A kitten for you! | |
...Oh, wait... you have this one already. Anyway, kittens, wikilove blah blah etc. Good to see you back. Kafka Liz ( talk) 22:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
Indeed, good to see you back! Sardur ( talk) 22:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I almost forgot that you've been gone for almost all this time :p
Also, can you archive this talk one of these days whenever you get the chance? :)-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 07:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 18:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Grandmaster has filed an AE report on Nagorno-Karabakh trying to limit participation in the article. Take a look as a user active on the article’s talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nagorno-Karabakh_article Dehr ( talk) 16:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
We never even met each other and already you acting as if I am some sort of enemy, accusing me of a variety of violations and such. I am just a regular Wikipedia user, not some sort of conspirator. Sopher99 ( talk) 22:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
While I agree that I am intense when it come to editing, I can't say that I am POV pushing. I was just startled by a magnanimous push by some of the other editors to try get the article to completely conform with Assad's conspiracy theory. I subsequently gave stark objections. Sopher99 ( talk) 23:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, Meowy, you, especially with your last statement, are acting in the way you accuse him of acting. I'm sure you wouldn't like it is someone said to you; "Go back to watching Press Tv and SANA!", would you? It's a violation of wikipedias rules on civility, to be honest. I would kindly ask to refrain. Moreover, I think Sopher is trying to stop the page from becoming completely pro-Assad. Many socks of certain blocked users (for POV-pushing, vandalism .etc.) constanly vandalise the pages relating to the Uprising. These socks always vandalise battle outcomes, delete information, and are a general nuisance. It's just the influx of quite a few mysterious users, who usually have made few or no edits outside the Syrian Uprising topic, and are new, have started to alter the NPOV to a pro-regime POV. Trying to stop this isn't a serious crime. Goltak ( talk) 13:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I kindly request once that you remain civil at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012; and yet you continue to post uncivil comments towards myself on there. Why? Wesley ☀ Mouse 20:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Do I really need to repeat myself like a parrot? What I said was "I hate to say this, but you seriously need to read things carefully" in reference to a misinterpretation of a comment made by someone else. Nothing derogatory in my choice of words there whatsoever, and by no means are they uncivil. I've been down the uncivil route many a time, and know now that those words aren't what you are trying to imply. However, when you use the same few words and bold them too, then that is purposely directing insult towards another user. Check your manual of style my friend. Wesley ☀ Mouse 23:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
And what do you mean by that statement? Explain yourself please! Wesley ☀ Mouse 23:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Here, you've made some rather extreme statements. In regards to your assertion that the article is fraudulent, I don't know enough to comment -- although I recommend that you should file for the article's deletion on this basis.
More troubling, though, is your description of someone as an "Armenian fascist". In modern society, to call someone a "fascist" is almost universally taken as an insult; the only exceptions are when you're referring to a historical figure who was part of an explicitly Fascistic organization, or who explicitly embraced Fascism. You don't know anything about this person (although I'm willing to grant that he probably is Armenian), so you can't, and shouldn't, call him "fascist".
I politely request that you remove that description from the page in question. DS ( talk) 14:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Please feel free to revert/change my wordings as you see fit. I am not an expert on Armenian monuments; I was instead trying to go back through LordSako's edits and revert what appeared to be extreme POV. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Responded. People in that part of the world sure have strange concerns. Who owns a cat breed? Preposterous. Can we not only care that they are cute+fluffy? I mean, just look at the adorable in the lead picture. This is perhaps the strangest piece of irredentism I've ever seen. -- Golbez ( talk) 20:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to pick the brain of more experienced users about the ongoing exchange between [User:Grandmaster] and a couple of administrators. Grandmaster suggests to restrict access to some and potentially to all articles in Armenia-Azerbaijan by excluding new users [1]. You can reply on my home page if you wish. Dehr ( talk) 19:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Some remarks about the concept. Divot ( talk) 22:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
And some interesting sorces here. Divot ( talk) 00:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Rafy talk 16:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Meowy. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
I have posted this to EdJohnston's talk page. I believe you should raise this issue concerning Nagorno Karabakh.
"And what of the issue I brought to your attention? [2]. You are going to restrict "low edit" editors from Nagorno Karabakh, yet anon IPs can, and still, canvass for and cause disruptive editing in the Armenia-Azerbaijan articles! IF if ANY editors are to be restricted, then anon IPs should not be allowed to canvass for or edit in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles." -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Got an eye on it, but so far it's just got you two on it and no edit wars seem to be coming. -- Golbez ( talk) 13:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi!
My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.
I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.
Thank you for your time,
Victor Grigas
vgrigas@wikimedia.org
Victor Grigas ( talk) 23:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
It is with great pleasure that I award Meowy this Civility Barnstar, in recognition of his excellent civil behaviour towards other editors involved in a peaceful debate surrounding content dispute on Talk:Georgian Orthodox Church. Wesley ☀ Mouse 23:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC) |
Chill out. There was nothing offensive about my edit summary. Accusing an editor of making an offensive edit "without giving any evidence is a serious lapse of assuming good faith." My primary concern there was the word "seized", which, to my knowledge, was not your addition. -- Kober Talk 04:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I'm writing to you as you seem to have helped resolving a recent conflict at Georgian Orthodox Church, and I am in a bit of a conflict with User:GeorgianJorjadze, who was part of that affair, over this template. I would greatly appreciate it if you, along with other users, could come have a look at it.
I initiated a discussion there on the talk page before changing the actual template, and started implementing the changes only after getting feedback from the other interested participant. I feel some changes are objectively needed to bring this template to the standards present in other similar ones, and have explained them in more and more detail as the discussion progressed, while GeorgianJorjadze mostly stated his preference for the old version. He's reverted any attempt I, and another unrelated contributer, have made at changing the template. Confronted with particular problems, he fixed them partially on his own rather than trying to work out a compromise version including some of my changes, as I did repeatedly with his own. After his last revert, instead of answering my arguments for the changes, he went to ask an admin to protect the template on the grounds that I am edit warring ( User_talk:Wifione#Template:History of Georgia). I don't accuse him of edit warring, rather of poor ability to negociate compromises and admit he is not the only editor with rights on that template. For information, the version as it stands is his (he last reverted it to how it was before the discussion started, removing also the changes he had made), you can find my last attempts in the article history (last one is http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:History_of_Georgia&oldid=491463391). I've exposed on the talk page reasons for all of them, last one is the most detailed. I would also appreciate if you (and other editors) could comment on a possible change of image (from the old map now used to the georgian coat of arms), for the sake of consistency with similar templates, and the inclusion or not of dates (I proposed a version with, but am rather neutral on the subject). In any case, I won't edit that template again until other, less partial, users, come and give their opinion on the matter. Thanks a lot!-- Susuman77 ( talk) 22:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Georgian Orthodox Church". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 May 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 11:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Georgian Orthodox Church, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK
[•] 21:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Meowy, please consider redacting this comment by striking it through or whatever. Removing it would have been fine but it's already been responded to; better would have been to not have said it all. If it's not a personal attack (and some may well think it is), it certainly isn't very sensitive, and thus it is completely unhelpful. What's the point in hurting someone's feelings? I thought you'd be more careful in your remarks to other editors. Drmies ( talk) 15:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Fortunately, I appear to have completely missed the (rather tedious) excitement. Shocking that two editors would resist whitewashing attempts, eh? -- Wikiboer ( talk) 12:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
http://forum.vardanank.org/index.php?showtopic=135847
You have deleted one of my edites her, with edit summery: Reverting an edit made by a blocked sockpuppet account. Also, there seems no good reason for the deleted content to have been deleted.. Next time you call me blocked sockpuppet I will notify you at [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|ANI]]. Regarding to seems no good reason for the deleted content.... If you check my edit before. The Democratic Republic of Georgia included Tiflis Governorate, Kutaisi Governorate, Zakatali Okrug, Batumi Oblast and Sukhumi Okrug and not only Tiflis Governorate. And to be even more precise both of the countries Democratic Republic of Georgia and the Democratic Republic of Armenia were part of Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic with Tbilisi the capital. Lern some Georgian history befor you edit articles regarding Georgia. Geagea ( talk) 10:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank u for alerting me of Parishan's unannounced - and now failed - fishing trip. I think misuse of SPs like that should be reported in AE. No? Sprutt ( talk) 01:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
As Grandmaster rightly pointed out, you are still under the AA topic restriction imposed in January 2010 by Sandstein, prohibiting you from making comments at AE threads that are not immediately related to you [3]. Despite being reminded of this restriction [4], you chose not to self-revert but instead to continue the discussion [5]. I also find that the point you were making was in no way helpful, as it was a rather obvious attempt at wikilawyering over those warnings to the other user; as such it appears to be a continuation of the problematic earlier behaviour that caused the restriction to be imposed.
I have blocked you for a week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help on Khandzta! I created the article mostly from the Georgian one, as it has FA status there. However, I can easily believe that this article relies mostly on local sources, etc. Opiza has its own article there ( [7]); picture looks like it's totally ruined. I looked up on Google Earth the geolocalisation given there, found only a turkish village; wikimapia, when looking for Opiza, gives another village much closer to Khandzta/Porta. I'd like to create an Opiza article, but further information seems necessary. I think I'll wait until I have access to some library; that book looks like the most helpful as far as I can tell: [8]. If you know of any other good source, please let me know. I hope you can still edit your talk page, despite your current situation (which, by the way, I deeply regret).-- Susuman77 ( talk) 09:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I am confused - you have deleted large amounts of text from the Pussy Riot talk page but the guidelines for talk pages state that you should not delete other peoples' posts?
Thanks for your reply. My experience on WP to date is that IP users or new users removing pov material or soapboxing get stamped on quickly. 86.162.18.241 ( talk) 17:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome to follow my contributions as closely as you wish. Hopefully it will never become what had formerly been known as WP:STALKING. As for the citation tags, they are benign and help improve the content. You are very much mistaken if you think that "a good editor does not initiate the removal of truthful content even if that content is not fully cited". I'm with Jimmy Wales on this: unsourced material should be removed "aggressively". Note that I did not remove anything, but just tagged the unsourced text in line with the Wikipedia policy. My action should not offend anyone unless there are not some hidden grudges towards me or an inherent bias on the topics I edit. Please follow the fundamental principles of Wikipedia in the future. Thanks, -- Kober Talk 15:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the PDF link. That is a great book, and I had been looking to get my own copy, but was having a hard time. I had found it only at a local library... Now, I should mention that most of the churches in that book I have also photographed during my last summer (2011) trip to Tbilisi. I haven't had the time to upload them. Please let me know if there are any pressing photographs that you may need. Thanks. Serouj ( talk) 07:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Raffi (novelist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Əylis ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Please don't remove the word "terrorist" from the article. Such a designation is not a partisan claim; a court has found him guilty of both murder and terrorism. (I won't object to some rephrasing, but this fact definitely belongs in the article.) - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 19:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
De728631 (
talk) 21:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Meowy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There are 3 reasons
Firstly, De728631 should not have given this block because he is an involved administrator [11]. He is a party to the dispute: De728631 supported the retention of the word "terrorist" into the lead of the Breivik article, making this post [12] 8 minutes before he gave me this block. The effect of the block may allow two editors who shared De728631's editing aims in the article to escape being given lengthy blocks for incivility. That would be a result that De728631 would agree with: about the actions of those two editors he wrote "preventative measures don't seem to be necessary to me". The block was given just after I initiated an ANI report on the incivility of those editors, preventing me from responding to anything posted on that ANI. This is enough for De728631 to be seen as having a conflict of interest.
Secondly, De728631 claims as the reason for the block that I was "deliberately provoking incivility by other editors" at the Anders Behring Breivik article is not supported by examining the posts I made there. Nothing I posted there could have justified (or could reasonably have been expected to have generated) the degree of incivility that was directed at me on that talk page - abuse which has been continuing unchecked on the ANI issue that I started to report the initial incivility.
It is not "disruptive editing" or "trolling" to point out in an article's talk page that important parts of that article's lead section go against Wikipedia's content guidelines. How can pointing out a legitimate issue, one that has been raised on many other pages, be characterised as "deliberately provoking incivility by other editors"? Just about every article that has ever used the word "terrorist" has had extensive talk page discussion about that use. The "terrorist" word also generated three pages of detailed policy discussion here: [13] and here [14] and here [15]. Those discussions led to the Wikipedia Manual of Style guideline that I used to justify my concerns, [16]. This shows that the issues around the use of the word "terrrorism" are well establised and that they are of some significance. The introduction section of the Breivik article did not avoid using the word terrorist, and it was being using without any in-text attribution. This went against the Wikipedia Manual of Style guideline. The lead also used several other words that the Manual of Style would certainly also class as "Value-laden labels", words such as "militant" and "far right". Bringing that to the attention of other editors cannot be called "deliberately provoking incivility" or dismissed as "trolling" or "disruptive editing".
Neither could anything in the wording I used to bring up the subject be reasonably read as "deliberately provoking incivility by other editors" [17].
In what way did anything in that post "deliberately provoke incivility"?
I did not make any edits to the article content before making this initial post, nor did I immediately afterwards. This again shows I was not trolling or intent on provoking anyone. However, the only responses I got to my raising of this legitimate issue was incivility and bad-faith from two editors [18]. Because of the lack of usable responses to the issue I felt free to delete the word "terrorist" from the article. When I did this I gave it a proper edit summary [19] and I fully and calmly explained the edit reason in the talk page, quoting the Manual of Style advice to justify the edit [20]. In what way could those two edits be said to be "provoking incivility"? It was a normal content edit, it was justified, and it was made in an entirely regular way. How could it have deliberately "provoked" a response like this [21]?
It is not possible to demonstrate at any point that my edits were "motivated by a program of malice" (the key indication of trolling). The only malice and incivility on display (malice and incivility that reached astonishing levels) was from other editors. Do you think I enjoy being in the company of people who can make (or excuse) posts like "fuck off and die you disgusting little heap of shit. Sociopathic scum like you shouldn't be let within a mile of Wikipedia." In what way could a post made to object to the inclusion in the lead of a BLP article the unattributed pov-word terrorist "provoke" that? I have no wish to interact with editors who can make posts like that - so if unblocked I will not be making any further edits to articles that they have been associated with.
Thirdly, De728631 appears to give massive importance to this [22] In doing so he has forgotten the general advice that [23] "an editor's talk page is more like their kitchen; it's more informal, and (within reason) it's up to them what happens in there". He has also completely ignored the context of the post and does not seem to have understood it was meant to be read ironically. That post was written in a few minutes and was given as a humourous reply to an editor who tried to justify some drive-by fact tagging of an article by claiming knowledge of the "fundamental principles of Wikipedia" and, essentially, saying "Jimmy Wales would have approved". Well, Jimmy Wales can go screw a kangaroo for all I care (we've all seen the 4-Chan "photo" of a Wikpedia admin doing it). If I had said something crude like that as aresponse, maybe De728631 would have understood that my reply was not meant to be serious. John Carter below describes the post's content as "arrogance, self-righteousness, disregard for objectivity, and (I feel justified in saying) delusion" YES, OF COURSE IT IS - IT WAS INTENDED TO BE EXACTLY LIKE THAT! It was written as a joke reply to someone who considered that they were so familiar with the opinions of Jimmy Wales that they could state, quite confidently, that "he is with him". The post did not even contain the words "I don't even want to contribute in a constructive way to Wikipedia" used by De728631! The post was not meant to be a 5-line essay on the failings of Wikipedia (and I'm not aware of any Catch-22-like Wikipedia requirement to "like Jimbo"). Meowy 03:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Part of the problem here is that you are quick to point out the flaws of others instead of focusing on just the reasons you were blocked. While De728631 was involved in the article, WP:INVOLVED allows for this in limited circumstances, and the discussion and review at ANI also supports the initial block as it would be difficult for an outside admin to determine the problem at first glance, so that point is moot. Since "incivility" wasn't the reason for the block, that you were civil is meaningless here. As for Andy's or Ian's behavior, that is still being discussed at ANI and is not relevant to this block. As to your explanation of your comments being a joke [24], I'm unconvinced and find the claim to be deceptive. I'm not sure how your comment "Well, Jimmy Wales can go screw a kangaroo" is supposed to help your case, so I will not consider that portion of the request. This type of disruption is subtle but no less damaging to the project, and a review of the totality of circumstances is consistent with the rationale given for the block. Based on the available information, it seems clear that you aren't here to build an encyclopedia, and it is at least arguable that your actions were intentionally provacative, and your comments to Kober are clearly hostile and not humorous and confirm the reasons for the block, and you have evaded or been deceptive regarding these issues, so I have no choice but to decline your unblock request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I first came to this page because I had marked it several years ago and saw it on my watchlist. Honestly, Meowy, the statement linked to demonstrates not only contempt for a group of people with which you have chosen of your own free will to involve yourself, but a degree of arrogance, self-righteousness, disregard for objectivity, and (I feel justified in saying) delusion that there is very little chance that I can imagine, even if you do request an unblock, that it is likely anyone will do so without significant limitations on your ability to edit. I would not myself necessarily object to you making such a request, however, or necessarily inhibit it being acted upon.
I do however believe that, if you choose not to request an unblock, that it would be basically useless for you to try to come back under another name. Given your statements above, I tend to think that you would be very easy to discover and identify, and it would hardly serve your own cause, or your own opinions of yourself, if you were to actively act in violation of what most people would consider fairly reasonable conduct guidelines. Even the most fanatical people tend to realize that, when they are the ones acting in violation of generally fair rules, that they have a difficult time justifying their actions, even to themselves. John Carter ( talk) 22:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
For those who are watching: please do note that the offending diff was struck, that it was stated to have been a hasty remark that wasn't to be taken so seriously. Dennis, I hope that helps. Drmies ( talk) 15:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This joke may meet Wikipedia’s
criteria for speedy deletion because it is not
funny.
If this joke does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice. If you created this joke and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add:
|
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 20:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
A kitten for you! | |
...Oh, wait... you have this one already. Anyway, kittens, wikilove blah blah etc. Good to see you back. Kafka Liz ( talk) 22:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC) |
Indeed, good to see you back! Sardur ( talk) 22:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I almost forgot that you've been gone for almost all this time :p
Also, can you archive this talk one of these days whenever you get the chance? :)-- Marshal Bagramyan ( talk) 07:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 18:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Grandmaster has filed an AE report on Nagorno-Karabakh trying to limit participation in the article. Take a look as a user active on the article’s talk pages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Nagorno-Karabakh_article Dehr ( talk) 16:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
We never even met each other and already you acting as if I am some sort of enemy, accusing me of a variety of violations and such. I am just a regular Wikipedia user, not some sort of conspirator. Sopher99 ( talk) 22:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
While I agree that I am intense when it come to editing, I can't say that I am POV pushing. I was just startled by a magnanimous push by some of the other editors to try get the article to completely conform with Assad's conspiracy theory. I subsequently gave stark objections. Sopher99 ( talk) 23:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
To be honest, Meowy, you, especially with your last statement, are acting in the way you accuse him of acting. I'm sure you wouldn't like it is someone said to you; "Go back to watching Press Tv and SANA!", would you? It's a violation of wikipedias rules on civility, to be honest. I would kindly ask to refrain. Moreover, I think Sopher is trying to stop the page from becoming completely pro-Assad. Many socks of certain blocked users (for POV-pushing, vandalism .etc.) constanly vandalise the pages relating to the Uprising. These socks always vandalise battle outcomes, delete information, and are a general nuisance. It's just the influx of quite a few mysterious users, who usually have made few or no edits outside the Syrian Uprising topic, and are new, have started to alter the NPOV to a pro-regime POV. Trying to stop this isn't a serious crime. Goltak ( talk) 13:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I kindly request once that you remain civil at Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2012; and yet you continue to post uncivil comments towards myself on there. Why? Wesley ☀ Mouse 20:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Do I really need to repeat myself like a parrot? What I said was "I hate to say this, but you seriously need to read things carefully" in reference to a misinterpretation of a comment made by someone else. Nothing derogatory in my choice of words there whatsoever, and by no means are they uncivil. I've been down the uncivil route many a time, and know now that those words aren't what you are trying to imply. However, when you use the same few words and bold them too, then that is purposely directing insult towards another user. Check your manual of style my friend. Wesley ☀ Mouse 23:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
And what do you mean by that statement? Explain yourself please! Wesley ☀ Mouse 23:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Here, you've made some rather extreme statements. In regards to your assertion that the article is fraudulent, I don't know enough to comment -- although I recommend that you should file for the article's deletion on this basis.
More troubling, though, is your description of someone as an "Armenian fascist". In modern society, to call someone a "fascist" is almost universally taken as an insult; the only exceptions are when you're referring to a historical figure who was part of an explicitly Fascistic organization, or who explicitly embraced Fascism. You don't know anything about this person (although I'm willing to grant that he probably is Armenian), so you can't, and shouldn't, call him "fascist".
I politely request that you remove that description from the page in question. DS ( talk) 14:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Please feel free to revert/change my wordings as you see fit. I am not an expert on Armenian monuments; I was instead trying to go back through LordSako's edits and revert what appeared to be extreme POV. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Responded. People in that part of the world sure have strange concerns. Who owns a cat breed? Preposterous. Can we not only care that they are cute+fluffy? I mean, just look at the adorable in the lead picture. This is perhaps the strangest piece of irredentism I've ever seen. -- Golbez ( talk) 20:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
I would like to pick the brain of more experienced users about the ongoing exchange between [User:Grandmaster] and a couple of administrators. Grandmaster suggests to restrict access to some and potentially to all articles in Armenia-Azerbaijan by excluding new users [1]. You can reply on my home page if you wish. Dehr ( talk) 19:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Some remarks about the concept. Divot ( talk) 22:28, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
And some interesting sorces here. Divot ( talk) 00:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Rafy talk 16:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Meowy. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
I have posted this to EdJohnston's talk page. I believe you should raise this issue concerning Nagorno Karabakh.
"And what of the issue I brought to your attention? [2]. You are going to restrict "low edit" editors from Nagorno Karabakh, yet anon IPs can, and still, canvass for and cause disruptive editing in the Armenia-Azerbaijan articles! IF if ANY editors are to be restricted, then anon IPs should not be allowed to canvass for or edit in Armenia-Azerbaijan articles." -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 04:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Got an eye on it, but so far it's just got you two on it and no edit wars seem to be coming. -- Golbez ( talk) 13:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi!
My name is Victor and I'm a storyteller with the Wikimedia Foundation, the non-profit organization that supports Wikipedia. I'm chronicling the inspiring stories of the Wikipedia community around the world, including those from readers, editors, and donors. Stories are absolutely essential for any non-profit to persuade people to support the cause, and we know the vast network of people who make and use Wikipedia have so much to share.
I'd very much like the opportunity to interview you to tell your story, with the possibility of using it in our materials, on our community websites, or as part of this year’s fundraiser to encourage others to support Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're inclined to take part in the Wikipedia Stories Project, or if you know anyone with whom I should speak.
Thank you for your time,
Victor Grigas
vgrigas@wikimedia.org
Victor Grigas ( talk) 23:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
It is with great pleasure that I award Meowy this Civility Barnstar, in recognition of his excellent civil behaviour towards other editors involved in a peaceful debate surrounding content dispute on Talk:Georgian Orthodox Church. Wesley ☀ Mouse 23:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC) |
Chill out. There was nothing offensive about my edit summary. Accusing an editor of making an offensive edit "without giving any evidence is a serious lapse of assuming good faith." My primary concern there was the word "seized", which, to my knowledge, was not your addition. -- Kober Talk 04:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I'm writing to you as you seem to have helped resolving a recent conflict at Georgian Orthodox Church, and I am in a bit of a conflict with User:GeorgianJorjadze, who was part of that affair, over this template. I would greatly appreciate it if you, along with other users, could come have a look at it.
I initiated a discussion there on the talk page before changing the actual template, and started implementing the changes only after getting feedback from the other interested participant. I feel some changes are objectively needed to bring this template to the standards present in other similar ones, and have explained them in more and more detail as the discussion progressed, while GeorgianJorjadze mostly stated his preference for the old version. He's reverted any attempt I, and another unrelated contributer, have made at changing the template. Confronted with particular problems, he fixed them partially on his own rather than trying to work out a compromise version including some of my changes, as I did repeatedly with his own. After his last revert, instead of answering my arguments for the changes, he went to ask an admin to protect the template on the grounds that I am edit warring ( User_talk:Wifione#Template:History of Georgia). I don't accuse him of edit warring, rather of poor ability to negociate compromises and admit he is not the only editor with rights on that template. For information, the version as it stands is his (he last reverted it to how it was before the discussion started, removing also the changes he had made), you can find my last attempts in the article history (last one is http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Template:History_of_Georgia&oldid=491463391). I've exposed on the talk page reasons for all of them, last one is the most detailed. I would also appreciate if you (and other editors) could comment on a possible change of image (from the old map now used to the georgian coat of arms), for the sake of consistency with similar templates, and the inclusion or not of dates (I proposed a version with, but am rather neutral on the subject). In any case, I won't edit that template again until other, less partial, users, come and give their opinion on the matter. Thanks a lot!-- Susuman77 ( talk) 22:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Georgian Orthodox Church". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 May 2012.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 11:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Georgian Orthodox Church, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
AGK
[•] 21:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Meowy, please consider redacting this comment by striking it through or whatever. Removing it would have been fine but it's already been responded to; better would have been to not have said it all. If it's not a personal attack (and some may well think it is), it certainly isn't very sensitive, and thus it is completely unhelpful. What's the point in hurting someone's feelings? I thought you'd be more careful in your remarks to other editors. Drmies ( talk) 15:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Fortunately, I appear to have completely missed the (rather tedious) excitement. Shocking that two editors would resist whitewashing attempts, eh? -- Wikiboer ( talk) 12:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
http://forum.vardanank.org/index.php?showtopic=135847
You have deleted one of my edites her, with edit summery: Reverting an edit made by a blocked sockpuppet account. Also, there seems no good reason for the deleted content to have been deleted.. Next time you call me blocked sockpuppet I will notify you at [Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard|ANI]]. Regarding to seems no good reason for the deleted content.... If you check my edit before. The Democratic Republic of Georgia included Tiflis Governorate, Kutaisi Governorate, Zakatali Okrug, Batumi Oblast and Sukhumi Okrug and not only Tiflis Governorate. And to be even more precise both of the countries Democratic Republic of Georgia and the Democratic Republic of Armenia were part of Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic with Tbilisi the capital. Lern some Georgian history befor you edit articles regarding Georgia. Geagea ( talk) 10:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank u for alerting me of Parishan's unannounced - and now failed - fishing trip. I think misuse of SPs like that should be reported in AE. No? Sprutt ( talk) 01:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
As Grandmaster rightly pointed out, you are still under the AA topic restriction imposed in January 2010 by Sandstein, prohibiting you from making comments at AE threads that are not immediately related to you [3]. Despite being reminded of this restriction [4], you chose not to self-revert but instead to continue the discussion [5]. I also find that the point you were making was in no way helpful, as it was a rather obvious attempt at wikilawyering over those warnings to the other user; as such it appears to be a continuation of the problematic earlier behaviour that caused the restriction to be imposed.
I have blocked you for a week. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help on Khandzta! I created the article mostly from the Georgian one, as it has FA status there. However, I can easily believe that this article relies mostly on local sources, etc. Opiza has its own article there ( [7]); picture looks like it's totally ruined. I looked up on Google Earth the geolocalisation given there, found only a turkish village; wikimapia, when looking for Opiza, gives another village much closer to Khandzta/Porta. I'd like to create an Opiza article, but further information seems necessary. I think I'll wait until I have access to some library; that book looks like the most helpful as far as I can tell: [8]. If you know of any other good source, please let me know. I hope you can still edit your talk page, despite your current situation (which, by the way, I deeply regret).-- Susuman77 ( talk) 09:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I am confused - you have deleted large amounts of text from the Pussy Riot talk page but the guidelines for talk pages state that you should not delete other peoples' posts?
Thanks for your reply. My experience on WP to date is that IP users or new users removing pov material or soapboxing get stamped on quickly. 86.162.18.241 ( talk) 17:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome to follow my contributions as closely as you wish. Hopefully it will never become what had formerly been known as WP:STALKING. As for the citation tags, they are benign and help improve the content. You are very much mistaken if you think that "a good editor does not initiate the removal of truthful content even if that content is not fully cited". I'm with Jimmy Wales on this: unsourced material should be removed "aggressively". Note that I did not remove anything, but just tagged the unsourced text in line with the Wikipedia policy. My action should not offend anyone unless there are not some hidden grudges towards me or an inherent bias on the topics I edit. Please follow the fundamental principles of Wikipedia in the future. Thanks, -- Kober Talk 15:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the PDF link. That is a great book, and I had been looking to get my own copy, but was having a hard time. I had found it only at a local library... Now, I should mention that most of the churches in that book I have also photographed during my last summer (2011) trip to Tbilisi. I haven't had the time to upload them. Please let me know if there are any pressing photographs that you may need. Thanks. Serouj ( talk) 07:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Raffi (novelist), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Əylis ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Please don't remove the word "terrorist" from the article. Such a designation is not a partisan claim; a court has found him guilty of both murder and terrorism. (I won't object to some rephrasing, but this fact definitely belongs in the article.) - Mike Rosoft ( talk) 19:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
De728631 (
talk) 21:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Meowy ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There are 3 reasons
Firstly, De728631 should not have given this block because he is an involved administrator [11]. He is a party to the dispute: De728631 supported the retention of the word "terrorist" into the lead of the Breivik article, making this post [12] 8 minutes before he gave me this block. The effect of the block may allow two editors who shared De728631's editing aims in the article to escape being given lengthy blocks for incivility. That would be a result that De728631 would agree with: about the actions of those two editors he wrote "preventative measures don't seem to be necessary to me". The block was given just after I initiated an ANI report on the incivility of those editors, preventing me from responding to anything posted on that ANI. This is enough for De728631 to be seen as having a conflict of interest.
Secondly, De728631 claims as the reason for the block that I was "deliberately provoking incivility by other editors" at the Anders Behring Breivik article is not supported by examining the posts I made there. Nothing I posted there could have justified (or could reasonably have been expected to have generated) the degree of incivility that was directed at me on that talk page - abuse which has been continuing unchecked on the ANI issue that I started to report the initial incivility.
It is not "disruptive editing" or "trolling" to point out in an article's talk page that important parts of that article's lead section go against Wikipedia's content guidelines. How can pointing out a legitimate issue, one that has been raised on many other pages, be characterised as "deliberately provoking incivility by other editors"? Just about every article that has ever used the word "terrorist" has had extensive talk page discussion about that use. The "terrorist" word also generated three pages of detailed policy discussion here: [13] and here [14] and here [15]. Those discussions led to the Wikipedia Manual of Style guideline that I used to justify my concerns, [16]. This shows that the issues around the use of the word "terrrorism" are well establised and that they are of some significance. The introduction section of the Breivik article did not avoid using the word terrorist, and it was being using without any in-text attribution. This went against the Wikipedia Manual of Style guideline. The lead also used several other words that the Manual of Style would certainly also class as "Value-laden labels", words such as "militant" and "far right". Bringing that to the attention of other editors cannot be called "deliberately provoking incivility" or dismissed as "trolling" or "disruptive editing".
Neither could anything in the wording I used to bring up the subject be reasonably read as "deliberately provoking incivility by other editors" [17].
In what way did anything in that post "deliberately provoke incivility"?
I did not make any edits to the article content before making this initial post, nor did I immediately afterwards. This again shows I was not trolling or intent on provoking anyone. However, the only responses I got to my raising of this legitimate issue was incivility and bad-faith from two editors [18]. Because of the lack of usable responses to the issue I felt free to delete the word "terrorist" from the article. When I did this I gave it a proper edit summary [19] and I fully and calmly explained the edit reason in the talk page, quoting the Manual of Style advice to justify the edit [20]. In what way could those two edits be said to be "provoking incivility"? It was a normal content edit, it was justified, and it was made in an entirely regular way. How could it have deliberately "provoked" a response like this [21]?
It is not possible to demonstrate at any point that my edits were "motivated by a program of malice" (the key indication of trolling). The only malice and incivility on display (malice and incivility that reached astonishing levels) was from other editors. Do you think I enjoy being in the company of people who can make (or excuse) posts like "fuck off and die you disgusting little heap of shit. Sociopathic scum like you shouldn't be let within a mile of Wikipedia." In what way could a post made to object to the inclusion in the lead of a BLP article the unattributed pov-word terrorist "provoke" that? I have no wish to interact with editors who can make posts like that - so if unblocked I will not be making any further edits to articles that they have been associated with.
Thirdly, De728631 appears to give massive importance to this [22] In doing so he has forgotten the general advice that [23] "an editor's talk page is more like their kitchen; it's more informal, and (within reason) it's up to them what happens in there". He has also completely ignored the context of the post and does not seem to have understood it was meant to be read ironically. That post was written in a few minutes and was given as a humourous reply to an editor who tried to justify some drive-by fact tagging of an article by claiming knowledge of the "fundamental principles of Wikipedia" and, essentially, saying "Jimmy Wales would have approved". Well, Jimmy Wales can go screw a kangaroo for all I care (we've all seen the 4-Chan "photo" of a Wikpedia admin doing it). If I had said something crude like that as aresponse, maybe De728631 would have understood that my reply was not meant to be serious. John Carter below describes the post's content as "arrogance, self-righteousness, disregard for objectivity, and (I feel justified in saying) delusion" YES, OF COURSE IT IS - IT WAS INTENDED TO BE EXACTLY LIKE THAT! It was written as a joke reply to someone who considered that they were so familiar with the opinions of Jimmy Wales that they could state, quite confidently, that "he is with him". The post did not even contain the words "I don't even want to contribute in a constructive way to Wikipedia" used by De728631! The post was not meant to be a 5-line essay on the failings of Wikipedia (and I'm not aware of any Catch-22-like Wikipedia requirement to "like Jimbo"). Meowy 03:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Part of the problem here is that you are quick to point out the flaws of others instead of focusing on just the reasons you were blocked. While De728631 was involved in the article, WP:INVOLVED allows for this in limited circumstances, and the discussion and review at ANI also supports the initial block as it would be difficult for an outside admin to determine the problem at first glance, so that point is moot. Since "incivility" wasn't the reason for the block, that you were civil is meaningless here. As for Andy's or Ian's behavior, that is still being discussed at ANI and is not relevant to this block. As to your explanation of your comments being a joke [24], I'm unconvinced and find the claim to be deceptive. I'm not sure how your comment "Well, Jimmy Wales can go screw a kangaroo" is supposed to help your case, so I will not consider that portion of the request. This type of disruption is subtle but no less damaging to the project, and a review of the totality of circumstances is consistent with the rationale given for the block. Based on the available information, it seems clear that you aren't here to build an encyclopedia, and it is at least arguable that your actions were intentionally provacative, and your comments to Kober are clearly hostile and not humorous and confirm the reasons for the block, and you have evaded or been deceptive regarding these issues, so I have no choice but to decline your unblock request. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I first came to this page because I had marked it several years ago and saw it on my watchlist. Honestly, Meowy, the statement linked to demonstrates not only contempt for a group of people with which you have chosen of your own free will to involve yourself, but a degree of arrogance, self-righteousness, disregard for objectivity, and (I feel justified in saying) delusion that there is very little chance that I can imagine, even if you do request an unblock, that it is likely anyone will do so without significant limitations on your ability to edit. I would not myself necessarily object to you making such a request, however, or necessarily inhibit it being acted upon.
I do however believe that, if you choose not to request an unblock, that it would be basically useless for you to try to come back under another name. Given your statements above, I tend to think that you would be very easy to discover and identify, and it would hardly serve your own cause, or your own opinions of yourself, if you were to actively act in violation of what most people would consider fairly reasonable conduct guidelines. Even the most fanatical people tend to realize that, when they are the ones acting in violation of generally fair rules, that they have a difficult time justifying their actions, even to themselves. John Carter ( talk) 22:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
For those who are watching: please do note that the offending diff was struck, that it was stated to have been a hasty remark that wasn't to be taken so seriously. Dennis, I hope that helps. Drmies ( talk) 15:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
This joke may meet Wikipedia’s
criteria for speedy deletion because it is not
funny.
If this joke does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, please remove this notice. If you created this joke and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add:
|
Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013
by The Interior ( talk · contribs), Ocaasi ( talk · contribs)
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. -- The Interior 20:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:53, 9 December 2013 (UTC)