This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please see the new comment which I added today at WP:AN3#User:MisterWiki reported by User:Gerardw (Result: Protected). EdJohnston ( talk) 22:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, here's the easy way: {{subst:User:Bwilkins/didnotnotify|WQA}} ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thansk for sticking up for me. This whole mess got started because I tried to do the same for an Anon user, and was then accused of being a sockpuppet. It's nice to know that, while my experience has left me in such a way that I doubt I will ever return to this site, let alone the community, that there are still some good guys left int he fight! Thanks, Srwm4 ( talk) 20:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with the Asperger's/Autism merge debate. Happy to have that in the past. Though apparently the IP user couldn't leave the Wikiquette alert alone either. (shrug) Anyhow, thanks again! Doniago ( talk) 03:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
96.236.176.181 ( talk) 05:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
A user just removed the archive tags on the merger discussion claiming that it had been closed too early. While I feel expressing my opinion on whether the discussion should have been closed would constitute a COI, I'm not clear on whether users should be removing those tags. Thanks. Doniago ( talk) 14:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I read the instructions more carefully and felt that both incidents, while inappropriate, are potentially one-time events (starting after the end on the user's temporary ban). I consider the personal attacks separate in nature to the vandalism of the discussion page. The user in question has not responded to my initial reply to his personal attacks or (more importantly) acted out further on the AfD discussion page. Therefore, I feel that the WQA should be removed unless another action occurs. Is it appropriate to remove/delete the WQA from the Wikiquette page or should I leave it there and strike it with an explanation for its retraction? What is the correct procedure? Any advice would be appreciated! Luminum ( talk) 09:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not an editing dispute, it's a case of sneaky vandalism specifically "adding plausible misinformation to articles" and "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages". That is not the opinion of "some ip editor" that is the opinion of a retired-administrator with in excess of 60,000 edits, two FAs and multiple DYKs to their credit. Thanks. 163.1.147.64 ( talk) 14:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. It is plain to see from the diffs supplied at the current Wikiquette alert regarding this user that I am not the only user disputing Automyte's 'contributions'. I would indeed prefer that the user discuss at article Talk pages, but they have never attempted to. If you would like to confirm to User:NJA who previously blocked Automyte for edit warring, feel free. If you believe that the external links Automyte would like to add to the articles are in fact notable and appropriate, please discuss.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 10:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
continues to accuse those who seek consensus of "trolling". THF ( talk) 17:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed,
Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on
article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a
templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --
TS 21:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have great respect for your contributions to WQA, but when you write "Insanity removed" is a comment on the contribution, not the contributor., I think you're off the mark. It's uncivil, just as "Garbage removed" would be uncivil; however in this case the incivility is less of a problem than the actions that provoked it. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 23:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
My use of another language was a joke - lighten up. A Sniper ( talk) 08:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I have refactored my comment on WP:WQA, rather than add fuel to the fire. I hope you don't mind that I have also removed your reply to it. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 17:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to request a bit more explanation regarding the "closure" here. While the issue is "offsite", do we really want users in supposedly "good standing" to be using off-WP sites to continue grudges? If anything, it seems to be incredibly uncivil to carry such a grudge when WP is more than capable of resolving problems on its own. -- TRTX T / C 02:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you meant good as I pointed out in my edit summaries but this is really way over the top. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 16:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I think WP policy is pretty clear that, except under very limited circumstances, editing other user's talk page comments is unclear. Gerardw ( talk) 17:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Here; Have your cake and eat it too ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 22:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering why a WQA thread I opened is now closed with the resolution indicating "Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere". I don't debate that the thread was essentially going nowhere and the diffs provided at that point were going stale (paraphrasing your last comment there), but the resolution description doesn't seem to match that. Thanks for any further help.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 17:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that. I'm sorry it wasn't more productive. It doesn't seem the issue will be resolved here-- Happysomeone ( talk) 17:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Happy St. Pat's Day, :D Gerardw. Malke 2010 23:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Everyone on WP is deserving of respect and civility, but what that means to different people varies a lot. While I understand you feel intimidated and harassed unless the general WP community sees it the same way there isn't much to be done. I don't think anyone's gender is an issue (except for the English language's lack of universally accepted gender-neutral pronouns). Your WQA post was hard to follow, and the lack of diffs discourages anyone from trying to help. I saw Nick Thorne's comments and generally find his advice to be on target. I'd suggest just taking a break for a few days and perhaps finding other articles to contribute to. I know this is not the answer you were looking for but it's the best I have right now. Sorry. Gerardw ( talk) 02:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I made an incorrect comment at WQA earlier regarding you, I had misread your contribs and confused them with another, much more involved editor. I've stricken my comments, and I apologize for the miscommunication. Just wanted to let you know, good luck in the future. Thanks! Dayewalker ( talk) 03:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your coming to my defense after this WQA, but it appears that user can't help themself. Please, any further advice you can give at the WQA in question would be helpful. Thanks. 38.109.88.180 ( talk) 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
You marked this section as NWQA. I just wanted to get some clarification on this, is it okay for an editor to repeatedly make comments such as "Blacks are so stupid". Is that "civil discourse". According to my interpretation, that is crosses the line of acceptable behavior. Wapondaponda ( talk) 05:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The page states that Paula Jones was able to sucessfully prevail when she filed for an appeal, and she did not. She was still in the process of presenting her appeal when the settlement was reached; hence she had not prevailed, meaning she predominated and won, [1] in her lawsuit, because a court settlement has no victor and is a compromise. The settlement also mainly went to her attorneys and not her The page also points out that Susan Webber Wright was one of Clinton's students at the university of Arkansas after it points out that she dismissed the case. Nobody has investigated Susan Webber Wright in a public fashion to suggest that she dismissed the case because she was a student of Clinton's and favored him. In fact, she is also a Republican. [2] The article is misleading, unneutral and needs to be rightfully changed. 204.169.161.1 ( talk) 21:03, —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC). I agree Dr real ( talk) 22:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
If it helps here is the ae request. There is, as far as I can see, no reasonable explanation for why it has been characterized as a content dispute. Thank you for your time and patience in this matter, Unomi ( talk) 14:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I hope you remember my Wikiquette Alerts post from last month regarding the article on the PNS Ghazi submarine. You referred the case to other noticeboards. I'm still having issues with other editors not following the NPOV policy, could you give me some advice please? I've reported the case here at the NPOV noticeboard but I'm not sure if that's the right place. I'll monitor your talk page and wait for your reply here. Thanks for your time. -- Hj108 ( talk) 10:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
About WP:WQA, thank you! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. There is a problem with my signature as I sign but then the SineBot signs after. Also, I am forgetful and absent-minded so sometimes I forget to sign. I wanted to change my user name but this is not allowed and I also wanted to close my account which is not allowed either. I intend to launch complaints against Wikipedia with the BBB and other agencies concerning this matter. --BlueRider12 17:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gerardw. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Getmore, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Tim Song ( talk) 07:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I created a new account and it is not my fault my signature doesn't do a link to my talk page. It is a problem your techies will have to fix. --BlueRider12 14:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell ( talk • contribs)
I do use the preview button. Can you tell me what your cryptic message refers to? 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 01:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
In answer to your question about the "agreement" to work on the article first before a lead was written, we were working with a mediator who went by an IP address, we called him IP71 and he made the call to edit the article before writing the lead. We made a lot of progress with him because he set down a schedule and methodology for working. One day he suddenly just disappeared. It was very strange. We all hope he is okay. When we tried to get a new mediator, Michael Bluejay would not agree to one. Will Beback had to step in as mediator since he's overseen the article for many years. LoreMariano ( talk) 18:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask for your input here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie. Recently you commented on Minphie's conduct and we ask if you could come and give feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie as the editor appears not to have taken any heed of the community's feedback on his approach to editing. If you don't remember your exact interactions with Minphie, it is detailed in the RfC/U page. Thankyou for your time, -- Figs Might Ply ( talk) 23:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, you may recall that you warned User:75.2.209.226 to "tone it down" at Wikiquette alerts a couple weeks ago. Unfortunately for everyone, 75 has not stopped the uncivil behavior. I'm taking this to the next level by putting together an RfC, which has about 20 diffs of various policy/guideline violations. Please take a moment to look at my draft at User:Noraft/Sandbox/5. I need a second editor to certify that they attempted to resolve the issue with 75, and your statement at Wikiquette alerts counts. If you could add something under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" I would very much appreciate it. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. 7 22:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I have re-added the notability tag as there is no indication that this event meets any of the notability guidelines, happy to see the tag removed if reliable sources independent of GO organisations can be shown. Codf1977 ( talk) 15:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Also please read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars ! Codf1977 ( talk) 16:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I happened to be patrolling the pending changes board this morning and have a concern about an edit you accepted earlier to the Jessica Alba page. An IP edited something called "Little Fockers" into the page, which you accepted. I got to review another IP removing it. Sure, she is referred in the movie article to have a role, but she has not yet had a role clearly defined and thus could even still end up not starring at all. Therefore, we cannot consider the item in her actual filmography as yet. So just be careful to follow WP:CRYSTAL when reviewing such edits. =) CycloneGU ( talk) 15:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Followup: since the reference in the movie article was invalid, I've removed her from the movie article as unsourced. CycloneGU ( talk) 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gerard, I started the pending changes summary on the discussion page. I was hoping to keep the list clean and short by keeping out signatures and comments. I went ahead and removed your signatures and your comment. If you would like me to place it in the discussion below, I can certainly do that. I don't think this will be an issue for you, but if you have a problem with my edit, please let me know. Ocaasi ( talk) 14:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I got the okay from Rob to put his comments in the discussion section and replaced them with a rephrasing in the summary. All the signatures are gone. Strongly phrased opinions are gone. The section header is more clear about the editing approach. Would you check it and see if it warrants removing your warning? Ocaasi ( talk) 14:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Girard! Your recent nomination for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP), was closed as "no consensus," with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. The lack of consensus was between your nomination to "Delete" and my suggestion to "Merge to Foreign Policy Research Institute"; there were no !votes for "keep," so I don't think "default to keep" is the appropriate outcome. When I suggested the merge, I certainly wasn't arguing for a keep. If the article is renominated, I will !vote for "delete" next time, if that's what it takes to remove this article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Just a quick note regarding -word – WP:Soft redirects are a completely normal pagetype. That's all. :) -- Quiddity ( talk) 04:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
RE: "BlueRobe should not have to swear to a loyalty oath or commit public penance to be treated with the respect due any WP editor."
I'm not sure how this applies to BlueRobe, when he has chosen as his first comment back from an incivility block, to continue excoriating the "Cabal" that "challenges" him, with characterizations such as, "a pathological liar who cannot be reasoned with". Just my 2 cents... BigK HeX ( talk) 02:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I notice you placed a POV tag on this article. Could you please explain your reasons on the talk page and why you ignore the results of recent RfCs. TFD ( talk) 00:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Womans vulva with urethra.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC) :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Please see the new comment which I added today at WP:AN3#User:MisterWiki reported by User:Gerardw (Result: Protected). EdJohnston ( talk) 22:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey, here's the easy way: {{subst:User:Bwilkins/didnotnotify|WQA}} ( talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Thansk for sticking up for me. This whole mess got started because I tried to do the same for an Anon user, and was then accused of being a sockpuppet. It's nice to know that, while my experience has left me in such a way that I doubt I will ever return to this site, let alone the community, that there are still some good guys left int he fight! Thanks, Srwm4 ( talk) 20:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with the Asperger's/Autism merge debate. Happy to have that in the past. Though apparently the IP user couldn't leave the Wikiquette alert alone either. (shrug) Anyhow, thanks again! Doniago ( talk) 03:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
96.236.176.181 ( talk) 05:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
A user just removed the archive tags on the merger discussion claiming that it had been closed too early. While I feel expressing my opinion on whether the discussion should have been closed would constitute a COI, I'm not clear on whether users should be removing those tags. Thanks. Doniago ( talk) 14:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I read the instructions more carefully and felt that both incidents, while inappropriate, are potentially one-time events (starting after the end on the user's temporary ban). I consider the personal attacks separate in nature to the vandalism of the discussion page. The user in question has not responded to my initial reply to his personal attacks or (more importantly) acted out further on the AfD discussion page. Therefore, I feel that the WQA should be removed unless another action occurs. Is it appropriate to remove/delete the WQA from the Wikiquette page or should I leave it there and strike it with an explanation for its retraction? What is the correct procedure? Any advice would be appreciated! Luminum ( talk) 09:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it's not an editing dispute, it's a case of sneaky vandalism specifically "adding plausible misinformation to articles" and "reverting legitimate edits with the intent of hindering the improvement of pages". That is not the opinion of "some ip editor" that is the opinion of a retired-administrator with in excess of 60,000 edits, two FAs and multiple DYKs to their credit. Thanks. 163.1.147.64 ( talk) 14:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting. It is plain to see from the diffs supplied at the current Wikiquette alert regarding this user that I am not the only user disputing Automyte's 'contributions'. I would indeed prefer that the user discuss at article Talk pages, but they have never attempted to. If you would like to confirm to User:NJA who previously blocked Automyte for edit warring, feel free. If you believe that the external links Automyte would like to add to the articles are in fact notable and appropriate, please discuss.-- Jeffro77 ( talk) 10:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
continues to accuse those who seek consensus of "trolling". THF ( talk) 17:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed,
Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on
article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at
Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a
templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --
TS 21:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have great respect for your contributions to WQA, but when you write "Insanity removed" is a comment on the contribution, not the contributor., I think you're off the mark. It's uncivil, just as "Garbage removed" would be uncivil; however in this case the incivility is less of a problem than the actions that provoked it. Regards, Looie496 ( talk) 23:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
My use of another language was a joke - lighten up. A Sniper ( talk) 08:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I have refactored my comment on WP:WQA, rather than add fuel to the fire. I hope you don't mind that I have also removed your reply to it. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 17:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to request a bit more explanation regarding the "closure" here. While the issue is "offsite", do we really want users in supposedly "good standing" to be using off-WP sites to continue grudges? If anything, it seems to be incredibly uncivil to carry such a grudge when WP is more than capable of resolving problems on its own. -- TRTX T / C 02:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you meant good as I pointed out in my edit summaries but this is really way over the top. The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 16:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
I think WP policy is pretty clear that, except under very limited circumstances, editing other user's talk page comments is unclear. Gerardw ( talk) 17:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Here; Have your cake and eat it too ;) The Magnificent Clean-keeper ( talk) 22:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I was wondering why a WQA thread I opened is now closed with the resolution indicating "Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhere". I don't debate that the thread was essentially going nowhere and the diffs provided at that point were going stale (paraphrasing your last comment there), but the resolution description doesn't seem to match that. Thanks for any further help.-- Happysomeone ( talk) 17:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with that. I'm sorry it wasn't more productive. It doesn't seem the issue will be resolved here-- Happysomeone ( talk) 17:48, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Happy St. Pat's Day, :D Gerardw. Malke 2010 23:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Everyone on WP is deserving of respect and civility, but what that means to different people varies a lot. While I understand you feel intimidated and harassed unless the general WP community sees it the same way there isn't much to be done. I don't think anyone's gender is an issue (except for the English language's lack of universally accepted gender-neutral pronouns). Your WQA post was hard to follow, and the lack of diffs discourages anyone from trying to help. I saw Nick Thorne's comments and generally find his advice to be on target. I'd suggest just taking a break for a few days and perhaps finding other articles to contribute to. I know this is not the answer you were looking for but it's the best I have right now. Sorry. Gerardw ( talk) 02:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I made an incorrect comment at WQA earlier regarding you, I had misread your contribs and confused them with another, much more involved editor. I've stricken my comments, and I apologize for the miscommunication. Just wanted to let you know, good luck in the future. Thanks! Dayewalker ( talk) 03:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your coming to my defense after this WQA, but it appears that user can't help themself. Please, any further advice you can give at the WQA in question would be helpful. Thanks. 38.109.88.180 ( talk) 00:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
You marked this section as NWQA. I just wanted to get some clarification on this, is it okay for an editor to repeatedly make comments such as "Blacks are so stupid". Is that "civil discourse". According to my interpretation, that is crosses the line of acceptable behavior. Wapondaponda ( talk) 05:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The page states that Paula Jones was able to sucessfully prevail when she filed for an appeal, and she did not. She was still in the process of presenting her appeal when the settlement was reached; hence she had not prevailed, meaning she predominated and won, [1] in her lawsuit, because a court settlement has no victor and is a compromise. The settlement also mainly went to her attorneys and not her The page also points out that Susan Webber Wright was one of Clinton's students at the university of Arkansas after it points out that she dismissed the case. Nobody has investigated Susan Webber Wright in a public fashion to suggest that she dismissed the case because she was a student of Clinton's and favored him. In fact, she is also a Republican. [2] The article is misleading, unneutral and needs to be rightfully changed. 204.169.161.1 ( talk) 21:03, —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC). I agree Dr real ( talk) 22:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
If it helps here is the ae request. There is, as far as I can see, no reasonable explanation for why it has been characterized as a content dispute. Thank you for your time and patience in this matter, Unomi ( talk) 14:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I hope you remember my Wikiquette Alerts post from last month regarding the article on the PNS Ghazi submarine. You referred the case to other noticeboards. I'm still having issues with other editors not following the NPOV policy, could you give me some advice please? I've reported the case here at the NPOV noticeboard but I'm not sure if that's the right place. I'll monitor your talk page and wait for your reply here. Thanks for your time. -- Hj108 ( talk) 10:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
About WP:WQA, thank you! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. There is a problem with my signature as I sign but then the SineBot signs after. Also, I am forgetful and absent-minded so sometimes I forget to sign. I wanted to change my user name but this is not allowed and I also wanted to close my account which is not allowed either. I intend to launch complaints against Wikipedia with the BBB and other agencies concerning this matter. --BlueRider12 17:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello Gerardw. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Getmore, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Tim Song ( talk) 07:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I created a new account and it is not my fault my signature doesn't do a link to my talk page. It is a problem your techies will have to fix. --BlueRider12 14:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bpell ( talk • contribs)
I do use the preview button. Can you tell me what your cryptic message refers to? 75.2.209.226 ( talk) 01:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
In answer to your question about the "agreement" to work on the article first before a lead was written, we were working with a mediator who went by an IP address, we called him IP71 and he made the call to edit the article before writing the lead. We made a lot of progress with him because he set down a schedule and methodology for working. One day he suddenly just disappeared. It was very strange. We all hope he is okay. When we tried to get a new mediator, Michael Bluejay would not agree to one. Will Beback had to step in as mediator since he's overseen the article for many years. LoreMariano ( talk) 18:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to ask for your input here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie. Recently you commented on Minphie's conduct and we ask if you could come and give feedback at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Minphie as the editor appears not to have taken any heed of the community's feedback on his approach to editing. If you don't remember your exact interactions with Minphie, it is detailed in the RfC/U page. Thankyou for your time, -- Figs Might Ply ( talk) 23:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello, you may recall that you warned User:75.2.209.226 to "tone it down" at Wikiquette alerts a couple weeks ago. Unfortunately for everyone, 75 has not stopped the uncivil behavior. I'm taking this to the next level by putting together an RfC, which has about 20 diffs of various policy/guideline violations. Please take a moment to look at my draft at User:Noraft/Sandbox/5. I need a second editor to certify that they attempted to resolve the issue with 75, and your statement at Wikiquette alerts counts. If you could add something under "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" I would very much appreciate it. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 23:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. 7 22:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I have re-added the notability tag as there is no indication that this event meets any of the notability guidelines, happy to see the tag removed if reliable sources independent of GO organisations can be shown. Codf1977 ( talk) 15:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Also please read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars ! Codf1977 ( talk) 16:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I happened to be patrolling the pending changes board this morning and have a concern about an edit you accepted earlier to the Jessica Alba page. An IP edited something called "Little Fockers" into the page, which you accepted. I got to review another IP removing it. Sure, she is referred in the movie article to have a role, but she has not yet had a role clearly defined and thus could even still end up not starring at all. Therefore, we cannot consider the item in her actual filmography as yet. So just be careful to follow WP:CRYSTAL when reviewing such edits. =) CycloneGU ( talk) 15:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Followup: since the reference in the movie article was invalid, I've removed her from the movie article as unsourced. CycloneGU ( talk) 16:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gerard, I started the pending changes summary on the discussion page. I was hoping to keep the list clean and short by keeping out signatures and comments. I went ahead and removed your signatures and your comment. If you would like me to place it in the discussion below, I can certainly do that. I don't think this will be an issue for you, but if you have a problem with my edit, please let me know. Ocaasi ( talk) 14:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I got the okay from Rob to put his comments in the discussion section and replaced them with a rephrasing in the summary. All the signatures are gone. Strongly phrased opinions are gone. The section header is more clear about the editing approach. Would you check it and see if it warrants removing your warning? Ocaasi ( talk) 14:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Girard! Your recent nomination for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program (TTCSP), was closed as "no consensus," with no prejudice against a speedy renomination. The lack of consensus was between your nomination to "Delete" and my suggestion to "Merge to Foreign Policy Research Institute"; there were no !votes for "keep," so I don't think "default to keep" is the appropriate outcome. When I suggested the merge, I certainly wasn't arguing for a keep. If the article is renominated, I will !vote for "delete" next time, if that's what it takes to remove this article. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob ( talk) 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Just a quick note regarding -word – WP:Soft redirects are a completely normal pagetype. That's all. :) -- Quiddity ( talk) 04:48, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
RE: "BlueRobe should not have to swear to a loyalty oath or commit public penance to be treated with the respect due any WP editor."
I'm not sure how this applies to BlueRobe, when he has chosen as his first comment back from an incivility block, to continue excoriating the "Cabal" that "challenges" him, with characterizations such as, "a pathological liar who cannot be reasoned with". Just my 2 cents... BigK HeX ( talk) 02:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I notice you placed a POV tag on this article. Could you please explain your reasons on the talk page and why you ignore the results of recent RfCs. TFD ( talk) 00:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Womans vulva with urethra.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC) :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 04:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)