Welcome to the
garden. |
Archive-01 • Archive-02 • Archive-03 • Archive-04 • Archive-05 • Archive-06 • Archive-07
Contents |
---|
My actions weren't reversions rather at each stage recaptioning or re-citing photos as suggested or demanded by you. Once I'd address those specified reasons for your NPOV-tag I detagged. On that page we have a policy that an NPOV tag will not sit unless it is backed up, fairly promptly, by POV complaint specifications on talk. Also, we take down the tag after the complaint has been considered and addressed and/or when the discussion has subsided. DavidYork71 02:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm done editing on the article David York but as I stipulated on your talk page the soapboxery you are engaging in villifying Islam is unacceptable. ( → Netscott) 03:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
←What is the point of trying to correct an article that is severely out of accord with Wikipedia policy when I'm just reverted? I will not revert back and forth further over such nonsense but instead I'll try to bring the problem to the community's attention so that more eyes can have a look at the original research based soapboxing going on here. ( → Netscott) 05:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Scott, Can you please check this out: [1]
Thanks very much -- Aminz 05:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Scott, do you realize that all slaves taken from Africa were either captured or sold by Muslim slavers? So any picture of an African slave is relevant. Arrow740 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Netscott, there's mention of situation where the TOC is displayed and how to avoid displaying it when you don't like it. The TOC should be displayed especially in long articles since it's very hard to find information you're looking for without it. TOC may be easily hidden in articles with two headings, see also and refs, because such short article doesn't need TOC that much but it's pointless to hide it in long articles. Thank you.-- Pethr 02:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I asked Risker as well... I've (with Gwen Gale!) done a lot of work on the article RegisterFly. would you mind going over it? I asked before, I don't want to be a pest and won't bother you again if you have other commitments (I don't want you to feel obliged/guilty or anything!). If you don't want to, no worries at all. From seeing you work on the Essjay article you seem to be a very good editor... The article has become much, much more stable and I think it actually has GA/possible FA legs eventually. I'd love to get more eyes on it. I put it up for Peer & Good Article review just now also. - Denny 08:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Your participation in {{ Disputedtag}} suggests that you might be able to help mediate a misunderstanding about it at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Merge and policy tags. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 20:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why people have problems with humor articles, Jimbo even makes them. Anyway, somebody deleted it. No discussion, no "how about changing this or that", just a straight up delete on the basis that we were slamming a competitor, jeeez. It's always something. What is the proceedure to undelete Wikipedia:B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.? Here is my reasoning:
1. If you delete that article, you must also delete this one: Wikipedia:Primogeniture, which was the basis of the B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. article. And also delete half of the other humor pages I know of.
2. B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. is not a wikipedia competitor, it is an evil organization.
3. The encyclopedia Britanica is spelled with only one letter "t", while B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. is not a word at all, but an acronym consisting of several words.
4. The article was clearly marked as humor.
5. There is no Cabal.
Sue Rangell[ citation needed 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The online link suggesting tool is really cool. -- Aminz 09:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose transcluding something would have been neater and more maintainable. Is there a way to assign a string to a variable and then use it again later on the page? Tom Harrison Talk 19:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(Sorry for the long story, but the background leads up to what I want to learn how to do.) I made the mistake of hitting "random article" last evening and wound up on the Kim Kardashian page. The key focus of the article is her apparent appearance on a celebrity sex tape. (If only you knew how ironic it is that I would be editing an article about one of Paris Hilton's friends...) Well, I did my duty as a good Wikipedian, cleared out a dead reference link, made the language slightly more encyclopedic, cleared out the inappropriate categories, and most particularly removed the links to the website that is selling the video - no content, just sales pitch. I left a message on the talk page, explaining what I had done and reinforcing that the commercial links to vivid dot com were not appropriate.
Well. Since then, the commercial links have been added back by three anons and one registered user, and also removed by other editors. The guys adding them back in seem to be actively doing this for commercial reasons, based on their talk page histories. Based on quick whois.net checks, anons 24.210.240.196 and 61.78.56.133 seem to be open proxies out of Korea; 85.187.105.9 is out of Bulgaria, and I'd guess it's probably an open proxy too. Bigdaddyc 187 and user 85.187.105.9 seem to have come to an agreement on their talk pages as to which spam link to add; their discussions seem to also involve some sort of programming to automate the spam into the article. So there are a few things that need fixing here, none of which I have ever done before.
Could you help me figure out how to:
The article has already survived one AfD, and I am hard pressed to suggest it should be deleted. The only real issue seems to be the commercial links. If you aren't quite up to walking me through this process, would you perhaps be so kind as to suggest someone who might be willing? Thanks in advance. Risker 20:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You commented "if the user wants to leave a notice let him do so". He did leave a notice—and reinforced that six times. If anything, please revert back to the revision that Qxz (adamantly) wanted. Gracenotes T § 04:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Not trying to anklebite you there. If you re-revert I'll leave it alone (but please see expanded rationale at the TfD). I'm not trying to put you in 3RR checkmate or anything. The non-noincluding of the TfD template is a bit controversial, and many of thing it should not be used unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and I put for that there isn't one here. The TfD is totally unjustified by anything but nonsense. :-) — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 04:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, and for not taking my nomination personally, as I admire the work that was done. I do think that it this is one of those templates that tries to do too much - and tyis type of functionality should be part of the software rather than using what my physics advisor would call a "kludge" to have it do what you want. I also favor wide notification - it is the best way to find out if I am just completely out of it :) BTW, I very much like the improvements you have made - I have been doing some experimenting: User:Trödel/TplSandbox -- Trödel 01:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Aye, that looks much better. One more question, though - can you remove the inner border, or is that just impossible with the current CSS implementation? Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 07:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind welcome. I have read the pages that you instructed me to read. Ibn Shah 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a clue what I'm doing, [4] as you may have suspected. Maybe it's just my browser, but a few weeks ago, all the user names in these templates shrunk for me, and look tiny compared to the words next to them (talk, contribs, log, whatever). So I was hoping to fix it so that they're all the same size again. But perhaps I should leave well alone. :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to the letter N. I have read the article. I think you have misunderstood the note in the article for With Apologies to Jesse Jackson. In that show, Randy Marsh is a contestant on Wheel Of Fortune. He is given 5 free letters to use in solving the puzzle, RTSLE. However, on the real Wheel Of Fortune, contestants are given 6 letters, RSTLNE. This is a valid, noteworthy difference betwen the real show and the one portrayed on South Park. The usage of N as a replacement for the word "and" does not really apply in this case. Captain Infinity 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm already on the talk page, you know. Discussion is better than reverting people with such edit summaries as "nope". >Radiant< 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For your ardent defence of Wikipedia from editors engaged in canvassing and general disruptive behaviour ITAQALLAH 13:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC) |
I had already posted this on ANI, but I've protected User talk:Gwen Gale per these comments for a period of 6 hours.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 10:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
If you consider this all "time wasting nonsense", you shouldn't be unilaterally revoking guidelines. None of us has that authority. That some people still use the phrase "voting is evil" has nothing at all to do with WP:PNSD; if you wish that phrase deprecated, I'd suggest you nominate those few pages with "evil" in their title for deletion, both here and on meta. That approach has worked quite well for getting rid of the term "vanity". >Radiant< 08:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I understand it fine. I'm simply adding relevant facts. Stands to reason that any page that explains how to do something should also explain when (or when not) to do something. >Radiant< 08:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I kind of see why you're doing this, but rather than making Yet Another template this could be better solved by adding a parameter to {{ historical}}, and/or restoring the wording that template had three days ago. >Radiant< 13:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. The historic tag should not have been used at the polls which you referenced as examples in your edit explanation at the historic tag. The proper tag should have been "archive". I've changed the tag at both places. I think that the historic tag is very misused and misunderstood, that is why I have been advocating the clearer but wordier text within the tag. -- Kevin Murray 19:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Wa alaykum assalam. الٓمٓ 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It is true that we should of course prefer secondary sources where such sources exist, but on the other hand I do not believe that believe that primary sources is per definition unacceptable if used properly and responsibly. In the case where I just restored some content supported by primary sources, I believe that was the case and that a very important aspect of the articles subject was being discussed. I would be great if the same thing could be written again using only high quality secondary sources, but until that happens I believe that we should keep the material that we already have. The part discussing the challenges could have better sources, but simply deleting it and not having anything on the topic is not a good alternative. As for deleting the article, I would also disagree with that. I believe that the articles subject is clearly notable, and I believe that there exist enough material and sources to make its notability pretty obvious. -- Karl Meier 06:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the background info. I'm actually just reviewing the contribs since his last block to see if another one has been earned, but I'm having major laptop problems and it's making it really difficult. :/ If you feel a community ban is warranted, you should propose it on CN (I'm sensing from emails I just received that there will be community support for it). Cheers, Sarah 08:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Merbabu, per Wikipedia:Civility your edit summary here is not appropriate. For the most part folks who do GA reviews are volunteering their time to help benefit the project. Kindly refrain from making similarly natured commentary in the future. Thanks. ( → Netscott) 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There's enough trouble working on Straw Polls, without actually provoking people, I think. Let's leave out merge and move requests, shall we? :-) -- Kim Bruning 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
For your edit here, actually the TOC looks better unhidden. It has lots of interesting topics. When I went to this page, I didnt even notice its hidden. I brought it back. Even though the white space is there, its more important for all those topics to appear by default on the page when a user sees that page. I have the same opinion on Islam. While you might see the TOC as disruptive, you should think of new users. They want to know the topics in the article. -- Matt57 22:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Scott, It seems we have a new sock of David York: [5] -- Aminz 09:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Scott, what do you think of [6], and [7]. It might be David York?-- Aminz 09:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Blocking policy
From Wikipedia:Harassment
As a courtesy, I am not going to block you now, although you have been warned about this before. Consider this to be your very very final warning. If it happens again, I may even block you indefinitely. I'm not interested in whether your guess is accurate or not. Do not do it again. If you want to discuss this, use private e-mail. If you ever have a serious reason to raise concerns about who another editor may be (and I have no idea if this is the case here, as I haven't been following this), the only appropriate way of raising these concerns would be by private e-mail to the arbitration committee. Anything you post here that will lead to people making guesses about what may or may not be another editor's name will result in an immediate block. Musical L inguist 11:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I know some people have criticised you on the talk page for this template, I just thought I'd drop by and say that I think it is excellent, and I intend to use it. Good thinking. J Milburn 22:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused at the message you left on his talk page. I don't see how he insulted you so much that you have to leave that comment. -- KZ Talk• Contribs 09:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought I had new messages when I visited your userpage. The banner appears very similar to the user interface, whats the point? (said in good faith tone :P )v/r Navou banter / contribs 19:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I do want to put it back up, but how do I? Trampton 22:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks, God bless you!=) Trampton 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
If you have suspicions you should ask for a checkuser. Tom Harrison Talk 23:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Had a brain freeze on which CSD category applied and was about to go look when I got your message. + email Orderinchaos 12:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want an RfC filed on me do it yourself. I've actually somewhat enjoyed responding to similar frivolous attacks in the past. Obviously I won't be nominating myself to be an admin; users familiar with the edits of those nominated for RfA's who have been alienated can often find evidence of lack of even-handedness in lists of contributions. Arrow740 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I've reverted your removal of discussion from the Talk:Essjay controversy page. The matter of QuackGuru's ongoing disruption is a legitimate concern; further, as he wipes any comments from his own talk page, the article's talk page as notification of his tendentious editing is appropriate to use. -- Leflyman Talk 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru, just started. Any help in setting this up would be appreciated. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I didnt know you made the tnavbar template. Great work. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I give bonus points for anyone who converts the tag to haiku.
>Radiant< 08:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Netscott ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
I am sorry, but this is a valid 3RR block, I don't see anything punitive, and 3RR is not a entitlement to 3 edits a day. — HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:38, 13 April 2007 (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.
odd, I've been blocked for 3RR violation on Wikipedia:Straw polls but the page has been protected. Is this a punative block? ( → Netscott) 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Netscott ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There is not equal enforcement on this block. The other editor involved User:Radiant! has engaged in identical behavior and yet remains unblocked. (→Netscott) 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblocking has been discussed thoroughly and declined by several admins. I am removing this request to get Netscott out of the Requests for unblock Category." — A Train talk 22:07, 13 April 2007 (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 didn't want to do this because I shouldn't have to, but I guess I also need to point out that Radiant! and I are not pals by any means. We have had our share of disagreements and even heated disputes about his unilateral changes to guideline pages. The fact that I did not block him should in no way suggest favoritism, or even that I think he is right. I did what I could to ensure that the edit warring would stop with the least disruption possible. If I only protected the page, the edit warring would still go on somewhere else. If I only blocked you without protecting the page, someone else could have reverted your edits while you were out of the way. That wouldn't be fair to you.
Radiant! is willing to abide by the rules in almost all cases, so I can trust him to respect the page protection, stop the edit warring, and seek a better resolution. You can't even abide by the rules enough to sit out a tiny 24 hour block without posting {{unblock}} requests one after another. Hard to give you the benefit of the doubt at this point.
So: blocking one editor puts the argument on hold wherever it might be, while protecting that one page prevents the unblocked editor from gaining any advantage. Blocking Radiant! at this point would be overkill. It would only be punitive which, as you've already pointed out, is unacceptable. Kafziel Talk 17:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This was a valid 3RR block, and an editor of this one's tenure should avoid such violations, but under all the circumstances my view is that it would be acceptable to reduce to time served and unblock now. Newyorkbrad 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of "Transactional," similar to Feynman's early back-action photon theory. I've read [Cramer's physics column http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/av_index.html] for years, and have heard him lecture. But I've never talked personally. He works a couple buildings over from me. :) -- Wjbeaty 11:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Netscott - I apologize for my incivil behavior towards you during the WP:CN discussion over user:BhaiSaab and user:His excellency. You were correct in pointing out that the discussion was not over and consensus not clear (about BhaiSaab) - I regret that I jumped the gun by blocking BhaiSaab. At the same time, I maintain that your comments regarding WP:COI and my neutrality were wrong and unjustified. The only explanation for my behavior is stress from the recent ArbCom case, where I was abused as a racist, amongst other things. Although ArbCom punished that behavior, I never really had a chance to vent out my outrage at such incredibly disgusting accusations. Once again, I'm sorry for my rudeness to you. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 22:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Please explain this edit [9]. I am trying to understand it but I seem to be having a hard time. KazakhPol 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Netscott!
We use to corrobate our facts, not with rumours from blogs, but with quotes from "real" newspapers that also has a date a and paper-edition, much like a book has an ISBN number.
For commercial reasons, the free editions of newspapapers expires approximately when our memories fade away (go figure ..) and then new users get annoyed clicking on dead links, thinking that the wiki-editor adding that link must have been trying to lure us all.
Going tru the JP article, this appears not to be the case, the quotes are consistent with what happened. But that is easy for me to say who knows way more of what have been said than is sane :-D
For other (contemporary and controversial) articles that I pass by in wiki. it is near impossible to verify that the quoted dead links really had those bits of information that wiki-article implies.
Now what should we do? Wait for Professor So and Such to publish a book about the subject, which we can then quote from ... ... There will still come a day when the book is out of print, at which time we will be back to square one, so it doesn't work in a waterproof way :-(
Solution:
What would be wrong with having a peer-reviwed double-check of citations from books, newspapers and magazines? We would then have the peer-reviewed quote "frozen" with time-stamp in our own data-base. Extended quotation beyond mere facts would need permission from the copyrightholders (which will never happen!)
Did I forget anything? Probably :-D Write back to me and tell me what you think
MX44 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't see any threads about the writing on the talk page. Also not sure there's much point in commenting as it's changing so fast. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This comes out of preparing Islam for GA/FA... I don't have much of an opinion on keeping the TOC hidden by default on articles, but looking over recent featured article reviews it seems like many people are speaking out against the practice. Is there any way to show a collapsing-tree TOC that perhaps only lists sections down to a certain level? Only other alternative seems to be to just go ahead and consolidate/depromote until the expanded TOC is short enough. - Merzbow 01:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If it were to be deleted I would recreate it, and the new version would no longer be created by a banned user. Please save us the time and get rid of the template. Arrow740 06:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
"When editors who've lost that privilege see their edits supported by others they are rewarded..." - Yes, I think so. I'm glad you do too. Tom Harrison Talk 21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Why dont you come here and participate in this discussion, so we can have all this sorted out. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey! i noticed you participated in creating the collapsible navbar. I've posted a suggestion there. I can't program it, but thought since you created it that you might be able to have a crack at it. Thanks.
-- linca linca 07:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Tendentious_editing_by_User:Netscott. >Radiant< 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
How did you figure out who the sockpuppets of DavidYork71 were so quickly after they were created?-- Sefringle 04:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for leaving message on my page. regards. --- ALM 20:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, as someone who edits Islam related articles, I was wondering if you could comment on my proposal for standardising the citation of the Qur'an using a single template. Thanks. → Aktar ( talk • contribs) — 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Where are you these days? Please do not try to quit. This place will be very bad without people like you. I hope to see my friend back and contributing soon. :) wish best wishes. --- A. L. M. 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again I hope to see you back soon. Missing you. :) --- A. L. M. 14:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Netscott. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png) was found at the following location: User:Netscott/JPMCC. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 15:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Netscott, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image ( Image:Pig person.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Netscott/JPMCC. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 04:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if I thanked you properly for welcoming me back a few months ago. Thanks properly! :) Hope to see you round. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 13:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
As you have contributed to the page for Category:Antisemitism, would you please look at Talk:Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment. I have been debating another editor on whether its mention of the Holocaust renders it worthy of inclusion in the Category:Antisemitism. Your comments would be appreciated, either it does not qualify as I suggest or I have misunderstand the category. Either way your opinion would be helpful.-- Wowaconia 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I am an Assistant Professor of Information Systems at Boston College, and I am researching the development of the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Tech Massacre. You were among the top 2% of editors for that article, and I was wondering if you’d be willing to answer a few questions by email. Please also indicate at the bottom if you’d be willing to participate in a short follow-up phone/Skype interview as well.
All of your responses and your participation will be confidential. Please cut and paste the below questions and respond by email to gerald.kane@bc.edu to ensure confidentiality.
I appreciate your help on this project, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Please also let me know if you are interested in receiving a copy of the paper when it is finished.
Thank You, Gerald C (Jerry) Kane, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Information Systems Carroll School of Management Boston College 140 Commonwealth Ave 326 Fulton Hall Chestnut Hill, MA 02478
Questions:
1) On average, how many hours per week do you spend editing articles on Wikipedia?
2) Why do you contribute your time and energy to developing Wikipedia articles?
3) What types of articles to which do you typically contribute?
4) Why did you choose to become involved in the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Tech Massacre?
5) What was your primary role in the process of creating the article on the Virginia Tech Massacre (e.g. copy editing, fighting vandalism, contributing news, managing a particular section, etc?)
6) How was your experience with this article similar to or different than other Wikipedia articles to which you have contributed?
7) What were some of the most challenging issues facing the successful development of this particular article on the Virginia Tech Massacre?
8) What do you think were some of the primary reasons that this article was successful (i.e. cited in the press, nominated as a “featured article.”)
9) Is there anything else I should know about the Wikipedia article on the VT massacre?
10) Would you be willing to participate in a short phone/Skype interview to talk more about your experience with the article (if yes, I will follow up later by email to arrange it).
A template you created, Template:Arab ethnicity, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{ deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. -- MZMcBride 00:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a shared IP address, of Verizon Internet Services. So many people use these IPs and I was not the one who vandalized. But now this annoying "New Messages (last change)" thing keeps appearing. 72.68.220.243 23:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As the original creator of WP:!VOTE, I thought you might have input on my recent proposal to specifically define this term. Ronnotel 03:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Several user warning templates related to WP:POINT have been nominated for deletion: {{ Disrupt}}, {{ Disrupt2}}, {{ Disrupt3}}, {{ Disrupt4}}, and {{ Disrupt5}}. You are invited to comment on the discussion at their entry on the Templates for Deletion page. szyslak 06:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Netscott!
A quick google on your nick revealed this little beauty:
Not to despair though ... Note the last line:
Cheers! :-D MX44 ( talk) 20:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Template:Portuguese ethnicity has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Green Giant ( talk) 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Mergetoform requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Blpwatch-snbx2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Perplexing Somehow, your page User:Netscott/Muhammad is in several categories (i.e. the categories of the page Muhammad), and I don't know why. I tried to remove them, but I do not see them in the source of the page. Could you please remove this page from these categories intended for article namespace:
Thanks. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Asian ethnicity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 04:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've renamed your {{
blpwatch}} to {{
blplinks}} to match other "links" templates such as {{
userlinks}}, merged in the second subtemplate {{
blpwatch-links}} that was more used at BLP/N, and edited the pages they're referenced to make sure it's unchanged where it was used. It's now one template as opposed to a split template, with a standardized name, and zero effect on the pages it was used. Before it was two templates with non-canonical naming. Now it is 100% referenced as {{
blplinks|George Bush}}
.
(This not only gives it a single standardized name, but also frees up {{ blpwatch}} for blp watching, which is being explored more now. The old name used at BLP/N "blpwatch-links" works, but is just a transclusion to the above.)
Hope this is ok? FT2 ( Talk | email) 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Paris-metro-ticket.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 07:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have used your name and a diff here [12]. The use of the word "reported" in relation to the death of Mohammed al-Durrah is being discussed as unacceptably POV, conspiracy -theory and may be a bannable/blockable offense at this point or in the near future. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope you are well, it has been a long time since you edited. HIBC 05:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you were a regular editor on the 2008 election page. Myself and other editors are odds on some edits we are trying to make to the page. Since you have already been involved in probably similar discussion, we would greatly appreciate hearing your feedback on the 2012 election discussion page under the Republicans and Ruled Out discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Republicans.3F
David1982m ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).
Hi Scott,
I just ran across the page move. Is there a citation for his name being "Jacque" and not the standard "Jacques"? I couldn't find anything that would verify it.
Thanks, BCorr| Брайен 10:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Template:White ethnicity has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Template:Poem has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Netscott and his templated signature. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 01:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Template:Italian ethnicity has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
An RfC that may interest you has been opened at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list#Restricted-use media list, so please come and include your opinion. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 10:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This user helped promote Leona Woods to good article status. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Leona Woods, which has recently become a GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you! | |
---|---|
Hi Netscott! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! 14:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC) |
Hello, i was reading the article Sexual desire of which you are a contributor,Sir..Under the para PHYSICAL FACTORS AFFECTING SEXUAL DESIRE i was expecting the find something about the 'time that has passed from the previous ejaculation in men'(being the reason that during the short term abstinence in sexually active men, they feel a high urge to indulge in sexual activities) affects their sexual desire..but there is no mention of the specific thing in the article..i have been anxious about this as i have to continue my research project on libido.. Sir, can you please help me find out the reason for why could i not find this fact here..many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed beerman ( talk • contribs) 08:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Template:V has been nominated for merging with Template:Navbar. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 23:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments. Since you had some involvement with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments/Image-Display. Since you had some involvement with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments/Image-Display redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Netscott. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Template:V has been nominated for merging with Template:Navbar. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 13:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:Ispinfo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:400. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:400 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Mahomet-nndb.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Welcome to the
garden. |
Archive-01 • Archive-02 • Archive-03 • Archive-04 • Archive-05 • Archive-06 • Archive-07
Contents |
---|
My actions weren't reversions rather at each stage recaptioning or re-citing photos as suggested or demanded by you. Once I'd address those specified reasons for your NPOV-tag I detagged. On that page we have a policy that an NPOV tag will not sit unless it is backed up, fairly promptly, by POV complaint specifications on talk. Also, we take down the tag after the complaint has been considered and addressed and/or when the discussion has subsided. DavidYork71 02:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm done editing on the article David York but as I stipulated on your talk page the soapboxery you are engaging in villifying Islam is unacceptable. ( → Netscott) 03:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
←What is the point of trying to correct an article that is severely out of accord with Wikipedia policy when I'm just reverted? I will not revert back and forth further over such nonsense but instead I'll try to bring the problem to the community's attention so that more eyes can have a look at the original research based soapboxing going on here. ( → Netscott) 05:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Scott, Can you please check this out: [1]
Thanks very much -- Aminz 05:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Scott, do you realize that all slaves taken from Africa were either captured or sold by Muslim slavers? So any picture of an African slave is relevant. Arrow740 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Netscott, there's mention of situation where the TOC is displayed and how to avoid displaying it when you don't like it. The TOC should be displayed especially in long articles since it's very hard to find information you're looking for without it. TOC may be easily hidden in articles with two headings, see also and refs, because such short article doesn't need TOC that much but it's pointless to hide it in long articles. Thank you.-- Pethr 02:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I asked Risker as well... I've (with Gwen Gale!) done a lot of work on the article RegisterFly. would you mind going over it? I asked before, I don't want to be a pest and won't bother you again if you have other commitments (I don't want you to feel obliged/guilty or anything!). If you don't want to, no worries at all. From seeing you work on the Essjay article you seem to be a very good editor... The article has become much, much more stable and I think it actually has GA/possible FA legs eventually. I'd love to get more eyes on it. I put it up for Peer & Good Article review just now also. - Denny 08:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Your participation in {{ Disputedtag}} suggests that you might be able to help mediate a misunderstanding about it at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Merge and policy tags. — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 20:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand why people have problems with humor articles, Jimbo even makes them. Anyway, somebody deleted it. No discussion, no "how about changing this or that", just a straight up delete on the basis that we were slamming a competitor, jeeez. It's always something. What is the proceedure to undelete Wikipedia:B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A.? Here is my reasoning:
1. If you delete that article, you must also delete this one: Wikipedia:Primogeniture, which was the basis of the B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. article. And also delete half of the other humor pages I know of.
2. B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. is not a wikipedia competitor, it is an evil organization.
3. The encyclopedia Britanica is spelled with only one letter "t", while B.R.I.T.T.A.N.I.C.A. is not a word at all, but an acronym consisting of several words.
4. The article was clearly marked as humor.
5. There is no Cabal.
Sue Rangell[ citation needed 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The online link suggesting tool is really cool. -- Aminz 09:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose transcluding something would have been neater and more maintainable. Is there a way to assign a string to a variable and then use it again later on the page? Tom Harrison Talk 19:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(Sorry for the long story, but the background leads up to what I want to learn how to do.) I made the mistake of hitting "random article" last evening and wound up on the Kim Kardashian page. The key focus of the article is her apparent appearance on a celebrity sex tape. (If only you knew how ironic it is that I would be editing an article about one of Paris Hilton's friends...) Well, I did my duty as a good Wikipedian, cleared out a dead reference link, made the language slightly more encyclopedic, cleared out the inappropriate categories, and most particularly removed the links to the website that is selling the video - no content, just sales pitch. I left a message on the talk page, explaining what I had done and reinforcing that the commercial links to vivid dot com were not appropriate.
Well. Since then, the commercial links have been added back by three anons and one registered user, and also removed by other editors. The guys adding them back in seem to be actively doing this for commercial reasons, based on their talk page histories. Based on quick whois.net checks, anons 24.210.240.196 and 61.78.56.133 seem to be open proxies out of Korea; 85.187.105.9 is out of Bulgaria, and I'd guess it's probably an open proxy too. Bigdaddyc 187 and user 85.187.105.9 seem to have come to an agreement on their talk pages as to which spam link to add; their discussions seem to also involve some sort of programming to automate the spam into the article. So there are a few things that need fixing here, none of which I have ever done before.
Could you help me figure out how to:
The article has already survived one AfD, and I am hard pressed to suggest it should be deleted. The only real issue seems to be the commercial links. If you aren't quite up to walking me through this process, would you perhaps be so kind as to suggest someone who might be willing? Thanks in advance. Risker 20:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
You commented "if the user wants to leave a notice let him do so". He did leave a notice—and reinforced that six times. If anything, please revert back to the revision that Qxz (adamantly) wanted. Gracenotes T § 04:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Not trying to anklebite you there. If you re-revert I'll leave it alone (but please see expanded rationale at the TfD). I'm not trying to put you in 3RR checkmate or anything. The non-noincluding of the TfD template is a bit controversial, and many of thing it should not be used unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and I put for that there isn't one here. The TfD is totally unjustified by anything but nonsense. :-) — SMcCandlish [ talk] [ contrib ツ 04:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, and for not taking my nomination personally, as I admire the work that was done. I do think that it this is one of those templates that tries to do too much - and tyis type of functionality should be part of the software rather than using what my physics advisor would call a "kludge" to have it do what you want. I also favor wide notification - it is the best way to find out if I am just completely out of it :) BTW, I very much like the improvements you have made - I have been doing some experimenting: User:Trödel/TplSandbox -- Trödel 01:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Aye, that looks much better. One more question, though - can you remove the inner border, or is that just impossible with the current CSS implementation? Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 07:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind welcome. I have read the pages that you instructed me to read. Ibn Shah 19:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a clue what I'm doing, [4] as you may have suspected. Maybe it's just my browser, but a few weeks ago, all the user names in these templates shrunk for me, and look tiny compared to the words next to them (talk, contribs, log, whatever). So I was hoping to fix it so that they're all the same size again. But perhaps I should leave well alone. :-D SlimVirgin (talk) 10:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the link to the letter N. I have read the article. I think you have misunderstood the note in the article for With Apologies to Jesse Jackson. In that show, Randy Marsh is a contestant on Wheel Of Fortune. He is given 5 free letters to use in solving the puzzle, RTSLE. However, on the real Wheel Of Fortune, contestants are given 6 letters, RSTLNE. This is a valid, noteworthy difference betwen the real show and the one portrayed on South Park. The usage of N as a replacement for the word "and" does not really apply in this case. Captain Infinity 10:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm already on the talk page, you know. Discussion is better than reverting people with such edit summaries as "nope". >Radiant< 12:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | ||
For your ardent defence of Wikipedia from editors engaged in canvassing and general disruptive behaviour ITAQALLAH 13:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC) |
I had already posted this on ANI, but I've protected User talk:Gwen Gale per these comments for a period of 6 hours.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 10:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
If you consider this all "time wasting nonsense", you shouldn't be unilaterally revoking guidelines. None of us has that authority. That some people still use the phrase "voting is evil" has nothing at all to do with WP:PNSD; if you wish that phrase deprecated, I'd suggest you nominate those few pages with "evil" in their title for deletion, both here and on meta. That approach has worked quite well for getting rid of the term "vanity". >Radiant< 08:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I understand it fine. I'm simply adding relevant facts. Stands to reason that any page that explains how to do something should also explain when (or when not) to do something. >Radiant< 08:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I kind of see why you're doing this, but rather than making Yet Another template this could be better solved by adding a parameter to {{ historical}}, and/or restoring the wording that template had three days ago. >Radiant< 13:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi. The historic tag should not have been used at the polls which you referenced as examples in your edit explanation at the historic tag. The proper tag should have been "archive". I've changed the tag at both places. I think that the historic tag is very misused and misunderstood, that is why I have been advocating the clearer but wordier text within the tag. -- Kevin Murray 19:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Wa alaykum assalam. الٓمٓ 20:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It is true that we should of course prefer secondary sources where such sources exist, but on the other hand I do not believe that believe that primary sources is per definition unacceptable if used properly and responsibly. In the case where I just restored some content supported by primary sources, I believe that was the case and that a very important aspect of the articles subject was being discussed. I would be great if the same thing could be written again using only high quality secondary sources, but until that happens I believe that we should keep the material that we already have. The part discussing the challenges could have better sources, but simply deleting it and not having anything on the topic is not a good alternative. As for deleting the article, I would also disagree with that. I believe that the articles subject is clearly notable, and I believe that there exist enough material and sources to make its notability pretty obvious. -- Karl Meier 06:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the background info. I'm actually just reviewing the contribs since his last block to see if another one has been earned, but I'm having major laptop problems and it's making it really difficult. :/ If you feel a community ban is warranted, you should propose it on CN (I'm sensing from emails I just received that there will be community support for it). Cheers, Sarah 08:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Merbabu, per Wikipedia:Civility your edit summary here is not appropriate. For the most part folks who do GA reviews are volunteering their time to help benefit the project. Kindly refrain from making similarly natured commentary in the future. Thanks. ( → Netscott) 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
There's enough trouble working on Straw Polls, without actually provoking people, I think. Let's leave out merge and move requests, shall we? :-) -- Kim Bruning 21:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
For your edit here, actually the TOC looks better unhidden. It has lots of interesting topics. When I went to this page, I didnt even notice its hidden. I brought it back. Even though the white space is there, its more important for all those topics to appear by default on the page when a user sees that page. I have the same opinion on Islam. While you might see the TOC as disruptive, you should think of new users. They want to know the topics in the article. -- Matt57 22:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Scott, It seems we have a new sock of David York: [5] -- Aminz 09:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Scott, what do you think of [6], and [7]. It might be David York?-- Aminz 09:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:Blocking policy
From Wikipedia:Harassment
As a courtesy, I am not going to block you now, although you have been warned about this before. Consider this to be your very very final warning. If it happens again, I may even block you indefinitely. I'm not interested in whether your guess is accurate or not. Do not do it again. If you want to discuss this, use private e-mail. If you ever have a serious reason to raise concerns about who another editor may be (and I have no idea if this is the case here, as I haven't been following this), the only appropriate way of raising these concerns would be by private e-mail to the arbitration committee. Anything you post here that will lead to people making guesses about what may or may not be another editor's name will result in an immediate block. Musical L inguist 11:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I know some people have criticised you on the talk page for this template, I just thought I'd drop by and say that I think it is excellent, and I intend to use it. Good thinking. J Milburn 22:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused at the message you left on his talk page. I don't see how he insulted you so much that you have to leave that comment. -- KZ Talk• Contribs 09:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought I had new messages when I visited your userpage. The banner appears very similar to the user interface, whats the point? (said in good faith tone :P )v/r Navou banter / contribs 19:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I do want to put it back up, but how do I? Trampton 22:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
Thanks, God bless you!=) Trampton 22:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC).
If you have suspicions you should ask for a checkuser. Tom Harrison Talk 23:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Had a brain freeze on which CSD category applied and was about to go look when I got your message. + email Orderinchaos 12:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want an RfC filed on me do it yourself. I've actually somewhat enjoyed responding to similar frivolous attacks in the past. Obviously I won't be nominating myself to be an admin; users familiar with the edits of those nominated for RfA's who have been alienated can often find evidence of lack of even-handedness in lists of contributions. Arrow740 00:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I've reverted your removal of discussion from the Talk:Essjay controversy page. The matter of QuackGuru's ongoing disruption is a legitimate concern; further, as he wipes any comments from his own talk page, the article's talk page as notification of his tendentious editing is appropriate to use. -- Leflyman Talk 21:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru, just started. Any help in setting this up would be appreciated. -- Ned Scott 04:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I didnt know you made the tnavbar template. Great work. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 18:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I give bonus points for anyone who converts the tag to haiku.
>Radiant< 08:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Netscott ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
original unblock reason
Decline reason:
I am sorry, but this is a valid 3RR block, I don't see anything punitive, and 3RR is not a entitlement to 3 edits a day. — HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 15:38, 13 April 2007 (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.
odd, I've been blocked for 3RR violation on Wikipedia:Straw polls but the page has been protected. Is this a punative block? ( → Netscott) 15:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Netscott ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There is not equal enforcement on this block. The other editor involved User:Radiant! has engaged in identical behavior and yet remains unblocked. (→Netscott) 15:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Unblocking has been discussed thoroughly and declined by several admins. I am removing this request to get Netscott out of the Requests for unblock Category." — A Train talk 22:07, 13 April 2007 (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 didn't want to do this because I shouldn't have to, but I guess I also need to point out that Radiant! and I are not pals by any means. We have had our share of disagreements and even heated disputes about his unilateral changes to guideline pages. The fact that I did not block him should in no way suggest favoritism, or even that I think he is right. I did what I could to ensure that the edit warring would stop with the least disruption possible. If I only protected the page, the edit warring would still go on somewhere else. If I only blocked you without protecting the page, someone else could have reverted your edits while you were out of the way. That wouldn't be fair to you.
Radiant! is willing to abide by the rules in almost all cases, so I can trust him to respect the page protection, stop the edit warring, and seek a better resolution. You can't even abide by the rules enough to sit out a tiny 24 hour block without posting {{unblock}} requests one after another. Hard to give you the benefit of the doubt at this point.
So: blocking one editor puts the argument on hold wherever it might be, while protecting that one page prevents the unblocked editor from gaining any advantage. Blocking Radiant! at this point would be overkill. It would only be punitive which, as you've already pointed out, is unacceptable. Kafziel Talk 17:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
This was a valid 3RR block, and an editor of this one's tenure should avoid such violations, but under all the circumstances my view is that it would be acceptable to reduce to time served and unblock now. Newyorkbrad 18:51, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of "Transactional," similar to Feynman's early back-action photon theory. I've read [Cramer's physics column http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/av_index.html] for years, and have heard him lecture. But I've never talked personally. He works a couple buildings over from me. :) -- Wjbeaty 11:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Netscott - I apologize for my incivil behavior towards you during the WP:CN discussion over user:BhaiSaab and user:His excellency. You were correct in pointing out that the discussion was not over and consensus not clear (about BhaiSaab) - I regret that I jumped the gun by blocking BhaiSaab. At the same time, I maintain that your comments regarding WP:COI and my neutrality were wrong and unjustified. The only explanation for my behavior is stress from the recent ArbCom case, where I was abused as a racist, amongst other things. Although ArbCom punished that behavior, I never really had a chance to vent out my outrage at such incredibly disgusting accusations. Once again, I'm sorry for my rudeness to you. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 22:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Please explain this edit [9]. I am trying to understand it but I seem to be having a hard time. KazakhPol 03:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Netscott!
We use to corrobate our facts, not with rumours from blogs, but with quotes from "real" newspapers that also has a date a and paper-edition, much like a book has an ISBN number.
For commercial reasons, the free editions of newspapapers expires approximately when our memories fade away (go figure ..) and then new users get annoyed clicking on dead links, thinking that the wiki-editor adding that link must have been trying to lure us all.
Going tru the JP article, this appears not to be the case, the quotes are consistent with what happened. But that is easy for me to say who knows way more of what have been said than is sane :-D
For other (contemporary and controversial) articles that I pass by in wiki. it is near impossible to verify that the quoted dead links really had those bits of information that wiki-article implies.
Now what should we do? Wait for Professor So and Such to publish a book about the subject, which we can then quote from ... ... There will still come a day when the book is out of print, at which time we will be back to square one, so it doesn't work in a waterproof way :-(
Solution:
What would be wrong with having a peer-reviwed double-check of citations from books, newspapers and magazines? We would then have the peer-reviewed quote "frozen" with time-stamp in our own data-base. Extended quotation beyond mere facts would need permission from the copyrightholders (which will never happen!)
Did I forget anything? Probably :-D Write back to me and tell me what you think
MX44 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I can't see any threads about the writing on the talk page. Also not sure there's much point in commenting as it's changing so fast. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This comes out of preparing Islam for GA/FA... I don't have much of an opinion on keeping the TOC hidden by default on articles, but looking over recent featured article reviews it seems like many people are speaking out against the practice. Is there any way to show a collapsing-tree TOC that perhaps only lists sections down to a certain level? Only other alternative seems to be to just go ahead and consolidate/depromote until the expanded TOC is short enough. - Merzbow 01:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If it were to be deleted I would recreate it, and the new version would no longer be created by a banned user. Please save us the time and get rid of the template. Arrow740 06:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
"When editors who've lost that privilege see their edits supported by others they are rewarded..." - Yes, I think so. I'm glad you do too. Tom Harrison Talk 21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Why dont you come here and participate in this discussion, so we can have all this sorted out. -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey! i noticed you participated in creating the collapsible navbar. I've posted a suggestion there. I can't program it, but thought since you created it that you might be able to have a crack at it. Thanks.
-- linca linca 07:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Tendentious_editing_by_User:Netscott. >Radiant< 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
How did you figure out who the sockpuppets of DavidYork71 were so quickly after they were created?-- Sefringle 04:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for leaving message on my page. regards. --- ALM 20:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, as someone who edits Islam related articles, I was wondering if you could comment on my proposal for standardising the citation of the Qur'an using a single template. Thanks. → Aktar ( talk • contribs) — 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Where are you these days? Please do not try to quit. This place will be very bad without people like you. I hope to see my friend back and contributing soon. :) wish best wishes. --- A. L. M. 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Once again I hope to see you back soon. Missing you. :) --- A. L. M. 14:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Netscott. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image ( Image:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png) was found at the following location: User:Netscott/JPMCC. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 15:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Netscott, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image ( Image:Pig person.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Netscott/JPMCC. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot) -talk 04:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if I thanked you properly for welcoming me back a few months ago. Thanks properly! :) Hope to see you round. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 13:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
As you have contributed to the page for Category:Antisemitism, would you please look at Talk:Jerry Klein’s 2006 Radio Experiment. I have been debating another editor on whether its mention of the Holocaust renders it worthy of inclusion in the Category:Antisemitism. Your comments would be appreciated, either it does not qualify as I suggest or I have misunderstand the category. Either way your opinion would be helpful.-- Wowaconia 18:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I am an Assistant Professor of Information Systems at Boston College, and I am researching the development of the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Tech Massacre. You were among the top 2% of editors for that article, and I was wondering if you’d be willing to answer a few questions by email. Please also indicate at the bottom if you’d be willing to participate in a short follow-up phone/Skype interview as well.
All of your responses and your participation will be confidential. Please cut and paste the below questions and respond by email to gerald.kane@bc.edu to ensure confidentiality.
I appreciate your help on this project, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Please also let me know if you are interested in receiving a copy of the paper when it is finished.
Thank You, Gerald C (Jerry) Kane, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Information Systems Carroll School of Management Boston College 140 Commonwealth Ave 326 Fulton Hall Chestnut Hill, MA 02478
Questions:
1) On average, how many hours per week do you spend editing articles on Wikipedia?
2) Why do you contribute your time and energy to developing Wikipedia articles?
3) What types of articles to which do you typically contribute?
4) Why did you choose to become involved in the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Tech Massacre?
5) What was your primary role in the process of creating the article on the Virginia Tech Massacre (e.g. copy editing, fighting vandalism, contributing news, managing a particular section, etc?)
6) How was your experience with this article similar to or different than other Wikipedia articles to which you have contributed?
7) What were some of the most challenging issues facing the successful development of this particular article on the Virginia Tech Massacre?
8) What do you think were some of the primary reasons that this article was successful (i.e. cited in the press, nominated as a “featured article.”)
9) Is there anything else I should know about the Wikipedia article on the VT massacre?
10) Would you be willing to participate in a short phone/Skype interview to talk more about your experience with the article (if yes, I will follow up later by email to arrange it).
A template you created, Template:Arab ethnicity, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{ deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. -- MZMcBride 00:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a shared IP address, of Verizon Internet Services. So many people use these IPs and I was not the one who vandalized. But now this annoying "New Messages (last change)" thing keeps appearing. 72.68.220.243 23:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
As the original creator of WP:!VOTE, I thought you might have input on my recent proposal to specifically define this term. Ronnotel 03:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Several user warning templates related to WP:POINT have been nominated for deletion: {{ Disrupt}}, {{ Disrupt2}}, {{ Disrupt3}}, {{ Disrupt4}}, and {{ Disrupt5}}. You are invited to comment on the discussion at their entry on the Templates for Deletion page. szyslak 06:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Netscott!
A quick google on your nick revealed this little beauty:
Not to despair though ... Note the last line:
Cheers! :-D MX44 ( talk) 20:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Template:Portuguese ethnicity has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Green Giant ( talk) 00:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Mergetoform requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 20:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Blpwatch-snbx2 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Perplexing Somehow, your page User:Netscott/Muhammad is in several categories (i.e. the categories of the page Muhammad), and I don't know why. I tried to remove them, but I do not see them in the source of the page. Could you please remove this page from these categories intended for article namespace:
Thanks. - Justin (koavf)· T· C· M 03:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on Template:Asian ethnicity requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.
If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).
Thanks. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 04:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've renamed your {{
blpwatch}} to {{
blplinks}} to match other "links" templates such as {{
userlinks}}, merged in the second subtemplate {{
blpwatch-links}} that was more used at BLP/N, and edited the pages they're referenced to make sure it's unchanged where it was used. It's now one template as opposed to a split template, with a standardized name, and zero effect on the pages it was used. Before it was two templates with non-canonical naming. Now it is 100% referenced as {{
blplinks|George Bush}}
.
(This not only gives it a single standardized name, but also frees up {{ blpwatch}} for blp watching, which is being explored more now. The old name used at BLP/N "blpwatch-links" works, but is just a transclusion to the above.)
Hope this is ok? FT2 ( Talk | email) 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:Paris-metro-ticket.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the " my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 07:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I have used your name and a diff here [12]. The use of the word "reported" in relation to the death of Mohammed al-Durrah is being discussed as unacceptably POV, conspiracy -theory and may be a bannable/blockable offense at this point or in the near future. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I hope you are well, it has been a long time since you edited. HIBC 05:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you were a regular editor on the 2008 election page. Myself and other editors are odds on some edits we are trying to make to the page. Since you have already been involved in probably similar discussion, we would greatly appreciate hearing your feedback on the 2012 election discussion page under the Republicans and Ruled Out discussions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Republicans.3F
David1982m ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC).
Hi Scott,
I just ran across the page move. Is there a citation for his name being "Jacque" and not the standard "Jacques"? I couldn't find anything that would verify it.
Thanks, BCorr| Брайен 10:46, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Template:White ethnicity has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Template:Poem has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 00:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Netscott and his templated signature. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry ( talk) 01:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Template:Italian ethnicity has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
An RfC that may interest you has been opened at MediaWiki talk:Bad image list#Restricted-use media list, so please come and include your opinion. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 10:23, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This user helped promote Leona Woods to good article status. |
On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for your editorial contributions to Leona Woods, which has recently become a GA.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 07:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you! | |
---|---|
Hi Netscott! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! 14:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC) |
Hello, i was reading the article Sexual desire of which you are a contributor,Sir..Under the para PHYSICAL FACTORS AFFECTING SEXUAL DESIRE i was expecting the find something about the 'time that has passed from the previous ejaculation in men'(being the reason that during the short term abstinence in sexually active men, they feel a high urge to indulge in sexual activities) affects their sexual desire..but there is no mention of the specific thing in the article..i have been anxious about this as i have to continue my research project on libido.. Sir, can you please help me find out the reason for why could i not find this fact here..many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed beerman ( talk • contribs) 08:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Template:V has been nominated for merging with Template:Navbar. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Jackmcbarn ( talk) 23:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments. Since you had some involvement with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments/Image-Display. Since you had some involvement with the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy/Arguments/Image-Display redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk) 18:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Netscott. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Template:V has been nominated for merging with Template:Navbar. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Primefac ( talk) 13:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:Ispinfo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 05:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:400. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:400 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Tigraan Click here to contact me 17:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
The file File:Mahomet-nndb.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
unused, low-res, no obvious use
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
notice, but please explain why in your
edit summary or on
the file's talk page.
Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}}
will stop the
proposed deletion process, but other
deletion processes exist. In particular, the
speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and
files for discussion allows discussion to reach
consensus for deletion.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:02, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descriptions of the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.