix the problem, I won't run the bot again. Thanks. Muro de Aguas (write me) 16:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology ( C)( T) 07:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC) |
I just received an e-mail confirmation from Dr. Peter Singer about his COMING SOON blurb. (His quote was ""A film that manages to be both hilarious and disturbing, to entertain while it raises deep questions about the things we are, and are not, prepared to tolerate regarding the treatment of nonhuman animals.") This itself makes this film one of the most important discussions about Zoophilia and certainly more relevant than films like Stealing Harvard and the like. If you're genuinely interested in reating an informative and all-encompassing article about Zoophilia I see no way you can leave out a film that praised in this way by someone of Dr. Singer's stature. Why don't you write him a brief e-mail yourself to confirm it. There aren't that many films that raise deep political questions and I dont think he'll mind some brief e-mails on the subject. Somna
Here's a better version. What do you think?: EasterBunnyWalker ( talk) 12:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering which part of Template:Future television you were citing when you removed the template? (I did use rollback on it, but I accidentally clicked the icon (so I'm not calling you a vandal or anything). However, I probably would have reverted it manually anyway.) -- Scorpion 0422 23:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Hiya Conti. Not following you at User:Mjpresson/secretpage, where you undeleted saying it's not G7 ... seems like both G7 and U1 to me: user subpage, not a talk page, no content on the page of any importance in any edit that I can see, and deletion requested by user. Why not get rid of the page? (Watchlisting) - Dan Dank55 ( push to talk) 18:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety talk 02:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
"Aren't movies inherently notable?" Heck, no! Haven't you ever read our standards for notability of films? Like books and records, many of them are nowhere near notability by our standards. -- Orange Mike | Talk 16:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what just happened [1]. Obviously, I never intended to add a copy of the copyright notice in the middle of the page. Dragons flight ( talk) 19:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Exactly this. I am going through the 500 or so districts adding referenced population, area and capital details. Works best for me this way, can't see too many others caring about developing these districts. See the diff. You are free to help out adding data into the empty links. I will have all the data added in a day or two. Don't worry about it. Dr. Blofeld White cat 21:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not a blanket ban -- only applies to a certain type of editor, who should be real unlikely to use those. NawlinWiki ( talk) 23:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
You noted here that the abuse filter has been disabled. If so, could you please remove the restrictions from my account that resulted from the false positive? Thanks. — AjaxSmack 01:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Every filter puts a load on every edit. This load requires the servers do some processing before the edit is accepted. It was reported (by MZMcBride) that the filter load was so high, that on some edits where a lot of content is added would simply time out. Some of the large pages were in fact uneditable! So I tried to reduce this load to a manageable amount by removing filters that had less than 10 or so hits. It appears to have reduced this problem somewhat. Prodego talk 03:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. You turned off disallow for Special:AbuseFilter/135. I'm interested in getting it turned back on since it catches a large amount of vandalism. A couple questions:
Thanks. — Wknight94 ( talk) 04:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason there's no "massive editing going on right now" is because of the HUGE mass of material that needs to be added to bring this article to updated condition; most of us who know of it are sickened by the story and also put off by not so much its complexity as all its permutations and vastness; it really needs a split, too, with the actual raids thesmelves split off as a separate article from the court case, and the mounting scandal connected to but now distinct and much larger than either also needing attention; I've avoided too many direct edits myself because I'm pretty POV on what's going on in the case, and also because of the exhaustive in-line citing that will be needed to expand it properly. But if for now there's no editing going on and that's a need of the tempalte parameters, so be it; one concern is that reporting on court proceedings needs especial care, as speculative material and interpretation of evidence - evidnece now available, but previously sealed - is tricky; although, Wikipedia's servers are (mostly) in the US and not bound by Canadian court restrictions; Canadian editors are, however.... Skookum1 ( talk) 15:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
-- IRP ☎ 20:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
...is a general warning used on some "warn only" filters. (re [2]) Disallow filters should use MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed. – xeno talk 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, if this is the case, please inform the football project, and consider using a bot to alter about (roughly) 200 other football season articles also using the template. Either keep it at all seasons or remove it from all. By the way, any further discussion on this topic should be done at the project talk page since this affects quite a number of articles. Have a nice day, Soccer-holic I hear voices in my head... 15:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Conti, I agree that the Segunda División 2008-09 is mostly edited by me in which I concentrate a lot of information into each edit (not like other articles where people take about 8 or more edits to update a simple league table). So it may seem that the article is not edited much, where in fact the whole information of the article changes every weekend. By the way there are other articles which are edited less and still have the template. Take Beta Ethniki 2008–09. It has the current sport template and is edited as much as mine or I would say less as it has less information. In last year's Segunda División 2007-08 the current sport template was lest for the whole season without a problem. I would suggest that you either leave them all with the template or delete them from all the articles which are not considered as "massively" edited. I would even consider that La Liga 2008-09 is not heavily edited. There are always many unconstructive edits from IP addresses which add nothing to the article or simply vandalise it. Does that mean that it is heavily edited? Yours slightly concerned, Qampunen ( talk) 09:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Except theirs been a conesensus to use the template on seasonal articles even when not active for years now, as the season is clearly an ongoing meteorological event which is what the template warns about. Also these guidelines were put into place by you without any obvious consensus.17:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
If you look at the timing you will see i commented to you before i reverted you. Also please have a bit of paitence when awaiting a response as im currently trying to sort out the 2009 PTS which has had 4 depressions in the last week. Also i think that all of the Current seasonal articles should have the Template as they are current meterological events regardless of what the rules for category Current events says because they are current events. i also do not have the time to go through evrey archive of the WPTC to look for the consensus because their are over 200. Any further disscussion would be best put on the WPTC talkpage. Also note i have not reverted your removall of the template on the 2008/09 SHEM articles as their season was virtually over at the time Jason Rees ( talk) 23:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
As far as i am concerned i have made my postion known and am waiting for other project members to comment on it Jason Rees ( talk) 18:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
did you mean to say that? Simply south ( talk) 21:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay. That's fair enough. I'll probably put it back up on that article in a couple of weeks' time however when the final tournament gets underway. There'll be games every day (I think), so would be being updated enough to merit it, I feel. Ը२ձւե๓ձռ 17 18:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
What do u mean there is no editing the ladders get updated every week as do the results which has a link just leave it it doesn't affect anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nem1991 ( talk • contribs) 06:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I must have brushed the keyboard. Hadn't realized I reverted you. Amerique dialectics 20:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You said that the template should only be on articles which receive a high number of edits. However, what I mean is that there are some articles which receive a lot of edits but these edits are most of the time minor edits and most of the time these edits can be concentrated into 1 or 2 edits. When I edit Segunda División I make a few edits, but these edits are concentrated with lots of information which almost entirely changes the information of the article. In other articles, the same information would be entered with a higher number of edits. Does this mean that the template is only for articles which receive a high number of edits?
In my opinion, I think the content of the edits is far more important than the number of edits. I'm not sure if I am explaining myself clearly. Do you understand me? Qampunen ( talk) 19:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
LNFA 2009 is a competition ongoing. Moreover, I never talk to robots. The robots are useless. Bye. -- Raymond Cruise ( talk) 12:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I have created an RfC for a proposed change to the username policy in regards to corporate names. I invite your input. Thanks. Gigs ( talk) 01:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
No, Conti. I promised that I would not introduce the template until editing was going on. This IP address is from a Spanish person who updates Spanish teams, mainly. No problem, Conti. I will introduce the template when updating is going on and remove it afterwards. Good evening. Qampunen ( talk) 23:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Competition is current. Template will be taken away on 21 June. Do not take away template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.25.118 ( talk) 23:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. You win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.25.118 ( talk) 09:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know and I agree with you. You learn something every day ;) Aaroncrick (Tassie Boy talk) 23:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
My mistake, at least part of it. I shouldn't have removed the {{update}} template. My apologies. I restored it. The link to the article on Robot Chicken is legitimate, as its releavance is sourced in the sentence that follows. Ward3001 ( talk) 18:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy/Blatant_Promotion_RfC#Proposal_5_--_Reflect_consensus_in_twinkle_and_templates Gigs ( talk) 02:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that another editor had deliberately inserted that section as being pivotal to the article and thought that especially as the matter is in the middle of a contentious Afd, the matter should be discussed. Maybe bring the issue up on the article's talk page, rather than here (my interest is only peripheral)? Cheers, Esowteric ( talk) 15:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The template says that the article is a current event and that information may change as the event progresses. It does not warn us that heavy editing is going on. If that is so, why doesn't the template say that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.151.76.157 ( talk) 16:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
I added Template:Future television series to the Stargate Universe article because WP:WikiProject Television#Upcoming TV says "{{ Future television series}} For programs/series that have been announced, but are not yet airing." Now that i read the guidelines for Template:Future television series, i have reverted my edit. Thanks for the info! Powergate92 Talk 21:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Why did you remove the current related tag on Ahmad Khatami? Warrior4321 talk Contribs 16:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
No, I had not seen your removal of the template previously, and there was no discussion on that in the talk page. Nor would I agree with it, as this is clearly a current event in which news is being generated constantly, and therefore would be the kind of article in which a current template is warranted. I suggest that we discuss this on the talk page. -- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 15:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC) OK, I think your point has finally penetrated my thick skull, and I have removed the template. -- JohnnyB256 ( talk) 16:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
As far as I understand, as the crisis that is taking place after coup in Honduras has not come to an end, the information in that section could undergo changes as international media and social organizations overcome the limitations in communication in the country. I think that this situation warrants placing the template. If my perception is not correct, I have no problem with removing the template. Greetings! -- Enigmaticland ( talk) 23:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
The GOES-O spaceflight is current until 7 July 2009, as stated in the article text.
—
Ω (
talk) 14:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the {{ prod}} tag from Icon (airline), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{ prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I'll actually be listing it at AfD, silly template! GrooveDog ( talk) ( Review) 05:46, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Conti. Thank you for implementing Future template guidelines. However, it would be appreciated if before removing templates you would check the impacts of your actions and take measures to fix any of this. As the Template:Future pipeline also includes the autocategorisation function, removing this template removed all these articles from the Category:Future pipelines. Hope you will take a care to avoid this happen again. Beagel ( talk) 21:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to explain my edit to you personally before taking it to the WP:EL talk page. I tagged the WP:ELNEVER section as policy because, unlike the rest of this external links guidelines page, it documents policy as defined at WP:LINKVIO; this subsection is not a guideline, it's a summation of the relevant parts of the WP:C policy. When a subsection of a guideline page states a WP policy, in my opinion it's worthwhile from a formatting and usability standpoint to make the distinction that the subsection is a standard (not advisory like the rest of the page), and edits need to be kept in line with the associated LINKVIO policy. Do you feel that this is a distinction worth making, and if so do you have a suggestion about how to make that distinction? If a policy tag isn't appropriate, how about a box around the relevant paragraph with a disclaimer along the lines of, "The following section of this page is official WP:C policy..." (along the lines of WP:NFC#Policy). -- Muchness ( talk) 13:20, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I knew that line would only last a few minutes. My autistic germaphobic child, who is a firm believer in all cryptozoological creatures, just read in a new book (new to her, anyway), that you can become a werewolf by contracting an HIV-like virus, and she was having a complete nervous breakdown. I put that line in as "proof". See, to her, mythological doesn't meant it isn't real. And nowhere in the article did it actually point that out, assuming--of course--that it was obvious. Well, not to her.
No matter. If you hadn't taken it out, I would have. No harm done, I think. It wasn't actually inaccurate.
I have, however, kept my edited version up on my computer!! Samantha1961 ( talk) 18:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
It was not a revert on the airport, I never looked at the history of the article. However, I would caution implementing guidelines for usage of all these templates based on an RFC with a total of five whole editors. And the discussion above the RFC could hardly be considered consensus. I mean the whole "Note that every article on Wikipedia has a General disclaimer indicating that the article contents may not be accurate" is nice and all, but we still have a ton of clean up templates that we use (for instance NPOV/OR/RS/V types) to warn readers about content. After all, at least on my screen, there is no disclaimer on the articles themselves, and even if there were, most people would not read them. Just like the future templates should be unnecessary because it is obvious, so would the "this article is unreferenced" be obvious when not seeing any references. But we still do it to make sure the reader understands to take the article with an extra grain of salt. I think this really helps with foreign language readers, where proposed and similar words might not be quite as well understood, but a big banner at the top saying "caution" or such might be more effective. In the end, I don't care either way as I rarely edit future things, let alone use the template. Just some food for thought before going on campaigns to remove what I think had been a fairly commonly used template category. Aboutmovies ( talk) 20:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm just wondering why the template should not be used on the page. It is certainly about a television show that has not aired yet and it certainly contains information that only appears in advertisements or previews.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙) 00:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I won't use it. But may I ask you - How many sport articles are edited hundreds of times a day? One? Two? Not many? Shall I say none? I really believe that if that is the purpose of the template (to warn us that the article will be edited hundreds of times a day) then the template should say so. The template just says "This is a current sport-related event. Information may change as the event progresses." It does not say "This a heavily edited current sport-related event. The information will change very rapidly as hundreds of edits occur every day" (for example). I think it should, because there are countless of editors, including me, who are confused and that disagree with it, as the template does not specify that the article will be heavily edited that day with hundreds of edits. Yours concerned. Qampunen ( talk) 10:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
If the proposal is accepted, as it seems likely, is it your intnetion to accept the offer of the bot to remove them automatically? If so, you'll want to amke sure that the bot doesn't remove the template from Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates, to preserve the history. Is it your intention to wipe clean Category:Temporal templates and the associated template, or merely add wording to note that their use is deprecated? If the former, you'll ahve to take steps to preserve the template on the discussion page. My apologies if this is all obvious to you, I just imagined the bot wiping out all the templates, and some future editor wondering what the template looked like.-- SPhilbrick T 20:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, actually, I don't think I represent hundreds of users, I don't have a split personality or anything like that, but this article does contain certain facts which are changing rapidly. The way I understand this guideline, this template should not be used if, for example, there is a new host announced for a certain competition, or if there are new qualified teams, or if there was a draw for the event, or if a venue of a certain event has changed, or if there are some retroactively found facts about the event after it has finished, since all of these information are significant, but don't make the event described in the article "current" and there really would be thousands of articles marked with this template in that case. But if an event is in progress, then it can be described as current, since the results, tables and the other data making the core of the article are, well... "changing rapidly" and there is not that many competitions going on at a certain moment to make an inflation of the usage of this template. So, the template should stay and I really don't get your point, neither can I see anything in the guidelines saying it should be removed.-- Vitriden ( talk) 11:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Animals, plants, and other organisms. I would have no problem if the MoS had gone the other way, but it did not. If I have inadvertantly broken some links (I am trying to avoid this and correct it where I have done it) please help fix these without again violating the MoS. — SlamDiego ←T 10:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Glancing at the articles that you give as examples, it seems that only their titles are in violation of the MoS; in their bodies, they follow the MoS. — SlamDiego ←T 10:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you tagged Template:Launching ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) as one of the future templates that you are proposing to do away with. Launching is a template used during "current" launch campaigns, at around the time of launch, so should be considered a "current" template, not a "future" template. -- G W … 15:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I see that you've been going through removing the various box-office leaders boxes from articles. Could you make sure that for each article you remove a box from, that an equivalent line is included in the main article prose stating the same information where one doesn't already exist? My fear is that these boxes were used for such a long time to contain this information — oftentimes to the exclusion of the information in the main body in older film articles — and you might be removing a lot of information that will not be easily recovered without a lot of effort in the future. I think a little extra effort in the removal process will save a lot of work and/or lost information down the road. – Fierce Beaver ( talk) 18:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Re this. I am still working on this. It is still underconstruction, so I put the tag back in. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Conti,
I saw your recent edit on the
Bobby Newman article I created; at the moment it is a stub article.
I was wondering if you could help me work and expand on it.
Thanx!
ATC .
Talk 00:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Per my suggestion which you can now see here, I've moved the bulk of the long dispute with Ohms Law and MusicFan at Deprecating future templates to the talk page. Since this involved moving your comments I thought you should be notified. I did this because I felt others not involved in the dispute were being put off from sharing their opinions on the issue because of out dispute. I did leave the first few comments on the main page, and posted a link to the continuation on the talk page. If you object in some way let me know. Equazcion ( talk) 01:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I undid your redirect. If you'd like to discuss this let me know. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 04:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
As is being utilised here. While there have been some periods of rapid editting that has mostly passed apart from the addition and removal of speculations from non-registerred edittors. -- Falcadore ( talk) 00:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll put this up here, because the WP:DFUTURE is now meant as an archive and not meant to be edited any longer. (DANG!) Frankly, I've just missed the whole caboodle until now and just stumbled on a "deprecated" message with a future software article; that's why I started to look for information. Uh-huh, again some dude which wants to make himself immortal by his great proposal; 100 different users commenting to it meaning "All of Wikipedians" (like the jury in the U.S. court!). So if 80% say "deprecated", this is projected onto the point of view of the rest. Uh-huh. OK, let's give an example. Software not released yet: Azure Services Platform. Categories I can find there are: Microsoft and Cloud Platforms. Fantastic. So all you bigmouths that promised us future categories as replacement of our beloved future... templates (as readable on the captions of the templates now deprecated) , where did you hide them? Currently, things look like this: a bot is going to auto-delete the "deprecated" templates in a few days, and then there will be no new "future category"! I'm not as stupid to believe the bot will auto-INSERT a new category after it has deleted the future template. Not a cat in hell's chance I'm gonna buy that story. -andy 92.229.113.76 ( talk) 01:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
For starting this RFC with a great result. The last one has been deleted. Garion96 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC) |
There is a discussion at the Village Pump regarding using AWB to semi-automatically remove WP:Words to avoid. You got this notice because you have participated in a discussion regarding this in the recent past. Your input is welcomed. Gigs ( talk) 03:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
You may wish to comment at User talk:Starblueheather#Washington Post polls. rʨanaɢ talk/ contribs 22:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
User:Conti has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, Peace, A record of your Day will always be kept here. |
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
What was the implausible redirect? - 142.167.81.93 ( talk) 03:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
In re: [6] How can you say "per Afd" when that was clearly not the result? -- œ ™ 15:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed the {{ current spaceflight}} template from Progress M-05M. Since it is due to dock tomorrow, I feel that it is still appropriate for it to be tagged as current until that time, and that is certainly within the spirit in which the guidelines for the current spaceflight tag were written. Do you have any objections to it being restored until docking is complete. -- G W … 18:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
When you revert per BRD, please explain your objection to the B when you initiate the D. If you don't explain your objection (and "find consensus first" is not an explanation of your objection), then it's not a revert per BRD, and the B should stand. Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 15:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I reverted per this statement at WP:BRD: "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." Over five hours went by after you made the Revert, and never provided a reason beyond invoking BRD, which is not in accordance with BRD. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yea, when it was uploaded here originally, it was uploaded wrong (noob mistake... it's confusing even to long-timers). Dr. Steel gave written permission for all the images on this article to be used. However he didn't use the magic words "CC-BY-SA 3.0" except for the first image; he said he would be resending written permission shortly to rectify the misunderstanding. Sorry for the confusion. -- Jonnybgoode44 ( talk) 18:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you know who has valiantly trimmed the population of articles with {{
current sport}}?
Is the {{
Current MLB season}} recent, and what do you suggest on removing it?
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 02:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, the article of PlaneShift video game has been moved to the Incubator for improvements as suggested by other admins. Many new sources have been added, including scanned magazine articles, computer programming and open source books. I think it's ready to be evaluated and moved to the main space. Please review it and move the article to the main space if you think it's ready. Here is the article Thanks. Xyz231 ( talk) 10:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Did you see the updated editsummary at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TedderBot 5? tedder ( talk) 06:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I have seen that you edited some volleyball articles. Some players articles, most of them looks outdated. I would like to improve players by country. Could you please choose a country to contribute with? Please take a look on Yekaterina Gamova, Hélia Souza, Serena Ortolani and Kenia Carcaces for a model to follow. Please can you please improve some volleyball players with infobox and some addons? References are very important. Let me know. Oscar987 22:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because of your participation in this discussion, now continued at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. – xeno talk 13:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
"If you block everyone who opposes your actions, there won't be anyone left opposing your actions, and you can therefore declare consensus."
Maybe you hate ED so much because you can't block anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.181.119 ( talk) 17:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Not on ED, bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.36.83 ( talk) 10:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that you did a group removal of the find a grave template from several pages. I also noticed that most have been reverted by other editors. I understand that you don't like and I can understand removing it from some articles as you are "Verifying" that the information is already referenced in the article. But judging by the short time in between edits it does not appear to be the case. I would ask you to not do a mass removal strategy like that anymore. The conversation on the External links did not garner the concensus to do this and the EL instructions do not state it either as you would indicate in your edit comments. -- Kumioko ( talk) 17:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
(interjection) At the moment, I'm ambivalent and watching the debate at the PUMP and here but I would like to request ceasing the removal until some form of community decision may be made for harmony's sake. At the present, it can be confusing for editors. Somewhere a consensus should be reached so that everyone can get on the same page and we're not all reverting one another owing to the confusion. Let's get it clarified first....I've seen this come up several times but have never seen a clear consensus. Either way, thank you for considering my request.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► (
(⊕)) 19:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Good thing I have two. *BANG!* Oh that's just unfair... *thump* Half Shadow 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
As I remarked on ANI, your
definition of tag-teaming seems rather more commensurate with the standard one... Hans Adler over there was honest enough to admit that he was using a lower threshold, whereas Giano naturally takes the, "Well unless they all publish their emails and chats I don't suppose we shall ever know the depth of it," approach :P
But I agree, I don't think it's tag-teaming at all. Several people independently agreeing with each other
has a different name here. (I can't post this on Giano's talkpage because he'll immediately delete it because I'm allegedly a troll. At least some things change!) Best, ╟─
Treasury
Tag►
most serene─╢ 10:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
-- ♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Whenever you move an image like this one:
can you check the article it was on and change the file name on it? File:(2) cover.jpg was being redirected to File:Olivia Newton-John - (2) album cover.jpg and was transcluded on the article, but did not show up as it being on the article, and was subsequently marked for deletion. — Moe ε 03:41, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for uncovering my nefarious plan to... uh.. my obvious sock puppetry intended to.. uh... what was it I was doing wrong, again? Thanks anyhow. Locke's Ghost 11:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you are mass removing the find a grave links without consensus using an automated tool. Since we are still duscussing it I don't think you should be doing that. -- Kumioko ( talk) 23:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
For your information:
Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Request_to_remove_various_temporal_templates_from_Twinkle
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 03:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites, which you contributed to. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi
Just wanted to point out, in case you did not notice, that you didn't actually vote (oppose, keep, Merge etc.) on the page Talk:Android (operating system)#Requested move Chaosdruid ( talk) 12:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Dear Conti, WP:3RR 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 16:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Conti, the beauty of using the find a grave template is that it links to the Wikipedia article on Find a grave. In that sense, readers are free to make an informed judgment on its worth. Frankly, there is no harm in having a link to a different picture that specifically shows the headstone up close. You are really saying there is 'no reason, but its policy.' Linking to find a grave gives readers a chance to look at their articles and make their own judgment. As to gravesites, cemeteries and pictures of them, find a grave is in that business, and does a credible job. the cemetery articles are particularly good, as they oftimes pull together disparate famous personages who share the same cemetery -- there are historic and cultural implications in that. If they don't have an article with useful information (e.g., Atilla the Hun then removing it might make sense. But that is a judgment that should be done on a case-by-case basis. I am not even going into the removal from the Minton article of the reference to Find a grave. In this particular case it was corroborative of facts verified in professional journals. There was no reason to remove it, other than 'adherence to policy.' I did not revert it then because it was a war that I did not feel like fighting. I don't participate in these ongoing and incessant policy discussions mainly because I am just a first line editor -- more than 85% of my edits are contributions to articles. I have better things to do than get into discussions that go nowhere. I would suggest that inferring merit (or lack thereof) from the number of participants in these discussions, or their position, is an unwarranted inference. It merely means that lots of editors are turned off by the exercise in mental and verbal masturbation. It may seem like fun at the time, but nobody is going to get pregnant, and nothing is being accomplished. At bottom, the amorphous policies are to blame here. You and I are wasting time arguing over a marginal link. Its presence does no harm, although it creates a reason to debate far in excess of its effect on the article. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 12:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
There are a very few extremely persistent sockpuppets that I use rev delete on. Generally, those that have been disrupting the same articles for years, generating autoconfirmed socks to defeat the semi-protection. I'm basically trying to make things as difficult for them as possible. Wiki-11233 falls into that category.— Kww( talk) 18:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
[7] Priceless! — Ched : ? 08:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
No, it's an old joke. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 18:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Please don't edit articles like Robopocalypse to leave lines like "Sources like Robert Crais and Booklist have compared the book to Michael Crichton's novels." unreferenced. It's like littering. Dimension31 ( talk) 14:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I see no need to use a euphemism ever. Why can't we just come out and say "died"? We know what you're saying; don't dodge it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ( Otters want attention) 17:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Conti, this is just to let you know that I have mentioned and diffed a dispute you had with Cirt ( talk · contribs) a few months ago, at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Cirt. Best, -- J N 466 21:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I've noticed you suggested article on this subject. If you are going to write it, we could join forces: I am going to write the same article in Lithuanian Wikipedia. We could share sources, ideas on structure, pictures and so on. What do you think -- Windom ( talk) 16:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I hope you are good looking and not gay.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
ONE. LETTER. DIFFERENCE. I don't know how to dumb it down any more than that. -- TheTruthiness ( talk) 19:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
You participated in the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_7#Network_templates. A new discussion about the same templates has been restarted at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_19#Network_templates_2. Feel free to express your thoughts at the new discussion.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 16:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
A notification that the Templates for Discussion discussion (oy, repetition) has been taken to a deletion review discussion. The Article Rescue Squadron was notified, and as notifications to previous involved parties isn't normal practise, I and a few ARS members agreed that, in the interests of transparency and fairness, we should let everyone know...hence this talkpage message ;).
If anyone has an issue with me sending these out, do drop me a note on my talkpage. Regards, Ironholds ( talk) 10:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
the user who started the sockpuppetry case on me is clearly against My Little Pony. when i saw the message that User:Michaeldsuarez left on my page, because User:Night Ranger failed to do so, i read the part about defending yourself against sock claims. stupidly, i added Template:User alternative account name to Badmachine, which linked Daniel Brandt to my doppleganger account, and therefore, my dox. sadly i had to db-author both pages, and recreate so that my dox are not as easily accessible to the Brandt team. while reading the BORING wp policy pages, i saw this.
Those created by known and respected long-standing contributors, whose aim is clearly more to showcase our work and WP:NOT#CENSORED and that are not designed for self-amusement or for sexual provocation may be kept but even so have at times been MFD'ed multiple times or closed as "no consensus".
i am sure you can see the deleted revisions of my userpage. that penis image was my favorite image on the entire project, and as such, i wanted to showcase it. it was the only image on my page, so its not like i was making a pr0n gallery or something. do you think this has a chance at deletion review? if so, would the revision that exposes my dox to the Brandt team be exposed again? thanks conti. and sry if i seem like i am a troll. i just like the internet and internet related articles. i dont know why everyone thinks i am a troll just because i have learned how to deal with them. - badmachine 13:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Conti,
My name is Jonathan Obar
user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community
HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.
So a few things about the interviews:
Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name
HERE instead.
If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.
Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Obar -- Jaobar ( talk) 02:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Nice user page! ASCIIn2Bme ( talk) 20:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC) |
You deleted my references and WIPED STUFF! How is it original research if it is referenced???? Why make it impossible to re-add stuff????????????
Wikipedia is weird! You seem to delight in just being jerks to everyone who comes on and tries to improve it. Why don't you want truthful articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.223.96 ( talk) 15:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but there was nothing original about it. These people are quite simply wrong. I was quoting plot synopsis! These people were quoting nothing! There is nothing to disagree about. 100 people can lie to you and 1 tell the truth. Truth isn't a popularity contest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.223.96 ( talk) 16:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
If 1 person tells the truth and 100 people lie, that doesn't make that 1 person wrong. Truth has nothing to do with popularity. My links prove that I was telling the truth. End of story. Anyone who encourages the liars is doing the wrong thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.223.96 ( talk) 16:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Please don't delete other users' comments on talk pages or discussion pages, as you did here unless there is an extremely good reason to do so, such as removing a clear copyright violation. If this becomes a regular problem it could lead to blocks or other sanctions. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
hello. i dont see why "convenience link"s are necessary.. if people followed that notion, the Viagra article would be filled with "convenience link"s. - badmachine 16:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.
For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) ( talk) 18:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Just FYI, that quote "Blocking should be a last resort, not a first step" was added for emphasis to the policy by an editor in light of the recent strident enforcement. However the earlier emphasis on not blocking has been there for a very long time. -- Avanu ( talk) 10:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your edit summary here, who precisely was edit warring over a "typo"? What does removing sourced information have to do with a "typo"? Nightscream ( talk) 15:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Just thought I'd point out that this source explicitly says the following in the "South and East Asia and Oceania" section:
"According to the Hindu tradition of erotic painting and sculpture, a human copulating with an animal is actually a human having intercourse with a God incarnated in the form of an animal. Copulation with a sacred cow or monkey is believed to bring good fortune."
I decided to see if it was real or not, and indeed, it is real. Since I realise that people might question it, it might be worth putting in the quote above rather then a sentence.
(I have copied this to the zoophilia talk page). MarkB40n ( talk) 18:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#A_follow_up_on_Bwilkins. Ian.thomson ( talk) 15:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
You
reverted my addition of a {{
disambiguation needed}}
template to the infobox of the
xkcd article, apparently on the grounds that no further disambiguation was possible and/or necessary. Perhaps I failed to make clear in my edit summary that "I've looked at this" meant "I looked at
the disambiguation page."
As far as I understand relevant guidelines, it is impermissible (within article namespace) to link to a disambiguation page with the intent to mean "everything on the disambiguation page applies here." I was indeed unsuccessful at repairing the disambiguation link in the sense of choosing only one meaning. Any suggestions on what I should have done here? -- SoledadKabocha ( talk) 00:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
First of all, my apologies for speaking in English. I doubt you would figure out what I want from you if I'd try to use all the French that I know. :) Anyhow: I'm currently checking various categories for copyright violations over at Commons, and I found your images that way. You upload a great deal of medical images on Commons. Could you tell me where you got all those images from? I'm guessing that's part of your job or something, but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks in advance! -- Conti ( d) 1 décembre 2012 à 19:44 (CET)
HI J.F.Y.I I just read your comment on Talk:Victoria_Leigh_Soto#A_School_Named_after_Victoria_Soto and added my two cents have a read if you like =)
have a nice day -- Fox2k11 ( talk) 22:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
In general, it's usually better to replace a section header with an {{anchor|title of section}} than to delete the section header entirely, as you did here. Deleting a section header without replacing it with an anchor will cause all incoming links to that section to become broken, so I created an anchor for the section header that you deleted. Jarble ( talk) 17:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
User:AGK/Purpose of ArbCom is a page you may be interested in keeping an eye on.
It occurred to me after our conversation that the DB lists are really based on number of pages or revisions on the wiki (I can't remember which off-hand), but we'd be much more interested in number of active users (or rather, number of active disputes, which is really difficult to quantify). We could pull the active user stats easily enough, I suppose (it's a stored value). But I think AGK is headed in the right direction by better defining and clarifying ArbCom's role here. It's a more realistic goal (for now) than trying to disband ArbCom. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 19:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Conti. Will you weigh in on this matter? I'm at the end of my rope with this editor, given the overlinking and the other stuff. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Hey, again. If you do decide to weigh in on the above message I left you, which no longer seems necessary to me, I ask that you read the email I just sent you first. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
references
Thank you for quality contributions on referencing, with
precise edit summaries, for a great user page and other ways to make people smile, - repeating: you are an
awesome Wikipedian (20 February 2010)!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Conti. I see you removed the address of the home at 2013 Cleveland, Ohio, missing trio. I actually don't care one way or the other if it's included, but I just wanted to point out two things. First, the full address is still in the article twice; once each in the infobox and body. Second, I noticed that a similar article, Kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard, does in fact include the full address of confinement in the infobox; it also has the street name in the body. Again, I'll defer to your judgment on this, but shouldn't at least the street name be included from where you have removed the full address? After all, the name "Seymour Avenue" is now very closely associated with the crime. I will support whatever you decide, but of course there's no guarantee that others won't object. ;) -- 76.189.109.155 ( talk) 17:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Update: Since Epeefleche has started a new thread below regarding this matter, there's no need to continue the discussion here. -- 76.189.109.155 ( talk) 20:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Your view as expressed in an edit summary is as follows: "Please do not include private details like personal addresses unless there is a very good reason to do so. "It has been reported" is not a very good reason, and in this case the information is entirely irrelevant."
You do recognize, I hope, that you are simply expressing (while reverting a second time, in short order) a personal view or two of yours. First -- this "private detail" has no blp concern vis-a-vis the person to whom it relates. That person does not live there at this time.
Second, reflecting the address is relevant. We know that because RSs in such large numbers reflect it. At wp, as at article deletion discussions and naming discussions and the like, we look to what RSs do to ascertain relevance as a matter of course. It is in the wp DNA. It lets us avoid POV deletions -- of articles, of names of articles, etc. It keeps individual editors from baldly (with zero objective basis) saying that an article or name, etc., is "entirely irrelevant." Some editors have been known to make such declarations, based on their personal views, as emphatically as they can, to try to intimidate others. That's not good practice. Better practice is to look at objective treatment in RSs. Did RSs think it relevant enough to reflect? In large number? Then that is a good clue that, if we are to look at this from a non-personal-point-of-view perspective, that it may well be relevant to the same audience -- those who read RSs and who read wp articles.
Is it relevant to report that it happened in the U.S.? Why? In Cleveland? Why? At the address in question? Why? The RSs report all three -- for obvious reasons -- and it is relevant IMHO for us to include as well. For the same obvious reasons. It's perhaps somewhat heavy-handed for any one editor, in the face of that, to make loud yet-unsupported personal-point-of-view assertions of the type that you made. And just engage in multiple reverts, with edit summaries.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 19:50, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
"any depiction or simulation of sexual activity or lasciviousness involving one or more persons"
The context of the image and documentation of surrounding events make it pretty clear that the image is a depiction of sexual activity. How to handle the dark side of history is a known problem. Geni ( talk) 21:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
The section on the allegations about vandalism seem useful for balance and NPOV, otherwise Wikipediocracy only has correct allegations noted. This allegation pointed out a software error, which has apparently been fixed.
Wikipedia does a lot of things right, and these things have been reported in the reliable sources. I've tried to note corrections by Wikipedia, that have been documented in reliable sources, for NPOV and Due Weight concerns. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:37, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
The bong picture was censored from Russia-language WP, and so it illustrates the article nicely. One could have a more descriptive caption, such as "This picture was censored from Russian language WP, as documented by Wikipediocracy" with a little work. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 11:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Conti who? pronunciation? buzzword disambiguation needed is how? why? timeframe? non-primary source needed a vague needs copy edit clarification needed expand acronym person. when defined as? ambiguous jargon unbalanced opinion? dubious specify neutrality is disputed
Not on my watch! — C M B J 01:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, we can take it to talk -- Kendrick7 talk 00:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello, it seems your custom sig has a small issue. Since DYK discussions take place within a template the divider between your user page link and user talk link functions as wiki-markup. This kept the second half of your sig and subsequent comments from appearing. You may want to tweak that a bit to avoid such issues in the future.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
For your information.
Template talk:Current#Reworking this template
--
Yellowdesk (
talk) 06:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm questioning the mark "Good Article" of the Fursuit. Since you were one of those who contributed to it, I ask your opinion. Keplerbr ( talk) 12:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Fursuit, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Sourcewatch logo.png. 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) 02:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton ( talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot ( talk) 00:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Conti. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Trackr, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:
{{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 20:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Trackr 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/Trackr 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. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message ( talk to me) ( My edits) @ 09:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Conti. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.
In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:
Please review
the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators'
mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi Conti.
A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.
It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins). MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Conti. 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.
Hello, Conti. 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. Mdann52 ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.
13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Conti. 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)
Hello, Conti. 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)
Hello, Conti. 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)
Administrators
must secure their accounts
The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.
|
This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
You stated in your revert of our edit that, and we quote, "no artist uploads their art there, unlike all the other sites listed." and this statement is simply false.
Many artists have and many still do, post their work to the website in question.
It has also been a cornerstone of the growth of the furry fandom, many people having gotten into the subculture THROUGH that website.
Now, a lot of posts are by others, that's true. But there is a lot of artists who use it as another way to spread their reach and upload their content there.
So... maybe add it back in?
Ten years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Eight years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 09:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi!
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you. / Johan (WMF)
18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.
Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:
Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Nine years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 07:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 08:41, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to the required activity level before the beginning of January 2023.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to engage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for re-engaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to re-engage with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of retroactive continuities 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.
JeffUK ( talk) 10:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Hello Conti, you will get another message in a moment about your -sysop flag; I've removed your -efm flag as you have not worked on filters in 10 years. If you need this again, please let us know at WP:EFN. Thank you for your prior service in this area. — xaosflux Talk 02:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Established policy provides for the removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. Your administrative permissions have been removed.
Subject to certain time limits and other restrictions, your administrative permissions may be returned upon request at WP:BN.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — xaosflux Talk 02:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)