Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caspian cobra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subcutaneous. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bovine pancreatic ribonuclease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free energy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
On 14 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ribonuclease V1, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that ribonuclease V1, an enzyme used to study the structure of transfer RNA, is found in the venom of the Caspian cobra? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ribonuclease V1. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits on the WRKY transcription factor page.
I am the author of many of the papers that are cited and I have tried to re-write all of the prose as far as possible to avoid plagarizing myself (although there is only so much that you can change.....). I ran the text through a plagarism tool and it only found the Wiki article and not any of the underlying references.
As to the figures, they are my own work and are different versions of two figures that will appear in the open access journal BMC Plant Biology, sometime later this month. Either way, that should be OK.
I have changed the edits back to my original version and then further edited areas where I think the text needs to be further modified. I will continue to further modify the page.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WRKYpaul2 ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again - still working at it! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
WRKYpaul2 (
talk •
contribs) 22:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
It's been a pleasure to watch the transformation of the Enzyme article so far. It's great to see someone go through and do a head-to toe improvement and clean-up T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 23:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC) |
@ Evolution and evolvability: Thanks! Glad to hear it looks like progress and not just meddling :) I posted this question on the FAR page, but since you're the image expert - what do you think of the current lead image? Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see the protein dynamics page improved. My contribution to this effect was reverted yesterday. If you get a second, please take a peek at my prior edits to the protein dynamics page. While not remotely comprehensive, I think it is a reasonable start to add an appreciation of water and relaxational and vibrational dynamics which are not covered in the current form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon33dn ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
First you explain with Physics, then you change. Force field as chemists are used to intend it, it does not make any sense neither in Physics, nor in Chemistry, nor in Maths. Please demonstrate that I am wrong, then you're more than welcome to change it back. Be scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origin2000 ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Opabinia regalis/Archive 9! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to feminism. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Feminism, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles dealing with feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Feminism page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". Thanks! |
Kaldari ( talk) 07:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You have made multiple votes at the deletion of Dao's theorem on six circumcenters, you cannot vote more than once. SamuelDay1 ( talk) 10:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nina Sellars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trinity College. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
On 14 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hannah Valantine, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that cardiologist and Gambian native Hannah Valantine is the Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity at the United States National Institutes of Health? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hannah Valantine. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hannah Valantine's father was the Gambian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom,as The Gambia was a member state of the Commonwealth of Nations from 1965 until October 2013 - ( 202.89.140.117 ( talk) 05:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC))
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Klaus Schulten, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beckman Institute. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for being a welcoming and friendly person. Here's a cup of tea for the next time you sit down to collaborate with someone else. We need more people like you! WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC) |
@ WhatamIdoing: thanks! I'm going to pass this on the next time my real-life collaborators are complaining about me... :) Opabinia regalis ( talk) 19:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oscillibacter valericigenes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
biochemistry
Thank you, female editor with a blue box, for quality articles on protein structure and folding, and people involved in biochemistry, such as
Hannah Valantine, for
protein and helping to rescue
encyme, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Does the destination User:User:TEAM 4.0/Chemicals That Are Toxic And Essential seem correct? -- IO Device ( talk) 05:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I was stalking back thought the gene talk page and noticed your work on it in 2007. I really enjoyed the recent FAR of the enzyme page so it'd if you'd stop by the gene page to help with a bit of an overhaul. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 10:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if you already know, but the TfD for Template:Maintained, in which you participated so vigorously and eloquently in favor of keeping, was closed as a delete based on what seems like a very cursory consideration of the debate. Some of the rest of us have already started asking the closing admin to elaborate or reconsider, if you want to join in. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Opabinia regalis, I've noticed your name around recently and I wanted to drop by to say hello. I'm not sure if you remember me, as we had little interaction years ago but it's good that you're back; it's always nice to see someone return. Best. Acalamari 14:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Life cycle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
…for your attention at the Molecular binding article, and forgive, my part, for any feelings of being offput by the longstanding tensions between myself and the other following editor. I hope you can persist in overlooking the battle, and continue to contribute your insights to the discussion at hand (even though you and I might disagree at present about the proper usage of "complex" vis-a-vis its questioned applicability to covalent cases). I would indeed go with where the preponderance of strong secondary sources/evidence leads, but I have no hope of an objective outcome. (I will not again waste time at an article parrying with an editor with such limitless self-confidence that he earnestly believes that his presentation of one reference should lead to acquiescence of all opposing opinion (see very first 2009 Talk entry, that page). I have said my peace, and I am away. Cheers, best wishes to you, here and in general. Le Prof.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CDP-choline pathway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golgi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi OR. Pundle is given in the Oxford English dictionary only with the meanings (1) an unattractive woman and (2) the European widgeon, both obsolete. The word isn't in Merriam-Webster, nor in Chambers (1983). Pundling is in none of these. Might we suspect that we're dealing here either with a bit of local slang or even perhaps with one of those words that individual families develop, for example as an upshot of baby talk? Would it be a good idea to get rid of those two redirects, as they seem to be creating neologisms? Cheers, -- Stfg ( talk) 10:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The article at
tRNA contains the rather teasing statement in the lead - "Sometimes, abnormal amino acids may be present in t-RNA." I am aware that fidelity of, for example, isoleucine transfers by Ile are about 99.997%, rather than 1005 but this sentence hints at more. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 16:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC).
Hi Opabinia regalis, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations on the positive result and for your place on WP:RFX100. While your request was a clear pass, there was significant opposition based on your past long-term inactivity and concerns as to whether or not you're fully up-to-date with current standards; however, I'm sure you'll use careful caution, as implied by your answers to the questions and your "final comment".
Again, congratulations and welcome back to adminship. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but if I recall properly, you are the first person to have lost the tools through procedural inactivity and then regained them through a new RfA. :) Acalamari 09:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I came across this user User:Opabinia externa, redirects they created to your pages, and thought you should know. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 05:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Another FYI ... just saw this. Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (confer) @ 17:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
…graduate work on furanones and butenolides, and on particular vinylogous acids and esters, including ortho esters, if you ever have need of assistance in this area. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 ( talk) 05:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I haven't !voted and I don't intend to. I brought the yes/no question because it has come up at COIN twice before: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_71#Acupuncture and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_43#Middle_8 with no resolution, and at the Talk of COIN here: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Template:Connected_contributor. There is no consensus on this recurrent question, so it was time to try to settle it. Jytdog ( talk) 12:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for creating this article! If you have an idea for a good hook, you could propose it for DYK on the mainpage. Cheers! -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.
Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name - Cell nucleus, Proteasome, and RNA interference, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.
Thanks for your help! hamiltonstone ( talk) 13:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox#Pinging next round; thanks!
…that per usual, for the editor following me about, the follower's interest at the "Molecular binding" article was short-lived, and ended as soon as it was clear that he (largely) got his way, of leaving my edits off, and having the status quo maintained. I will not return to edit there, as there is enough to do in this world — which is productively, almost entirely outside of WP — without having to fight with others over the obvious. Bottom line, covalent can be mentioned, but by the thought leaders in this area it would be mentioned only to clarify that the most rigorous thinking places mechanisms that form covalent bonds into a distinctive class (i.e., its mention would be one line at the end of a paragraph, with link-outs and references, and not three equal bullet points). I have given > 30 citations (2 books and a plethora of reviews), to which there has been no comparable response. I stand by the Bob Copeland perspective, that conceptually, and methodologically, the adducts formed by a very small minority of non-covalent interactions is a distinct class from the vast majority of complexes that form non-covalent associations of various degrees of affinity. This is the last that I will do to try to interest a biochemist in this matter. I will show up from time to time to repost the opinion at the article Talk, but I will not war with the (more networked, more committed, and apparently less time-constrained) opposing, following editor. I have similarly given up at "Natural product" (my area of expertise) and at "Steroid" (significantly in my area of expertise), where the issues were entirely the same—the editor following me to article he had been largely or entirely absent at, in order to impose the personal, maleficent perspective that nothing Le Prof writes can stand without gross reversion (see backtracking in this article's case when challenged by third party), and the opposing philosophical view that all descriptions, especially the most general, should open articles, regardless of the preponderance of expert opinion (e.g., at "natural product" it was that proteins, nucleic acids, etc. should be mentioned front and center and prominently, even though the preponderance of meaning in the expert literature is that this moniker implies small molecules created by secondary metabolism). As I said, I give up, and especially in this case, I leave it to this whose area of primary expertise it is. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 ( talk) 05:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Have a look here, [1]. Even my non-science work gets slapped, in this case for insisting that the person about whom the article is written, not populate the site with his personal webpage. (And again, being reverted as I worked, by two editors intent on no changes to the article, tagteaming, and then bringing a 3RR complaint after I had given up.) Cheers. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 07:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I had the lovely experience this evening of heading over to Gene article to address the absence of citations in the Mendelian inheritance section, when I found you'd already added some! Anyway, what I came here to ask was if you'd seen my comment on the talk page. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 10:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
You answered my question well, and sufficiently for the RfA page. I have one more question but rather for this more private place. Nice to meet you again! - Before, to clarify: you probably don't see the Beethoven close among the requests any more because someone dared. - Now the question: I am late to the mysterious "infobox wars". (I was against infoboxes in 2012 - see Samuel Barber talk - and for them half a year later.) What do you think of this (short) discussion? I enjoyed it, and believe most of the other participants also. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Opabinia. Could you be convinced to take on a little new XfD work? Admin Martin Hoekstra is AWOL at TfD, and long-time TfD closer Plastikspork is only showing up every 10 to 14 days to close only a handful of TfD discussions. No other admin is closing TfDs right now. Could you be talked into closing a couple of TfDs per day, and I'll see if I can recruit two or three more admins to help on the same basis? I would be happy to help in any way possible, including pointing you in the direction of the relevant guidelines and essays. Please let me know. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This is exactly the kind of common sense analysis of which we need more: [2]. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 05:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Opa! Hey, I've got a vandalism-only IP user engaged in nefarious activities after warning: [3]. Can you put an appropriate whammy on the address? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This is exactly the sort of stuff I'm looking for. :) Will be replying there in more detail tomorrow. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 01:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
On 7 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Scott V. Edwards, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that evolutionary biologist Scott Edwards and social psychologist Jennifer Richeson were the only two black scientists elected to the United States National Academy of Sciences in 2015? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scott V. Edwards. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Thanks for this article Victuallers ( talk) 07:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
On 7 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jennifer Richeson, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that evolutionary biologist Scott Edwards and social psychologist Jennifer Richeson were the only two black scientists elected to the United States National Academy of Sciences in 2015? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Thanks for this article Victuallers ( talk) 07:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Opabinia Regalis,
I am writing to you because I was unable to weigh in on the deletion discussion for the Rosemary Rawcliffe page and believe that you were not provided with enough professional filmmaking information in order to make a decision as whether this subject is notable or not.
I see there has been a discussion about regional vs national and it’s impact on notability. Firstly, a regional Emmy is notable. An Emmy award is an Emmy and it is considered one of the most notable 'peer- judged' honors in television. I mention 'peer-judged' to be clear that the judges for these awards are professional filmmakers in the specific field they are judging. For example only working film producers can judge films nominated for production. If you are still unsure about an Emmy’s notability please read this article, it should help you understand what an Emmy is. http://www.documentary.org/feature/emmy-explained-guide-understanding-televisions-top-awards
It is also important to note that Northern California is a very large and thriving community of documentary filmmakers. These filmmakers make up this competitive pool of Emmy contenders who are producing high quality films that are informative and groundbreaking. Rosemary Rawcliffe, who is responsible for the film A Quiet Revolution, had to compete in this pool in order to be awarded with an Emmy.
Secondly, it is not a given that a film is accepted at a film festival and for some film festivals, you must be invited. With that said, in the film community, it is an honor to be accepted and screened at a film festival, especially one as prestigious as the Mill Valley Film Festival—as was the case for this film and this filmmaker.
Let me be clear, there is no dispute that this film has won multiple awards, including an Emmy; has been aired on PBS; screened at reputable universities and included in University curriculums and libraries at Universities such as Stanford University, University of Southern California, the University of Virginia, among others.
Please justify why you have deleted this post. Thank you. SeaSalt7 ( talk) 21:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
On 9 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article American Society for Virology, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the American Society for Virology, the first independent scientific society specifically for virologists, was founded only 34 years ago? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/American Society for Virology. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for creating this article. I added this article to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015/Results, which records LGBT-related contributions to Wikipedia as part of the annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. If you happen to create or improve other LGBT-related articles during the month of June, feel free to update this Results page accordingly. Thanks again! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
On 13 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mary Collins (immunologist), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the immunology professor Mary Collins studies ways to use genetically engineered HIV as a vaccine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Collins (immunologist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, what about my comments? Aren't they sufficient to get on your list? I feel so neglected.😰 Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Could you re-close this, as it actually makes more sense to delete them, in retrospect? I'd have simply reverted my closure, but I've already orphaned the two templates. sigh I should've just gone to sleep. Alakzi ( talk) 02:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the
API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.
What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.
This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.
If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!
Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.
Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.
Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but I just was writing up a "keep" vote when it edit-conflicted with your "delete" closure. I found this, this, this, this, this and this, which should be enough to pass WP:GNG. Please tell me what you think. (Please answer here, I'll watchlist it.) Kraxler ( talk) 00:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
On 21 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neena Schwartz, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that endocrinologist Neena Schwartz had a 50-year career in scientific research, but only came out as lesbian after she retired? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neena Schwartz. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Chris Woodrich ( talk) 16:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
On 24 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Nowick, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that openly gay chemistry professor James Nowick taught a course called "Queer Science, Queer Scientists"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Nowick. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Chris Woodrich ( talk) 14:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Opabinia, would you accept a revised red link guideline that requires a minimum of three blue links in a navbox to existing stand-alone articles or lists, with at least 50% of all included links withing the navbox being blue, coupled with a very explicit clarification of the existing "succession" and "complete set" exceptions for navboxes? Personally, I think that would be an extremely reasonable compromise. If I can get 10 committed supporters, I'm ready to start lobbying previous !voters (not a violation of WP:CANVASS) in favor of compromise. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your lovely note of support at my RfA. I may be a day late and a dollar short, but here I am now. Do with me what you will. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 02:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
On 27 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David K. Smith, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that David K. Smith, a York University professor of chemistry, has been described as "one of the most visible out gay scientists"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David K. Smith. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For " getting involved in arbitration enforcement is somewhere between chewing tinfoil and making sculptures out of dryer lint." So how are you on making sculptures out of dryer lint and chewed tinfoil? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC) |
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the
AN page, the
AE page or the
Case Requests page
and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee,
L235 (
t /
c /
ping in reply) via
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi -
I'm responding here instead of at the arb request, because I believe you're conflating a few things worth fixing, if nothing else for your own sake. Reaper Eternal is, to be clear, an admin, as well as a checkuser. If he wasn't, he would've been unable to modify Eric's block. In my statement here, I literally hoped Reaper had read Courcelles - a sitting arb's - earlier statement to Adj that any modification of the block would likely result in a desysop. This diff isn't any form of 'haha' at Reaper - it's pointing out that he violated one of arbcom's very few redlines. Very very few people have every overturned an AE block without consensus and have not been desysopped for it. I can see how you can view this diff more negatively, but in the end, it's still just pointing out that Reaper likely will lose his sysop bit over this, and if he is going to do so, he should damn sure know what he is doing. This diff was to RGloucester, not Reaper. RG reverted my action which would have been, as I've described elsewhere productive, and then argued that consensus is needed to overturn AN closes - which just isn't true. At the time, I was operating under the assumption that RG was an admin, because I figured someone else wouldn't have overturned my temporary revert, and should be read in that mind. If RG had in fact been an admin, I think his actions would likely have constituted wheelwarring - and even not as an admin, they're dangerously close to creating the same dangerous result. I would suggest that you may arrive at a different conclusion as to my intentions if you take note that I'd already warned Adj off modifying the block, and although my opinion of him has since changed, really was initially concerned that Reaper might have no idea he was doing something that he will likely lose his advanced privs over. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 23:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Reminder: you closed the discussion as delete but haven't yet deleted. Regards, Bazj ( talk) 19:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
. . . for taking on more TfD closings than I'm sure you ever imagined upon your return as an admin. You're a good Cambrian critter, Opabinia. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I thought I would explain here rather than on the DYK nomination page the background to the Maasella edwardsi article. Dr. Blofeld encouraged me to join the Intertranswiki project and contribute to ten articles that had Spanish language articles but no English language equivalent. He suggested "trees" as the topic but I chose "corals" instead. I really prefer to create articles on my own but in this case he started Maasella edwardsi and quoted a book source for which I only had limited snippet view. The depth range, for example, came from the Spanish language article and not from the source he gave. I expanded the article but thought it somewhat unsatisfactory, and would not have nominated it for DYK except for the fact that he had also been involved and I thought he might want me to do so.
When I first found the Özalp source I had access to the full text and read the whole article, but on further visits, I could only access the abstract and lost a lot of good information. I think the 1990 figure came from my perhaps faulty recollection of the full content, or I may have read it elsewhere, so I have removed it. I have altered the text of the article, added another source and proposed another hook. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I haven't argued my point properly: The purpose of the template space is so information on-templates can be used in multiple places. I doesn't get any simpler than this. Think of the wikiproject templates. They are used on multiple talk pages so readers can know that the article falls under the scope of the particular wikiproject.
If an annotated image is used on multiple articles it SHOULD be in templatespace so that editors can make a change to one page, the template, so multiple pages will reflect the page. Having a template which isn't used or not likely to be used on other pages actually obfuscates the editing process especially so when the information related to the article; the template should be "orphaned", transferred to the article, then deleted. And if editors want to discuss the previously orphaned template they should do it on the article page since the template is deeply related to the article content.
Now will you tell me those examples you have in mind? 96.52.0.249 ( talk) 12:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of NotAnOmbudsman ( talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 08:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murine polyomavirus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vesicle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think I've finally gone insane in this place. In the meantime, DiscSquare is back at it. Alakzi ( talk) 10:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's settled: I'm Hitler. Alakzi ( talk) 20:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murine polyomavirus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nucleus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank for !voting at my recent
RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! |
On 19 July 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zena Werb, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that cell biologist Zena Werb changed her undergraduate major from geophysics to biochemistry after being told there was no accommodation for women at a field site? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zena Werb. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Chris Woodrich ( talk) 00:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the above mentioned article. I've been so busy working on the individual articles related to this broad topic, that I haven't had the time to do what you have done so well. Keep up the good work. I can't believe that there were references from 1962!
You closed four Tfd's today but didn't edit the templates or their talk pages. PrimeHunter ( talk) 10:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Profenofos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ethyl. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Opabinia. Do you know what's going on with Alakzi? He deleted his user page and archived all talk page threads yesterday, and has been MIA since then. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I came across a mention of a dinoflagellate with an eye, as denoted in the popular press, but apparently the better name is ocelloid —([ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19467154 "Molecular phylogeny of ocelloid-bearing dinoflagellates (Warnowiaceae) as inferred from SSU and LSU rDNA sequences.") and wish to mention it in visual system, but I am apprehensive that the naked mention will leave it subject to reversion. Apparently the lens of this warnowiid's eye is formed from some of its mitochondria, and its eye even has a retina composed of plastids. If I craft a sentence for the visual system article with a red-link this micro-organism, would this be helpful to your interests? What else might I do, as I do not have a biology background. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 00:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
But Ocelloid is an article, which I will link to in my sentence for visual system. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 00:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Opabinia regalis. Warnowiaceae, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know . You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot ( talk!) 13:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
Hey, Opabinia. I would be grateful if you would weigh in here: Template talk:Infobox television season#Compromise: a possible way forward. The discussion could use another rational, objective, third-party opinion from a reasonable arthropod or two. It's past time to resolve this, and given that the timing of compliance seemed to be the primary hurdle, this would seem to be a logical compromise to resolve what appears to be an unnecessarily prolonged dispute. Thanks for your help. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 17:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Please pardon my inadvertent misclick on this so-called "smart" phone. Especial apologies because in that edit, you were citing me. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Bagumba: Opabinia and Bagumba, I need some help here: [4]. I've got at least one editor who is determined to return this discussion to a free-fire zone of provocative rhetoric and baiting, and he's not inclined to listen to my gentle warnings. I would be grateful if you would help dial this back before it gets out of hand again. It's clearly counter-productive to the stated goal. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your vote to keep Skintern, despite your criticisms, which I'd like to respond to.
I can understand how it might seem a little long ... my philosophy is that it's better to write perhaps too much and cut what you don't need than too little and have to add to it. Also, I needed enough text to offset the images so they fit nicely into the article. And lastly, it was somewhat defensive ... sometimes people will use thin coverage of a subject as an argument for non-notability and hence, deletion.
As for the quotes ... while I am generally leery of the idea that articles should keep quotes to a minimum (I could give you my reasons for that later), I admit that while I was writing it it did occur to me that it might read as too quotey (or, rather, that the quotes, specifically those describing the clothes worn by those young women referred to as "skinterns"), are repetitive. Maybe so, but I wanted to make sure that readers understand that the women quoted were talking about the same phenomenon.
I am currently at Wikimania in Mexico City so my time and capacity to address any more specific articulation of your criticisms is limited until I get back home next Wednesday. But do not let that discourage you from responding before then if you wish. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not that satisfied with the picture either; as I think I may have said on the talk page thread that it was the best of a plenitude of weak options. Commons has a well-populated category of images of women dressed that way, but almost none of them are in an office setting or of women whose dress would otherwise seem remotely professional (most are of porn stars photographed by adoring fanboys at conventions, it seems. None of those would be appropriate or relevant to use in this context.
It's unfortunate that she's headless, I agrer (symbolic implications aside, it's aesthetically terriible) but, as I said on the talk page, that eliminates the personality rights issue that would otherwise constrain use of an image in this particular article (since it's about a derogatory term). Daniel Case ( talk) 19:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Ultimately I still see the best solution as what I proposed on the talk page: a photo illustration (or, more honestly, a staged photo), using a model or models (perhaps a younger skintern making copies while some more appropriately dressed older woman looks on disapprovingly?) who have been made fully aware of how the image will be used before the picture is taken.
But, again, all this will have to wait until I get back from Mexico City the day after tomorrow. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
How's this? (Picture linked to here) Daniel Case ( talk) 05:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The template {{ W-screen}} has a "static" parameter for users who prefer not to add the bouncy ball, and it's the default setting for Twinkle users, so no-one is likely to add the bouncy ball unless they positively choose to do so. I myself prefer to add it, and have reverted your change to the template. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_36#.7B.7BW-screen.7D.7D_-_what.27s_happened_to_the_bouncy_ball. I find it a friendly, welcoming, addition to a page. Pam D 10:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
On 2 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Murine polyomavirus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that murine polyomavirus (pictured) is an oncovirus that causes tumors in newborn mice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Murine polyomavirus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Er.. I think you probably meant to mention the comments that Liz posted on Sitush's talkpage? Bishonen | talk 21:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC).
Not a problem. I like to be super-careful to be clear when I do these things. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caspian cobra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subcutaneous. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bovine pancreatic ribonuclease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free energy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
On 14 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ribonuclease V1, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that ribonuclease V1, an enzyme used to study the structure of transfer RNA, is found in the venom of the Caspian cobra? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ribonuclease V1. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 13:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits on the WRKY transcription factor page.
I am the author of many of the papers that are cited and I have tried to re-write all of the prose as far as possible to avoid plagarizing myself (although there is only so much that you can change.....). I ran the text through a plagarism tool and it only found the Wiki article and not any of the underlying references.
As to the figures, they are my own work and are different versions of two figures that will appear in the open access journal BMC Plant Biology, sometime later this month. Either way, that should be OK.
I have changed the edits back to my original version and then further edited areas where I think the text needs to be further modified. I will continue to further modify the page.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WRKYpaul2 ( talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks again - still working at it! — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
WRKYpaul2 (
talk •
contribs) 22:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
It's been a pleasure to watch the transformation of the Enzyme article so far. It's great to see someone go through and do a head-to toe improvement and clean-up T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 23:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC) |
@ Evolution and evolvability: Thanks! Glad to hear it looks like progress and not just meddling :) I posted this question on the FAR page, but since you're the image expert - what do you think of the current lead image? Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:55, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like to see the protein dynamics page improved. My contribution to this effect was reverted yesterday. If you get a second, please take a peek at my prior edits to the protein dynamics page. While not remotely comprehensive, I think it is a reasonable start to add an appreciation of water and relaxational and vibrational dynamics which are not covered in the current form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon33dn ( talk • contribs) 00:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
First you explain with Physics, then you change. Force field as chemists are used to intend it, it does not make any sense neither in Physics, nor in Chemistry, nor in Maths. Please demonstrate that I am wrong, then you're more than welcome to change it back. Be scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origin2000 ( talk • contribs) 00:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Opabinia regalis/Archive 9! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to feminism. I'd like to invite you to become a part of WikiProject Feminism, a WikiProject aimed at improving the quality of articles dealing with feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the WikiProject Feminism page for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Members". Thanks! |
Kaldari ( talk) 07:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
You have made multiple votes at the deletion of Dao's theorem on six circumcenters, you cannot vote more than once. SamuelDay1 ( talk) 10:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nina Sellars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trinity College. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 08:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
On 14 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hannah Valantine, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that cardiologist and Gambian native Hannah Valantine is the Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity at the United States National Institutes of Health? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hannah Valantine. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Hannah Valantine's father was the Gambian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom,as The Gambia was a member state of the Commonwealth of Nations from 1965 until October 2013 - ( 202.89.140.117 ( talk) 05:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC))
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Klaus Schulten, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beckman Institute. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for being a welcoming and friendly person. Here's a cup of tea for the next time you sit down to collaborate with someone else. We need more people like you! WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC) |
@ WhatamIdoing: thanks! I'm going to pass this on the next time my real-life collaborators are complaining about me... :) Opabinia regalis ( talk) 19:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oscillibacter valericigenes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
biochemistry
Thank you, female editor with a blue box, for quality articles on protein structure and folding, and people involved in biochemistry, such as
Hannah Valantine, for
protein and helping to rescue
encyme, - you are an
awesome Wikipedian!
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 15:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Does the destination User:User:TEAM 4.0/Chemicals That Are Toxic And Essential seem correct? -- IO Device ( talk) 05:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
I was stalking back thought the gene talk page and noticed your work on it in 2007. I really enjoyed the recent FAR of the enzyme page so it'd if you'd stop by the gene page to help with a bit of an overhaul. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 10:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if you already know, but the TfD for Template:Maintained, in which you participated so vigorously and eloquently in favor of keeping, was closed as a delete based on what seems like a very cursory consideration of the debate. Some of the rest of us have already started asking the closing admin to elaborate or reconsider, if you want to join in. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Opabinia regalis, I've noticed your name around recently and I wanted to drop by to say hello. I'm not sure if you remember me, as we had little interaction years ago but it's good that you're back; it's always nice to see someone return. Best. Acalamari 14:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gene, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Life cycle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
…for your attention at the Molecular binding article, and forgive, my part, for any feelings of being offput by the longstanding tensions between myself and the other following editor. I hope you can persist in overlooking the battle, and continue to contribute your insights to the discussion at hand (even though you and I might disagree at present about the proper usage of "complex" vis-a-vis its questioned applicability to covalent cases). I would indeed go with where the preponderance of strong secondary sources/evidence leads, but I have no hope of an objective outcome. (I will not again waste time at an article parrying with an editor with such limitless self-confidence that he earnestly believes that his presentation of one reference should lead to acquiescence of all opposing opinion (see very first 2009 Talk entry, that page). I have said my peace, and I am away. Cheers, best wishes to you, here and in general. Le Prof.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CDP-choline pathway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golgi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi OR. Pundle is given in the Oxford English dictionary only with the meanings (1) an unattractive woman and (2) the European widgeon, both obsolete. The word isn't in Merriam-Webster, nor in Chambers (1983). Pundling is in none of these. Might we suspect that we're dealing here either with a bit of local slang or even perhaps with one of those words that individual families develop, for example as an upshot of baby talk? Would it be a good idea to get rid of those two redirects, as they seem to be creating neologisms? Cheers, -- Stfg ( talk) 10:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The article at
tRNA contains the rather teasing statement in the lead - "Sometimes, abnormal amino acids may be present in t-RNA." I am aware that fidelity of, for example, isoleucine transfers by Ile are about 99.997%, rather than 1005 but this sentence hints at more. All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 16:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC).
Hi Opabinia regalis, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations on the positive result and for your place on WP:RFX100. While your request was a clear pass, there was significant opposition based on your past long-term inactivity and concerns as to whether or not you're fully up-to-date with current standards; however, I'm sure you'll use careful caution, as implied by your answers to the questions and your "final comment".
Again, congratulations and welcome back to adminship. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong but if I recall properly, you are the first person to have lost the tools through procedural inactivity and then regained them through a new RfA. :) Acalamari 09:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I came across this user User:Opabinia externa, redirects they created to your pages, and thought you should know. -- I am One of Many ( talk) 05:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Another FYI ... just saw this. Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (confer) @ 17:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
…graduate work on furanones and butenolides, and on particular vinylogous acids and esters, including ortho esters, if you ever have need of assistance in this area. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 ( talk) 05:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I haven't !voted and I don't intend to. I brought the yes/no question because it has come up at COIN twice before: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_71#Acupuncture and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_43#Middle_8 with no resolution, and at the Talk of COIN here: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Template:Connected_contributor. There is no consensus on this recurrent question, so it was time to try to settle it. Jytdog ( talk) 12:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for creating this article! If you have an idea for a good hook, you could propose it for DYK on the mainpage. Cheers! -- Randykitty ( talk) 07:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
We are preparing to take a closer look at Featured articles promoted in 2004–2010 that may need a review. We started with a script-compiled list of older FAs that have not had a recent formal review. The next step is to prune the list by removing articles that are still actively maintained, up-to-date, and believed to meet current standards. We know that many of you personally maintain articles that you nominated, so we'd appreciate your help in winnowing the list where appropriate.
Please take a look at the sandbox list, check over the FAs listed by your name - Cell nucleus, Proteasome, and RNA interference, and indicate on the sandbox talk page your assessment of their current status. Likewise, if you have taken on the maintenance of any listed FAs that were originally nominated by a departed editor, please indicate their status. BLPs should be given especially careful consideration.
Thanks for your help! hamiltonstone ( talk) 13:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Please respond at Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/sandbox#Pinging next round; thanks!
…that per usual, for the editor following me about, the follower's interest at the "Molecular binding" article was short-lived, and ended as soon as it was clear that he (largely) got his way, of leaving my edits off, and having the status quo maintained. I will not return to edit there, as there is enough to do in this world — which is productively, almost entirely outside of WP — without having to fight with others over the obvious. Bottom line, covalent can be mentioned, but by the thought leaders in this area it would be mentioned only to clarify that the most rigorous thinking places mechanisms that form covalent bonds into a distinctive class (i.e., its mention would be one line at the end of a paragraph, with link-outs and references, and not three equal bullet points). I have given > 30 citations (2 books and a plethora of reviews), to which there has been no comparable response. I stand by the Bob Copeland perspective, that conceptually, and methodologically, the adducts formed by a very small minority of non-covalent interactions is a distinct class from the vast majority of complexes that form non-covalent associations of various degrees of affinity. This is the last that I will do to try to interest a biochemist in this matter. I will show up from time to time to repost the opinion at the article Talk, but I will not war with the (more networked, more committed, and apparently less time-constrained) opposing, following editor. I have similarly given up at "Natural product" (my area of expertise) and at "Steroid" (significantly in my area of expertise), where the issues were entirely the same—the editor following me to article he had been largely or entirely absent at, in order to impose the personal, maleficent perspective that nothing Le Prof writes can stand without gross reversion (see backtracking in this article's case when challenged by third party), and the opposing philosophical view that all descriptions, especially the most general, should open articles, regardless of the preponderance of expert opinion (e.g., at "natural product" it was that proteins, nucleic acids, etc. should be mentioned front and center and prominently, even though the preponderance of meaning in the expert literature is that this moniker implies small molecules created by secondary metabolism). As I said, I give up, and especially in this case, I leave it to this whose area of primary expertise it is. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 ( talk) 05:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Have a look here, [1]. Even my non-science work gets slapped, in this case for insisting that the person about whom the article is written, not populate the site with his personal webpage. (And again, being reverted as I worked, by two editors intent on no changes to the article, tagteaming, and then bringing a 3RR complaint after I had given up.) Cheers. Leprof 7272 ( talk) 07:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I had the lovely experience this evening of heading over to Gene article to address the absence of citations in the Mendelian inheritance section, when I found you'd already added some! Anyway, what I came here to ask was if you'd seen my comment on the talk page. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 10:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
You answered my question well, and sufficiently for the RfA page. I have one more question but rather for this more private place. Nice to meet you again! - Before, to clarify: you probably don't see the Beethoven close among the requests any more because someone dared. - Now the question: I am late to the mysterious "infobox wars". (I was against infoboxes in 2012 - see Samuel Barber talk - and for them half a year later.) What do you think of this (short) discussion? I enjoyed it, and believe most of the other participants also. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 11:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Opabinia. Could you be convinced to take on a little new XfD work? Admin Martin Hoekstra is AWOL at TfD, and long-time TfD closer Plastikspork is only showing up every 10 to 14 days to close only a handful of TfD discussions. No other admin is closing TfDs right now. Could you be talked into closing a couple of TfDs per day, and I'll see if I can recruit two or three more admins to help on the same basis? I would be happy to help in any way possible, including pointing you in the direction of the relevant guidelines and essays. Please let me know. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This is exactly the kind of common sense analysis of which we need more: [2]. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 09:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Matthew Ferguson ( talk) 05:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Opa! Hey, I've got a vandalism-only IP user engaged in nefarious activities after warning: [3]. Can you put an appropriate whammy on the address? Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:58, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. This is exactly the sort of stuff I'm looking for. :) Will be replying there in more detail tomorrow. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 01:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
On 7 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Scott V. Edwards, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that evolutionary biologist Scott Edwards and social psychologist Jennifer Richeson were the only two black scientists elected to the United States National Academy of Sciences in 2015? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scott V. Edwards. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Thanks for this article Victuallers ( talk) 07:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
On 7 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jennifer Richeson, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that evolutionary biologist Scott Edwards and social psychologist Jennifer Richeson were the only two black scientists elected to the United States National Academy of Sciences in 2015? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Thanks for this article Victuallers ( talk) 07:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Opabinia Regalis,
I am writing to you because I was unable to weigh in on the deletion discussion for the Rosemary Rawcliffe page and believe that you were not provided with enough professional filmmaking information in order to make a decision as whether this subject is notable or not.
I see there has been a discussion about regional vs national and it’s impact on notability. Firstly, a regional Emmy is notable. An Emmy award is an Emmy and it is considered one of the most notable 'peer- judged' honors in television. I mention 'peer-judged' to be clear that the judges for these awards are professional filmmakers in the specific field they are judging. For example only working film producers can judge films nominated for production. If you are still unsure about an Emmy’s notability please read this article, it should help you understand what an Emmy is. http://www.documentary.org/feature/emmy-explained-guide-understanding-televisions-top-awards
It is also important to note that Northern California is a very large and thriving community of documentary filmmakers. These filmmakers make up this competitive pool of Emmy contenders who are producing high quality films that are informative and groundbreaking. Rosemary Rawcliffe, who is responsible for the film A Quiet Revolution, had to compete in this pool in order to be awarded with an Emmy.
Secondly, it is not a given that a film is accepted at a film festival and for some film festivals, you must be invited. With that said, in the film community, it is an honor to be accepted and screened at a film festival, especially one as prestigious as the Mill Valley Film Festival—as was the case for this film and this filmmaker.
Let me be clear, there is no dispute that this film has won multiple awards, including an Emmy; has been aired on PBS; screened at reputable universities and included in University curriculums and libraries at Universities such as Stanford University, University of Southern California, the University of Virginia, among others.
Please justify why you have deleted this post. Thank you. SeaSalt7 ( talk) 21:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
On 9 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article American Society for Virology, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the American Society for Virology, the first independent scientific society specifically for virologists, was founded only 34 years ago? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/American Society for Virology. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 23:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for creating this article. I added this article to Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2015/Results, which records LGBT-related contributions to Wikipedia as part of the annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign. If you happen to create or improve other LGBT-related articles during the month of June, feel free to update this Results page accordingly. Thanks again! --- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
On 13 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mary Collins (immunologist), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the immunology professor Mary Collins studies ways to use genetically engineered HIV as a vaccine? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Collins (immunologist). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey, what about my comments? Aren't they sufficient to get on your list? I feel so neglected.😰 Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:29, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Could you re-close this, as it actually makes more sense to delete them, in retrospect? I'd have simply reverted my closure, but I've already orphaned the two templates. sigh I should've just gone to sleep. Alakzi ( talk) 02:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the
API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.
What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.
This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.
If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!
Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.
Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.
Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you, but I just was writing up a "keep" vote when it edit-conflicted with your "delete" closure. I found this, this, this, this, this and this, which should be enough to pass WP:GNG. Please tell me what you think. (Please answer here, I'll watchlist it.) Kraxler ( talk) 00:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
On 21 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Neena Schwartz, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that endocrinologist Neena Schwartz had a 50-year career in scientific research, but only came out as lesbian after she retired? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Neena Schwartz. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Chris Woodrich ( talk) 16:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
On 24 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article James Nowick, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that openly gay chemistry professor James Nowick taught a course called "Queer Science, Queer Scientists"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/James Nowick. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Chris Woodrich ( talk) 14:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Opabinia, would you accept a revised red link guideline that requires a minimum of three blue links in a navbox to existing stand-alone articles or lists, with at least 50% of all included links withing the navbox being blue, coupled with a very explicit clarification of the existing "succession" and "complete set" exceptions for navboxes? Personally, I think that would be an extremely reasonable compromise. If I can get 10 committed supporters, I'm ready to start lobbying previous !voters (not a violation of WP:CANVASS) in favor of compromise. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 02:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your lovely note of support at my RfA. I may be a day late and a dollar short, but here I am now. Do with me what you will. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 02:51, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
On 27 June 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article David K. Smith, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that David K. Smith, a York University professor of chemistry, has been described as "one of the most visible out gay scientists"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David K. Smith. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For " getting involved in arbitration enforcement is somewhere between chewing tinfoil and making sculptures out of dryer lint." So how are you on making sculptures out of dryer lint and chewed tinfoil? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC) |
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the
AN page, the
AE page or the
Case Requests page
and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee,
L235 (
t /
c /
ping in reply) via
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 ( t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi -
I'm responding here instead of at the arb request, because I believe you're conflating a few things worth fixing, if nothing else for your own sake. Reaper Eternal is, to be clear, an admin, as well as a checkuser. If he wasn't, he would've been unable to modify Eric's block. In my statement here, I literally hoped Reaper had read Courcelles - a sitting arb's - earlier statement to Adj that any modification of the block would likely result in a desysop. This diff isn't any form of 'haha' at Reaper - it's pointing out that he violated one of arbcom's very few redlines. Very very few people have every overturned an AE block without consensus and have not been desysopped for it. I can see how you can view this diff more negatively, but in the end, it's still just pointing out that Reaper likely will lose his sysop bit over this, and if he is going to do so, he should damn sure know what he is doing. This diff was to RGloucester, not Reaper. RG reverted my action which would have been, as I've described elsewhere productive, and then argued that consensus is needed to overturn AN closes - which just isn't true. At the time, I was operating under the assumption that RG was an admin, because I figured someone else wouldn't have overturned my temporary revert, and should be read in that mind. If RG had in fact been an admin, I think his actions would likely have constituted wheelwarring - and even not as an admin, they're dangerously close to creating the same dangerous result. I would suggest that you may arrive at a different conclusion as to my intentions if you take note that I'd already warned Adj off modifying the block, and although my opinion of him has since changed, really was initially concerned that Reaper might have no idea he was doing something that he will likely lose his advanced privs over. Kevin Gorman ( talk) 23:27, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Reminder: you closed the discussion as delete but haven't yet deleted. Regards, Bazj ( talk) 19:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
. . . for taking on more TfD closings than I'm sure you ever imagined upon your return as an admin. You're a good Cambrian critter, Opabinia. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I thought I would explain here rather than on the DYK nomination page the background to the Maasella edwardsi article. Dr. Blofeld encouraged me to join the Intertranswiki project and contribute to ten articles that had Spanish language articles but no English language equivalent. He suggested "trees" as the topic but I chose "corals" instead. I really prefer to create articles on my own but in this case he started Maasella edwardsi and quoted a book source for which I only had limited snippet view. The depth range, for example, came from the Spanish language article and not from the source he gave. I expanded the article but thought it somewhat unsatisfactory, and would not have nominated it for DYK except for the fact that he had also been involved and I thought he might want me to do so.
When I first found the Özalp source I had access to the full text and read the whole article, but on further visits, I could only access the abstract and lost a lot of good information. I think the 1990 figure came from my perhaps faulty recollection of the full content, or I may have read it elsewhere, so I have removed it. I have altered the text of the article, added another source and proposed another hook. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 10:54, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe I haven't argued my point properly: The purpose of the template space is so information on-templates can be used in multiple places. I doesn't get any simpler than this. Think of the wikiproject templates. They are used on multiple talk pages so readers can know that the article falls under the scope of the particular wikiproject.
If an annotated image is used on multiple articles it SHOULD be in templatespace so that editors can make a change to one page, the template, so multiple pages will reflect the page. Having a template which isn't used or not likely to be used on other pages actually obfuscates the editing process especially so when the information related to the article; the template should be "orphaned", transferred to the article, then deleted. And if editors want to discuss the previously orphaned template they should do it on the article page since the template is deeply related to the article content.
Now will you tell me those examples you have in mind? 96.52.0.249 ( talk) 12:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.
On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:
A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of NotAnOmbudsman ( talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. — JJMC89 ( T· E· C) 01:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 08:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murine polyomavirus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vesicle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I think I've finally gone insane in this place. In the meantime, DiscSquare is back at it. Alakzi ( talk) 10:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, it's settled: I'm Hitler. Alakzi ( talk) 20:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Murine polyomavirus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nucleus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank for !voting at my recent
RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! |
On 19 July 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zena Werb, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that cell biologist Zena Werb changed her undergraduate major from geophysics to biochemistry after being told there was no accommodation for women at a field site? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zena Werb. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Chris Woodrich ( talk) 00:02, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on the above mentioned article. I've been so busy working on the individual articles related to this broad topic, that I haven't had the time to do what you have done so well. Keep up the good work. I can't believe that there were references from 1962!
You closed four Tfd's today but didn't edit the templates or their talk pages. PrimeHunter ( talk) 10:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Profenofos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ethyl. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Opabinia. Do you know what's going on with Alakzi? He deleted his user page and archived all talk page threads yesterday, and has been MIA since then. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I came across a mention of a dinoflagellate with an eye, as denoted in the popular press, but apparently the better name is ocelloid —([ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19467154 "Molecular phylogeny of ocelloid-bearing dinoflagellates (Warnowiaceae) as inferred from SSU and LSU rDNA sequences.") and wish to mention it in visual system, but I am apprehensive that the naked mention will leave it subject to reversion. Apparently the lens of this warnowiid's eye is formed from some of its mitochondria, and its eye even has a retina composed of plastids. If I craft a sentence for the visual system article with a red-link this micro-organism, would this be helpful to your interests? What else might I do, as I do not have a biology background. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 00:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
But Ocelloid is an article, which I will link to in my sentence for visual system. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 00:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Opabinia regalis. Warnowiaceae, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know . You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot ( talk!) 13:32, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
Hey, Opabinia. I would be grateful if you would weigh in here: Template talk:Infobox television season#Compromise: a possible way forward. The discussion could use another rational, objective, third-party opinion from a reasonable arthropod or two. It's past time to resolve this, and given that the timing of compliance seemed to be the primary hurdle, this would seem to be a logical compromise to resolve what appears to be an unnecessarily prolonged dispute. Thanks for your help. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 17:23, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Please pardon my inadvertent misclick on this so-called "smart" phone. Especial apologies because in that edit, you were citing me. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Bagumba: Opabinia and Bagumba, I need some help here: [4]. I've got at least one editor who is determined to return this discussion to a free-fire zone of provocative rhetoric and baiting, and he's not inclined to listen to my gentle warnings. I would be grateful if you would help dial this back before it gets out of hand again. It's clearly counter-productive to the stated goal. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 13:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your vote to keep Skintern, despite your criticisms, which I'd like to respond to.
I can understand how it might seem a little long ... my philosophy is that it's better to write perhaps too much and cut what you don't need than too little and have to add to it. Also, I needed enough text to offset the images so they fit nicely into the article. And lastly, it was somewhat defensive ... sometimes people will use thin coverage of a subject as an argument for non-notability and hence, deletion.
As for the quotes ... while I am generally leery of the idea that articles should keep quotes to a minimum (I could give you my reasons for that later), I admit that while I was writing it it did occur to me that it might read as too quotey (or, rather, that the quotes, specifically those describing the clothes worn by those young women referred to as "skinterns"), are repetitive. Maybe so, but I wanted to make sure that readers understand that the women quoted were talking about the same phenomenon.
I am currently at Wikimania in Mexico City so my time and capacity to address any more specific articulation of your criticisms is limited until I get back home next Wednesday. But do not let that discourage you from responding before then if you wish. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not that satisfied with the picture either; as I think I may have said on the talk page thread that it was the best of a plenitude of weak options. Commons has a well-populated category of images of women dressed that way, but almost none of them are in an office setting or of women whose dress would otherwise seem remotely professional (most are of porn stars photographed by adoring fanboys at conventions, it seems. None of those would be appropriate or relevant to use in this context.
It's unfortunate that she's headless, I agrer (symbolic implications aside, it's aesthetically terriible) but, as I said on the talk page, that eliminates the personality rights issue that would otherwise constrain use of an image in this particular article (since it's about a derogatory term). Daniel Case ( talk) 19:19, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Ultimately I still see the best solution as what I proposed on the talk page: a photo illustration (or, more honestly, a staged photo), using a model or models (perhaps a younger skintern making copies while some more appropriately dressed older woman looks on disapprovingly?) who have been made fully aware of how the image will be used before the picture is taken.
But, again, all this will have to wait until I get back from Mexico City the day after tomorrow. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
How's this? (Picture linked to here) Daniel Case ( talk) 05:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The template {{ W-screen}} has a "static" parameter for users who prefer not to add the bouncy ball, and it's the default setting for Twinkle users, so no-one is likely to add the bouncy ball unless they positively choose to do so. I myself prefer to add it, and have reverted your change to the template. See discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle/Archive_36#.7B.7BW-screen.7D.7D_-_what.27s_happened_to_the_bouncy_ball. I find it a friendly, welcoming, addition to a page. Pam D 10:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
On 2 August 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Murine polyomavirus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that murine polyomavirus (pictured) is an oncovirus that causes tumors in newborn mice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Murine polyomavirus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Er.. I think you probably meant to mention the comments that Liz posted on Sitush's talkpage? Bishonen | talk 21:37, 2 August 2015 (UTC).
Not a problem. I like to be super-careful to be clear when I do these things. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Three years! |
---|
-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)