Hi. It's nice to get a question about participating in Wikimania and not just organising a Wikimania!
The idea for Hong Kong to host a Wikimania has been suggested since we hosted the Chinese Wikimedia Conference 2006, and the intention for Hong Kong to bid for Wikimania 2013 was conceived at Wikimania 2011. Preparations for the bid began in late 2011 and the formal bidding process was in early 2012. Hong Kong was announced as the winning bid in May 2012, which gave us 15 months to organise the conference.
In terms of participation, it is not necessary at all to be "known to communities" before you attend Wikimania. Actually, attending Wikimania is the best way to make yourself known to the wider Wikimedia community. However, Wikimania is a very intense conference. In order to make the best out of Wikimania, I generally recommend new participants to have been editing a Wikimedia project for a year before attending Wikimania. If there's a local meetup nearby, it will be a good idea to attend it to get a general feel of offline Wikimedia events.
Don't let anything dissuade you though. Wikimania is an awesome conference, so the above are just some advice on how to prepare yourself so you can get the best out of Wikimania. If you want to go and have the time and money to travel there, just do it! Der yck C. 19:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Chan (2015) wrote, "The idea for Hong Kong to host a Wikimania has been suggested since we hosted the Chinese Wikimedia Conference 2006, and the intention for Hong Kong to bid for Wikimania 2013 was conceived at Wikimania 2011. Preparations for the bid began in late 2011 and the formal bidding process was in early 2012. Hong Kong was announced as the winning bid in May 2012, which gave us 15 months to organise the conference." and, "Attending local meetups will give you a good idea of what offline Wikimedia events are like, because Wikimania is basically a very big meetup." If I had known this perspective ahead of time in early 2005 which had already been three years after my registration at Wikipediae, I would not have waited until today to ask you about Wikimania. In retrospect, do you think "[being] known to communities" (Ktsquare, 2015) is currently crucial to get up-to-date information about activities, projects and whatnots of wikimania and the Wikimedia Foundation ? -- Ktsquare (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
(Carrying on from email) I'm not sure what are your concerns. I agree that there is a significant threshold of entry for Wikimania organisers (and rightly so), but there is no barrier for anyone to become a participant. I was only trying to give some advice to help people enjoy Wikimania as much as they can. In fact, at every Wikimania there has been local people who had never edited Wikipedia and simply joined Wikimania because they were interested.
What can prospective organisers do if they want to help organise a Wikimania at their localities ? Say Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Mainland Chinese could do or have done to organise one from scratch ? A brief history will suffice. -- Ktsquare (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Having reviewed various sources I'm undecided on this one: independent sources seem to be split about 50/50 for either name. I wouldn't object to a rename to the shorter name, or to an alteration to the lead such as St John the Evangelist's Church (commonly known as St John's Blackheath) or St John's Blackheath (formally known as St John the Evangelist's Church). Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Your 2011 edit [1] to the Hamilton C shell article, removing a COI tag, has been reverted [2]. There is some related discussion on the article talk page. Msnicki ( talk) 20:33, 22 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) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on RfD! sst✈ (discuss) 15:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |
how did you possibly keep this page when it was a blatent puff piece and the only voters for keep were himself and his friends? wiki guidelines call for considering arguments and facts not majority. its a horribly sourced article and i disagee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.194.149.117 ( talk) 21:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Ϣere
SpielChequers is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15a}} to your friends' talk pages.
The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award | |
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
Hi Deryck Chan, thank you for protecting the article. However, in choosing a 2014 version to revert to, the copyright violations on sustainability [3] were restored--I think I removed it at least three times last night. Again, your assistance is much appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 12:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
You blocked Cairo derby from editing, but there is a mess, go and revert, or correct, scroll down and see the mess. thank you.-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 22:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for amability of replying, "Honours" section is modified (vandalised), try to revert it to the last version. (just the Honours) Anything is better that what is now ! Check ! I will also contact Ben. Thanks !-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 00:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
That is perfect ! Also in Top goalscorers Abdel-Karim Sakr is vandalised, El Ahly (0) El Zamalek (9999) That is not correct, maybe you can also find it. Thanks !-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 00:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
And if you allow me, I can improve a bit the article, to create a bit more of bluelinks !-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 00:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Here you have some references to add please: [4] [5]
The problem is this article will be constant vandalised ! So in this situation we have to update it, and after permanent block ?-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 00:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I am in love with Wikipedia ! I will just do day night edits if I could do it. I spend all my free time here ! it is so much to do here, many many articles are low quality, but soon I want to create my own Wikipedia Football ! I need a team, they will work because they will be paid, not for free, add advertising, we will have a sponsor, and many others ideas I have, are you in ?-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 00:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
We will have the football articles from this wikipedia, and take everything and improve it and add more and more.
Differences from current Wikipedia : we will allow the own research, because is football and anyone can make charts and statistics, tables, if you already have other informations about it ! (teams, players, scores, etc)-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 00:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
We will add advertising, bet companies will be our sponsors, we will allow chats between users, we will have all time charts of the teams results, maybe a live score after ? what do you think ? I have so many ideas... can you create a different wikipedia working in a team, and be the boss from behind this future business ? We can make a complete site for football ! (and the difference is that we will allow people to edit or report errors) - there is no football website which allow people to add information or report errors !-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 00:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
We will be famous like Mark Zuckerberg who invented facebook, but our site will be 5 in 1 ! facebook (chat for people), wikipedia (lots of information), google (with a search engine), live score (live time football scores and matches) and after even live matches and also a bet page, where people can choose what they want to bet, and our sponsors will be a sportsbook, with sure we will find with so nice webiste. Are you good enough to do it or to find a team to create something like this ?? i will do my best with the football part, and statistics, I already have a team with some of the best knowledge people about football.-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 01:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).
After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.
In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.
With thanks,
I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 22:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
[6] you went against a 7:3 consensus here. I don't see how you can ignore the users who see the redirects as nonsense. Legacypac ( talk) 04:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I saw that you attempted to create an "edit notice" in your deletion summary for editors who may be looking up that title. I've actually tried to suggest that myself during another discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 16#Template:Other uses-section. However, it seems that what I was recommending either wasn't understood or just wasn't agreed upon, but I'm no sure. However, also, back then, I wasn't able to create edit notices. I wasn't sure if that would work for the close you made for 沙盒 since I assumed that edit notices only appeared on edit screen where the page exists. But, I thought I'd give it a shot and created Template:Editnotices/Page/沙盒. Turns out, even though the page doesn't exist, the edit notice appears on the edit screen below the deletion log and above the note stating that only auto confirmed editors can create the page. So, I just found out something today: Feel free to tweak the edit notice. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Re your case statement: Sorry to hassle you here but a meme is developing that FPaS did not warn TRM prior to blocking. It's true no templated warning was issued, but I think that the sequence of events shows a very clear warning was issued, and the warning was acknowledged. In fact the warning was not only acknowledged but was challenged in a way that escalated the situation.
Please consider the following timeline and let me know what you think.
rv proxying for banned harassment vandal. Whoever reinstates this will be blocked"
... Block me and you'll be at Arbcom, remember?"
I might post this at the case request, but wanted to ask if I've missed anything first. Thanks. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that I had assumed nothing other than to read that FPAS had a history of misbehaviour, and that this IP was informing me of such. That FPAS got involved and then blocked me without a talkpage warning was a pure abuse of his "position". By all means include this interaction at Arbcom. I was happy to restore my own comments on my own talkpage, and, after all, I wasn't the one who made an involved block against policy. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
On the RfD for ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ, you closed with "no consensus on alternative, default to delete". I don't understand why you did this - isn't policy "no consensus, default to keep"? ·· gracefool 💬 20:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
My response to you at the RfA talk page may appear defensive. That is not directed at you personally, but more toward the "IP". If it appears that I am being overly-defensive toward you, my apologies. I don't mind in the least discussing the situation with you. If you're not aware of it - you may also want to see the IP talk page here: Note also that the response was from an account that has less than 20 edits to en-wp. As I said, I'm more than willing to discuss the situation, at any place of your choice (either on or off wiki). I just wanted to clarify that I'm not upset with you personally in the least. Cheers. — Ched : ? 17:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I believe that the discussion regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect which you recently closed as "no consensus" resulted in a clear consensus to delete the redirect as no reasonably acceptable argument was presented for keeping it.
Despite a number of strong arguments for deleting the redirect, and no valid arguments for keeping it, you determined the outcome of the debate to be "no consensus." Your closing statement failed to provide an explanation of why your analysis of " the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of [the] issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy," led you to conclude no consensus was achieved.
In light of the above, as well as your having been WP:INVOLVED in the matter under discussion prior to enacting your recent closure of the latest in a series of related discussions, as evidenced by your closure of the previous discussion regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect, [7] I'd like to ask you to undo your closure thus allowing an uninvolved administrator to handle the matter. Thank you. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 16:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The purpose of this message is to inform you that your recent closure of a discussion regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect is currently undergoing a review. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 18:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award | |
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
Although edits are very low, none of IP edits were good. Extend PC? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
You protected this article for a few days a while back. It seems to need some more... maybe. Debouch ( talk) 03:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Masterbated and Masterbatory. Since you had some involvement with these redirects, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy( TALK CONT) 20:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to name names because everyone is so super-sensitive around here but I think you'll work out what's motivated me to visit your page. I'm curious what stance you take on the question of whether it matters that our editors (that's on English WP) have better than (or even just) rudimentary skills in English grammar. Is it wise to give encouragement on these pages to editors who give us "I think I might have reversed another edit out of intention"? So is that "intentionally" or quite the reverse? Don't ask the author because he/she doesn't know. And if that is the rule rather than the exception in the case of a certain editor, i.e. the editor could not recognise or reproduce English if it leapt up and grabbed him/her by the throat, would we be wanting to give that editor additional rights to decide about the performance of others on this centre for English expression? Or have we no standards at all? Is the WP crew resigned to the fact that it will do anything to attract and keep people willing to contribute, even if it's unmitigated trash? Just wondering. sirlanz Sirlanz 10:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with "had a leaning towards [...] plagiarism". The few instances where a person or a bot posted on that user's talk page regarding possible plagiarism were all resolved satisfactorily by the user. Der yck C. 19:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Please move a copy of the article Lance Naik Hanumanthappa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to User:DBigXray/Incomplete_articles I plan to include contents from there to Avalanche article on this incident. -- DBig Xray 08:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure what went wrong with your deletion/restoration of Stereotypes of white people in the United States, but the article's gone. Please fix it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 00:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Deryck, thanks for this close. Might I suggest revisiting Shenae, though, and specifically request it remain an {{ R from given name}} too? Species are almost never referred to by the second part of their binomial names alone. I actually don't know of a single case. That's a true partial-title match. -- BDD ( talk) 16:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Deryck Chan: regarding Shenae, I had advocated for "keep" with that one, not disambiguate. From my understanding, species names are considered WP:PTM's and aren't disambiguated. You'll either see it as "Autosticha shena" or "A. shenae" but never simply "shenae" unless that happens to be the common name. A good example for precedent would be: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinctoria. While I'm obviously biased, I don't think there is consensus to disambiguate that one. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 16:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC) moved from RFD
Hi. It's nice to get a question about participating in Wikimania and not just organising a Wikimania!
The idea for Hong Kong to host a Wikimania has been suggested since we hosted the Chinese Wikimedia Conference 2006, and the intention for Hong Kong to bid for Wikimania 2013 was conceived at Wikimania 2011. Preparations for the bid began in late 2011 and the formal bidding process was in early 2012. Hong Kong was announced as the winning bid in May 2012, which gave us 15 months to organise the conference.
In terms of participation, it is not necessary at all to be "known to communities" before you attend Wikimania. Actually, attending Wikimania is the best way to make yourself known to the wider Wikimedia community. However, Wikimania is a very intense conference. In order to make the best out of Wikimania, I generally recommend new participants to have been editing a Wikimedia project for a year before attending Wikimania. If there's a local meetup nearby, it will be a good idea to attend it to get a general feel of offline Wikimedia events.
Don't let anything dissuade you though. Wikimania is an awesome conference, so the above are just some advice on how to prepare yourself so you can get the best out of Wikimania. If you want to go and have the time and money to travel there, just do it! Der yck C. 19:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Chan (2015) wrote, "The idea for Hong Kong to host a Wikimania has been suggested since we hosted the Chinese Wikimedia Conference 2006, and the intention for Hong Kong to bid for Wikimania 2013 was conceived at Wikimania 2011. Preparations for the bid began in late 2011 and the formal bidding process was in early 2012. Hong Kong was announced as the winning bid in May 2012, which gave us 15 months to organise the conference." and, "Attending local meetups will give you a good idea of what offline Wikimedia events are like, because Wikimania is basically a very big meetup." If I had known this perspective ahead of time in early 2005 which had already been three years after my registration at Wikipediae, I would not have waited until today to ask you about Wikimania. In retrospect, do you think "[being] known to communities" (Ktsquare, 2015) is currently crucial to get up-to-date information about activities, projects and whatnots of wikimania and the Wikimedia Foundation ? -- Ktsquare (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
(Carrying on from email) I'm not sure what are your concerns. I agree that there is a significant threshold of entry for Wikimania organisers (and rightly so), but there is no barrier for anyone to become a participant. I was only trying to give some advice to help people enjoy Wikimania as much as they can. In fact, at every Wikimania there has been local people who had never edited Wikipedia and simply joined Wikimania because they were interested.
What can prospective organisers do if they want to help organise a Wikimania at their localities ? Say Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Mainland Chinese could do or have done to organise one from scratch ? A brief history will suffice. -- Ktsquare (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Having reviewed various sources I'm undecided on this one: independent sources seem to be split about 50/50 for either name. I wouldn't object to a rename to the shorter name, or to an alteration to the lead such as St John the Evangelist's Church (commonly known as St John's Blackheath) or St John's Blackheath (formally known as St John the Evangelist's Church). Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Your 2011 edit [1] to the Hamilton C shell article, removing a COI tag, has been reverted [2]. There is some related discussion on the article talk page. Msnicki ( talk) 20:33, 22 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) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on RfD! sst✈ (discuss) 15:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC) |
how did you possibly keep this page when it was a blatent puff piece and the only voters for keep were himself and his friends? wiki guidelines call for considering arguments and facts not majority. its a horribly sourced article and i disagee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.194.149.117 ( talk) 21:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Ϣere
SpielChequers is wishing you
Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's
Solstice or
Christmas,
Diwali,
Hogmanay,
Hanukkah,
Lenaia,
Festivus or even the
Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{ subst: User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15a}} to your friends' talk pages.
The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award | |
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 02:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC) |
Hi Deryck Chan, thank you for protecting the article. However, in choosing a 2014 version to revert to, the copyright violations on sustainability [3] were restored--I think I removed it at least three times last night. Again, your assistance is much appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 12:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
You blocked Cairo derby from editing, but there is a mess, go and revert, or correct, scroll down and see the mess. thank you.-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 22:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for amability of replying, "Honours" section is modified (vandalised), try to revert it to the last version. (just the Honours) Anything is better that what is now ! Check ! I will also contact Ben. Thanks !-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 00:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
That is perfect ! Also in Top goalscorers Abdel-Karim Sakr is vandalised, El Ahly (0) El Zamalek (9999) That is not correct, maybe you can also find it. Thanks !-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 00:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
And if you allow me, I can improve a bit the article, to create a bit more of bluelinks !-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 00:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Here you have some references to add please: [4] [5]
The problem is this article will be constant vandalised ! So in this situation we have to update it, and after permanent block ?-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 00:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I am in love with Wikipedia ! I will just do day night edits if I could do it. I spend all my free time here ! it is so much to do here, many many articles are low quality, but soon I want to create my own Wikipedia Football ! I need a team, they will work because they will be paid, not for free, add advertising, we will have a sponsor, and many others ideas I have, are you in ?-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 00:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
We will have the football articles from this wikipedia, and take everything and improve it and add more and more.
Differences from current Wikipedia : we will allow the own research, because is football and anyone can make charts and statistics, tables, if you already have other informations about it ! (teams, players, scores, etc)-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 00:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
We will add advertising, bet companies will be our sponsors, we will allow chats between users, we will have all time charts of the teams results, maybe a live score after ? what do you think ? I have so many ideas... can you create a different wikipedia working in a team, and be the boss from behind this future business ? We can make a complete site for football ! (and the difference is that we will allow people to edit or report errors) - there is no football website which allow people to add information or report errors !-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 00:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
We will be famous like Mark Zuckerberg who invented facebook, but our site will be 5 in 1 ! facebook (chat for people), wikipedia (lots of information), google (with a search engine), live score (live time football scores and matches) and after even live matches and also a bet page, where people can choose what they want to bet, and our sponsors will be a sportsbook, with sure we will find with so nice webiste. Are you good enough to do it or to find a team to create something like this ?? i will do my best with the football part, and statistics, I already have a team with some of the best knowledge people about football.-- Fanatic of Football ( talk) 01:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).
After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.
In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.
With thanks,
I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 22:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
[6] you went against a 7:3 consensus here. I don't see how you can ignore the users who see the redirects as nonsense. Legacypac ( talk) 04:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I saw that you attempted to create an "edit notice" in your deletion summary for editors who may be looking up that title. I've actually tried to suggest that myself during another discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 16#Template:Other uses-section. However, it seems that what I was recommending either wasn't understood or just wasn't agreed upon, but I'm no sure. However, also, back then, I wasn't able to create edit notices. I wasn't sure if that would work for the close you made for 沙盒 since I assumed that edit notices only appeared on edit screen where the page exists. But, I thought I'd give it a shot and created Template:Editnotices/Page/沙盒. Turns out, even though the page doesn't exist, the edit notice appears on the edit screen below the deletion log and above the note stating that only auto confirmed editors can create the page. So, I just found out something today: Feel free to tweak the edit notice. Steel1943 ( talk) 18:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Re your case statement: Sorry to hassle you here but a meme is developing that FPaS did not warn TRM prior to blocking. It's true no templated warning was issued, but I think that the sequence of events shows a very clear warning was issued, and the warning was acknowledged. In fact the warning was not only acknowledged but was challenged in a way that escalated the situation.
Please consider the following timeline and let me know what you think.
rv proxying for banned harassment vandal. Whoever reinstates this will be blocked"
... Block me and you'll be at Arbcom, remember?"
I might post this at the case request, but wanted to ask if I've missed anything first. Thanks. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
It's also worth noting that I had assumed nothing other than to read that FPAS had a history of misbehaviour, and that this IP was informing me of such. That FPAS got involved and then blocked me without a talkpage warning was a pure abuse of his "position". By all means include this interaction at Arbcom. I was happy to restore my own comments on my own talkpage, and, after all, I wasn't the one who made an involved block against policy. The Rambling Man ( talk) 22:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
On the RfD for ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ, you closed with "no consensus on alternative, default to delete". I don't understand why you did this - isn't policy "no consensus, default to keep"? ·· gracefool 💬 20:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
My response to you at the RfA talk page may appear defensive. That is not directed at you personally, but more toward the "IP". If it appears that I am being overly-defensive toward you, my apologies. I don't mind in the least discussing the situation with you. If you're not aware of it - you may also want to see the IP talk page here: Note also that the response was from an account that has less than 20 edits to en-wp. As I said, I'm more than willing to discuss the situation, at any place of your choice (either on or off wiki). I just wanted to clarify that I'm not upset with you personally in the least. Cheers. — Ched : ? 17:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I believe that the discussion regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect which you recently closed as "no consensus" resulted in a clear consensus to delete the redirect as no reasonably acceptable argument was presented for keeping it.
Despite a number of strong arguments for deleting the redirect, and no valid arguments for keeping it, you determined the outcome of the debate to be "no consensus." Your closing statement failed to provide an explanation of why your analysis of " the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of [the] issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy," led you to conclude no consensus was achieved.
In light of the above, as well as your having been WP:INVOLVED in the matter under discussion prior to enacting your recent closure of the latest in a series of related discussions, as evidenced by your closure of the previous discussion regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect, [7] I'd like to ask you to undo your closure thus allowing an uninvolved administrator to handle the matter. Thank you. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 16:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
The purpose of this message is to inform you that your recent closure of a discussion regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect is currently undergoing a review. Iaritmioawp ( talk) 18:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award | |
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 05:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC) |
Although edits are very low, none of IP edits were good. Extend PC? -- George Ho ( talk) 07:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
You protected this article for a few days a while back. It seems to need some more... maybe. Debouch ( talk) 03:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Masterbated and Masterbatory. Since you had some involvement with these redirects, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy( TALK CONT) 20:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to name names because everyone is so super-sensitive around here but I think you'll work out what's motivated me to visit your page. I'm curious what stance you take on the question of whether it matters that our editors (that's on English WP) have better than (or even just) rudimentary skills in English grammar. Is it wise to give encouragement on these pages to editors who give us "I think I might have reversed another edit out of intention"? So is that "intentionally" or quite the reverse? Don't ask the author because he/she doesn't know. And if that is the rule rather than the exception in the case of a certain editor, i.e. the editor could not recognise or reproduce English if it leapt up and grabbed him/her by the throat, would we be wanting to give that editor additional rights to decide about the performance of others on this centre for English expression? Or have we no standards at all? Is the WP crew resigned to the fact that it will do anything to attract and keep people willing to contribute, even if it's unmitigated trash? Just wondering. sirlanz Sirlanz 10:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with "had a leaning towards [...] plagiarism". The few instances where a person or a bot posted on that user's talk page regarding possible plagiarism were all resolved satisfactorily by the user. Der yck C. 19:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Please move a copy of the article Lance Naik Hanumanthappa ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to User:DBigXray/Incomplete_articles I plan to include contents from there to Avalanche article on this incident. -- DBig Xray 08:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello. I'm not sure what went wrong with your deletion/restoration of Stereotypes of white people in the United States, but the article's gone. Please fix it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/ Stalk 00:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Deryck, thanks for this close. Might I suggest revisiting Shenae, though, and specifically request it remain an {{ R from given name}} too? Species are almost never referred to by the second part of their binomial names alone. I actually don't know of a single case. That's a true partial-title match. -- BDD ( talk) 16:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
@ Deryck Chan: regarding Shenae, I had advocated for "keep" with that one, not disambiguate. From my understanding, species names are considered WP:PTM's and aren't disambiguated. You'll either see it as "Autosticha shena" or "A. shenae" but never simply "shenae" unless that happens to be the common name. A good example for precedent would be: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinctoria. While I'm obviously biased, I don't think there is consensus to disambiguate that one. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 16:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC) moved from RFD