Jump to content

User talk:Arcturus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Thanks

...for your help on John Gregson page. WikiUser 21:45, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


ip block

I can't do anything about this. There is a system at the moment where the following happens: 1) I block the name 2) an autoblock appears on the IP next time someone tries to use it to log in (the idea was to prevent socks)

Now I can undo the auto block but I have to wait until someone logs in from that IP and in this case no one did so before I went to bed. Soory about the email I have been meaning to sort that out for a whileGeni 18:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ingleby Barwick

On some old maps I have it shows Ingleby Barwick as being a housing estate in the town of Thornaby. Although it as now grown in size, the council have not made it a town in its own right, so therefore it is still part of the town of Thornaby (although it is often disconnected with regards to signs etc...)

Mike Follin

Just out of curiousity, why did you flag the Mike Follin article as candidate for speedy deletion? // Liftarn

Color spectrum

Did you remember the edit you made in Talk:Color about how the color list of the spectrum should be made?? I modified the color article slightly with a new heading "Important note!" to clarify it. Georgia guy 14:08, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jesus

Thanks for the heads up, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please be careful about marking edits as minor which are not minor. See Wikipedia:Minor edit for a definition; even adding a single word can be regarded as not minor. Thanks. —Lowellian (talk) 10:12, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that. American Century [1]. —Lowellian (talk) 10:51, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Please see this: [2] a discussion about reducing the length of Slrubenstein's block for breaking the 3RR on Jesus.--Silversmith 23:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of AD in Palladas

I don't understand your reasoning for changing "4th century AD" to "4th century". When used with a year, the era is placed before; when used with centuries, the era comes after. And while the Manual of Style says nothing about using AD, it does not explicitly forbid its use -- which I had added to remove ambiguity over the time Palladas lived. -- llywrch 03:36, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, you're being no more pedantic than I am about the usage, & your point is a good one, & is why AD precedes the year. However, AD follows the century because of established practice -- it's what my copy of the MLA Handbook proscribes, & every other Manual of Style (that I remember) that addresses this usage proscribes. Do you have a counterexample? -- llywrch 19:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lloyd Morgan

sorry, I accidentally wiped some edits you'd put in on C. Lloyd Morgan (an effect of the new edit conflict bug). I think I have reinstated them, but you may want to have a look. seglea 28 June 2005 22:00 (UTC)

Counties

Hello Arcturus. There is some debate over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography (also spilling over into Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)) about what strikes me as the rather odd way Wikipedia currently arranges its county articles. While there will always be disagreements over the status of the traditional counties I think there is a case to be made on both sides of that old argument that our attempt at a compromise has been botched and is leading to all kinds of problems, and that we should think about taking a fresh look at our arrangements. I wonder if you'd take a look and perhaps add your comments if you have a view on the matter. Thanks. — Trilobite (Talk) 6 July 2005 12:21 (UTC)

Denounce

You placed a speedy tag on this article, but apparently did not read the talk page first. Had you done so, you would have learned that the article had been transwikied to Wiktionary. A boilerplate message states: "The final disposition of the article on Wikipedia has not yet been determined. It may be redirected, it may go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, or it may evolve beyond a dictionary definition and remain on the Wikipedia. If none of these tasks have been performed, please do so." As you can see, speedy deletion is not suggested as an option. I'll haul it off to VfD for you. Denni☯ 22:35, 2005 July 30 (UTC)

Your refreshingly sensible comments

Hello; I just wanted to commend you for providing some much-need common sense on the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places) page. Please don't be intimidated by huffing and puffing of one or two people who may hold a different view. I think that, with the recent revival of this discussion, and the greatly increased support for using a common-sense option (traditional counties) rather than the currently-prescribed administrative-cum-ceremonial mess since the last poll, reversing the current policy and imposing a better one is a realistic goal. I was thinking about proposing a new set of choices for voting shortly myself; you are more than welcome to contact me with a view to discussing the best way of doing this if you wish. Keep up the good work! Best regards, 80.255 00:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Baekje

I didn't really see them as controversial here (and, in fact, they aroused no controversy in what was an otherwise extremely controversial article). The MoS on this issue has been in a state of almost continuous flux since before I started editing here, and I've not kept up with its latest wording I'm afraid. My impression was that the style adopted in the article was a matter for editors in consensus.

It's true that my personal opinion is that the BCE/CE usage should be adopted by Wikipedia as the norm; it is in widespread use – almost 100% in academic texts, and in a high proportion of semi-academic and serious non-fiction, especially those concerned with matters of culture and, even more especially, of religions – and is preferable on theoretical (including NPoV) grounds. In this case, however, I was thinking only of the individual article — on a non-Christian place with non-Christian history, edited by mainly non-Christian editors who all seemed happy with the change. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Counties, etc.: A suggestion for consensus

Hello, as you were involved in the naming convention discussion a little while ago, I though you might like to know that I've posted a suggestion that should help resolve this dispute at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (places)#Suggestion for consensus. Please have a look. Thanks, 80.255 18:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

1970s

Hi Arcturus, just wanted to let you know that I've just seen that my revert of your edit to 1970s was a mistake: for some reason I read your initial edit as removing the reference to the West as well as to the US. The Western bit needed to stay, but as you rightly state, the US certainly didn't. --Lancevortex 16:10, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Bagoas

Summarizing an edit that changed "BCE" to "BC", you wrote:

  • Date format - standard for this article is BC

I don't know what you mean by "standard for this article". Can you explain? Thanks, -Willmcw 22:24, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. -Willmcw 22:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)


Hi there, Arcturus. We have a discussion going on here about a page you had some involvement with in July. The page was Lester Rodney, containing an article written by an anon. You listed it on the copyvio page and it was eventually deleted, although there is some question over whether a proper determination was actually made that this indeed was a copyvio. Do you think you could join the VfU discussion linked above? Kind regards—encephalonέγκέφαλος  17:43:25, 2005-09-10 (UTC)

Thank you, Arcturus. I've also responded on my Talk page.—encephalonέγκέφαλος  11:55:08, 2005-09-11 (UTC)


Lester Rodney comments

Hi, Arcturus. I don't know how to get involved in the discussion in the "undeletion" section, so I clicked on your name and am making comments on your page. I don't use your site much, but a few months ago, Lester Rodney directed me to a definition of the Daily Worker that included a hyperlink to his name, but no information. Since my master's thesis was on the Daily Worker's campaign to end segregated baseball, which then spurred some other research on Lester Rodney and the Daily Worker, he suggested that he and I put together an entry on your site to serve as his dictionary entry/biography. I don't know why it seems strange to you all that someone would want an authorized biography on your site, it is a practice in putting one together for both myself -- a history doctoral student -- and Lester. I have also written biographies that appear in the Dictionary of Literary Biography, volume 241 (Joe Bostic and Dan Burley -- and I am quoted as a source for the Lester Rodney piece in the same volume -- I did not have time to do 3, so I did the two I had not done before and let Mr. Klein do Lester, and I cited his biography in my Wikipedia piece). Lester likes getting the word out about his work on trying to desegregate baseball and against racism in general, and even though he is in his 90s he likes to take advantage of technology, so that is why it was important to him to have his bio done online. I want to stress that his name was hypertexted in the Daily Worker article, and if you all did not intend for there to be an entry on him, then why the hypertext??? It is important to me because, as a doctoral student, the more places my work appears, the better. I stated in an email to Andrew Gray that I obtained the proper rights to reprint or republish anything I have written on Lester from M.E. Sharpe, my original publisher, as well as from sportsjones.com, my original online publisher, but did not "lift" any of the information word-for-word from any of my other work. I mean, if what you all are accusing me of is plagarizing myself, the U.S. Supreme Court has already handled that issue, you can't plagarize yourself. I don't understand what all the brou-ha-ha is about this issue -- and no one will explain it to me personally. I write about Lester Rodney. I have written about him in the past. I have a vast storehouse of personal knowledge about him, and I know him personally. I wrote about him for your site because you had a hypertext of his name and no definition. I ended my article with citations towards other works written about Lester Rodney, by myself, my co-author (Chris Lamb), and others, including Irwin Silber and Robert Klein, who both cite me in their works on him. What is so hard to understand about that?? I think that this is making mountains out of molehills. All Lester wanted was to see a short bio on himself online -- and he and I worked on that. Why are you all so upset about it??? Sincerely, Kelly E. Rusinack 67.142.130.21 19:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly approve of edit summary on September 11: "Linked date at top of page - all dates should be linked". If you have a moment, and the inclination, please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year#Linking dates in lead paragraphs, maybe even share a comment. Thanks. –Hajor 15:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


Chore Boy

Hello, I noticed that you created the Chore Boy page on May 14, 2005. I was curious if that brand is notable above other brands for any particular reason. Please let me know on my talk page; I feel that the article is a good candidate for deletion. Thanks! --mdd4696 00:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

West Coast Mines

Could you let me know why? I'm having problems with someone stuffing up a disambig page in a similar manner, is there any reason why - as it becomes more difficult to read! SatuSuro 23:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC) So are you saying it is better to have headings (which create their own lines) ? SatuSuro 23:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC) I think I have answered my own question - put some headings in - and it has sorted the issue - thanks for your pointer to an improper use of lines! I shall reform post haste - I do have a few other west coast tassie articles that need checking. SatuSuro 00:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Was it a random check, or do you have interest in tassie at all? SatuSuro 00:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Me too! - at one stage I was doing 10 to 20 'catneeded' from random pages at a sitting!however I am in process of selling and moving from family home of 40 years here in Darlington western australia, and am considering buying a house on west coast tassie - I used to work at Mount Lyell in queenstown. Ulverstone on the north coast, it's a nice place! Oh well here in perth, time for breakfast! cheers SatuSuro 00:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR

Don't forget about 3RR on human. Just a friendly warning, don't want to see you get blocked over small style point.--Tznkai 20:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Indigo

Please wait until a large enough discussion among enough Wikipedians has come before putting indigo back in. You are one of only 3 Wikipedians to have the discussion as of this moment. Georgia guy 23:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

lakes template

Yeah I realise Tarn Hows doesnt fit in with the others so well, however it does have an article so thought i'd put it on to make it easier to access. What do you think? Thanks for adding the other two. Suicidalhamster 20:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a good plan. Thanks Suicidalhamster 20:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Just left you a 3 note(s) in Talk:Square Metre, which I believe your complaint led me to. Well, I tried to help (1), then that was wasted (2), so now I'm wasted, but shoulda ratha had a drink to get this way. Instead I spotted a glitch (3), I'm in no shape to fix tonight. So Have fun with your squares. At least Facts&MoreFacts is out of your hair. (numbers are chronological 'saves' of the talk). Best regards, FrankB 05:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Drumcree

The contested march at Drumcree is to and from a service in the Church to commemorate the Battle of the Somme. That is what I assumed that reference was about.Traditional unionist 13:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship

A revised version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 11:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Novaya Zemlya

Hi, Arcturus! I mean no offense, but it seems you are not really familiar with the guideline you've just put under my nose at Novaya Zemlya. In general, and as a friendly tip, please always provide a link to the guideline you are quoting, even if you are sure your opponent knows where it is at perfectly well.

Anyway, I believe the guideline you were referring to is WP:MOS. However, if you would refer to this particular section, you would see that the geographic location of any article's subject has nothing to do with what spelling is used in that article, as long as the subject is not strictly British/American/Australian/Canadian-specific. The only other good reason to correct spellings is when an article uses different spellings interchangeably for no apparently good reason (usually when several editors with different spelling preferences edited the article without paying much attention to spelling consistency). Even then, the change should be not to the spelling you prefer, but to the spelling used by the first major contributor (as per MoS). Reviewing the article's history, one can see that the first major contributor, Andre Engels, used American spelling when he started the article in 2002 (see paragraph 2 of his initial contribution: 1070 meters). Hence, as per MoS, the article is to retain American spelling from then on indefinitely, unless the United Kingdom annexes Novaya Zemlya, at which time the spellings will have to be changed :)

I'm sorry if I sounded snarky—I tried my best not to. I hope I was able to explain what the guideline is really about. I would appreciate if you could revert your change back to the policy-compliant version. Please don't hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 19:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

New tag

I removed a delete tag you placed because it was obsolete.I replaced it with the appropriate tag {{db-bio}}Geo. 21:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

re:Table of Dates in Sacred Heart

First of all, I was using the format found in the Easter article, which also has columns for east and west. The reason why I feel a table is superior is because a) it saves space because you can float the table to the side, b) it isn't content per se so I don't feel bad seperating it out, and c) it is tabular data, so the most logical place to code it is in a table. I moved the earliest and latest dates to the actual article about the feast. That information is trivia, and the article in question was Sacred Heart, not Feast of the Sacred Heart, so I felt this trivial content would be more at home at the proper article. Actually I just thought of something as well... I think the table and dates should be moved to the proper "Feast..." article. We don't have the Easter dates table on the Crucifix or Easter egg page, and we don't have the dates for the Feast of the Cross listed on the Cross page. As long as we have a wikilink to the Feast of the Cross and a brief summary on the Sacred Heart page, there is no reason why we can't expand the feast page instead of making content redundent. hmm... maybe we should take this to the article talk?--Andrew c 23:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The Dagda's Cauldron

Hi, What sort of cleanup were you thinking of for this article? Dlyons493 Talk 22:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - it was an article I never meant to write, hence the slighly odd format. I've restructured it now. Dlyons493 Talk 23:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The Sash

The Sash was proven in a court of law in Scotland not to be sectarian, so I don't really think there should be any allusions to this in the article, or at least not so strongly worded ones. Cheers. Archibald99 15:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Lancashire

Hi, I'm just wondering what "the Real Lancashire" is compared to the Lancashire we know and love? Thanks Martinp23 23:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah - before my time I'm afraid! However, I was aware that Southport (where I was born) used to be part of Lancs. Perhaps you could link the "real lancashire" part of your user box to the Friends of Real Lancashire, to make it clear. Just an idea ;) Martinp23 20:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

BCE vs BC

Wasn't aware of the MOS on this issue, thanks for informing me. Regards -- Samir धर्म 23:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Laas Gaa'l

Hi -- The Laas Gaa'l article contains material that is in both of its two sources, which is why I put in two copyvio tags. It looks to me like the world66 wiki is a copyvio of the BBC site in one place, and in another place the WP article is plagiarizing material directly from the BBC site that doesn't appear on the world66 site (see the article's talk page). I've reinserted the copyvio tag referring to the BBC site.--24.52.254.62 20:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi -- I think it would be helpful to have some more outside involvement in this. It's a clear case of copyvio, both in the text and in the photo, but Abdullah Geelah is continuing to delete the copyvio tags.--24.52.254.62 23:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

İzmir

I think "BC" is disrespectful to Muslims and Jews... :( Just because the original editor had it this way means that it can't be changed? —Khoikhoi 21:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It clearly stands for Before Christ, a figure that is of no importance to Muslims. Note that most Turks are Muslims (or secular). I don't really care, anyways. Have it your way. —Khoikhoi 22:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

British Isles

Situation is that the term British Isles is confusing. It says so on the BI page, so it's not only me on this issue. The term "British Isles" is not universally accepted, and is seldom used by people in Ireland, and even the British Government and the BBC try not the use the term. So if it's good enough for all those 3 to avoid the term, then it's good enough for WP to avoid the term too. I am not questioning the existance of the term, just the usage.MelForbes 22:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Doogle

Your Doogle article as written clearly failed WP:CSD Article criteria #7: it fails to assert notability. If you plan to recreate the article, please ensure it meets the required criteria by clearly citing reliable sources that show why it is notable. Thanks, Gwernol 23:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but we have a very clear mandate from the office to ensure that these kinds of articles are removed as quickly as possible. Out of respect I've prodded it, so there is 5 days to improve the article before its deleted, but honestly it should be speedied again. Good luck, Gwernol 23:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding edits made during October 21 2006 to Middlesbrough

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Nishkid64 21:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Admins make mistakes, deal with it. Nishkid64 21:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

AFd

Your afd entry is formatted wrong and is interfering with the afd above it. It makes it seem like you voted to delete the Colbert Report entry when you are voting to delete the other article. Gdo01 20:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You seemed to have found your error before I posted this. Anyway you're welcome. Gdo01 20:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


WPCD

Thank you for the warning on a couple of articles. Are there historical versions which in your opinion were NPOV which could be used on the CD (we had to do this with a couple of the major religions last time around)? If so tell me (and we will look at them and see if we agree) if not we can leave them off altogether. Thanks again --BozMo talk 18:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. But please don't worry about the italicised stuff at the beginning of the articles, that gets automatically taken out by the script. If it doesn't get anywhere we will drop the articles anyway. --BozMo talk 22:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ireland edits

I restored most of your NPOV edits to Ireland after they were improperly reverted by the anonymous editor. The edits I did not restore shouldn't come as a surprise. Dppowell 15:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Your contribution to the discussion on Talk:Ireland

I don't appreciate being included under the label of 'censor' or 'bigot', especially given the Republican arrows that have been slung at me while I've attempted to foment a long-overdue civil discussion on the issue. I'm sorry you're upset that your version of the article didn't pass muster, but I would appreciate you keeping your vitriol to yourself. Consider this a civility warning. Dppowell 18:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Since Lofty, Sony-Youth and I were the only named people in the discussion to that point, it's clear which of us you meant to paint with your broad brush. Try to forget the godforsaken British Isles article and its attendant edit wars for a few minutes and actually read the current Ireland discussion from the top down. We're trying to build a consensus. More voices would be nice, but so far the only other people ringing in are anonymous, name-calling trolls (exactly the sort that have wrecked any chance of real dialogue on British Isles). Help, or don't, but please don't bring any of that other article's poison over here. Dppowell 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Bryan Budd page: protect against possible fraud

I posted this on the talk page for the article, but am not sure if you're watching it or not, so thought I'd copy to you as you created the article. Cheers 81.157.197.111 12:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there some way of linking to a site about or that mentions the Trust Fund contact details rather than putting the address in the text? As it stands, it could easily be changed by unscrupulous fraudsters. Even if the page is watched (which I will), there's the possibility that the address could be changed and not noticed for a while. The Sun page [3] gives the address 81.157.197.111 12:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply

I apologize for the problem. Bushcarrot (Talk·Desk) 02:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


Ireland

I'd like to say I think your support for removing the anti-Britishness on the Ireland article is admirable. Somethingoranother 21:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, but it will be a long haul. It was difficult at British Isles but good progress has been made. Arcturus 21:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

Please note that this policy applies to both sides in a discussion. Your comment here - which included "rant", "verging on the fanatical", and "who the hell are you" - doesn't move any discussion in a constructive direction. I strongly suggest that you be more careful in the future about how you word your comments when you're dealing with an editor whom you consider to be a problem. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 03:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, sure are a lot of policies. You might find this useful, although it's only an index.
As for your question of how I'd describe someone else's user page edit (or any edit, pretty much), my answer is that I'd avoid emotion-tinged words if at all possible. ("Vandalism" is a fact; that one I have no problems using.) I realize that this approach may sound like unilateral disarmament, but Wikipedia talk pages aren't like social scenes where failure to defend oneself verbally is seen as a weakness. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia, then introducing emotions and personal attacks is, itself, an indication of lack of comprehension, and a simple "Please observe WP:CIVIL" (or WP:NPA or whatever) demonstrates (to some of us, anyway) an ability to focus on the task at hand, despite distractions.
As for the last edit that you mention, if you're talking about the reversion on Laurence's user page of the edit you did to it, I think the reversion was totally appropriate. WP:USER pretty much says that other editors aren't to touch the user page of another editor except in very specific circumstances.
Finally, thank you for revising your last post on Laurence's talk page, though in the best of worlds I think you'd delete it entirely. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 19:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Irish Flag

Re. vectorized (.svg) version of your image, Here it is]. Let me know if the colours are okay - I used to Pantone official colours and referenced them to 8-bit colours. Sorry it took so long - I was moving house :) - Alison✍ 22:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

UK infobox templates

There is currently a debate about replacing the existing UK place infoboxes with a unified one. I generally support this proposal but there is an attempt to remove the historic county information that a lot of people worked on and where a consensus was reached. I would appreciate your input into this. Thanks. Owain (talk) 11:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the discussion is at Template talk:Infobox GB place#Straw polls Owain (talk) 14:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:ACGrayling.PNG

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:ACGrayling.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Request fulfilled

Hi Arcturus, I've deleted all but the most recent version of your userpage, as requested. In the future, if you have trouble finding an active admin who checks his e-mail (you got lucky, I rarely check my e-mail account *smile*), you can just tag any page in your userspace with {{db-u1}} (except your talk page) and it'll be deleted pretty quickly. Then you can request the last revision be undeleted at WP:REFUND. Of course, e-mailing a friendly admin is probably a lot simpler. :) Anyway, welcome back! Cheers, --Aervanath (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you be interested in joining a WikiProject devoted to Lancashire?

Hi, I have noticed that you are from Lancashire and I was wondering if you have heard of the new WikiProject group of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria. If you are interested in joining please feel free to become a paricipant and help us achive our goals. If you do join I am looking forward to your contributions. 93gregsonl2 (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

File:ThreeShires.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:ThreeShires.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter


Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:WilliamHenryEccles.jpeg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:WilliamHenryEccles.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Officials associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

Yes that was my mistake. I thought Category:Officials associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic was covered by the deletion decision for Category:People associated with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic which would be the parent category, but that seems not to be the case. We'll have to await the decision of the CfD. Nevertheless, I agree that the IP user's removal could not possibly be construed as vandalism. --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: No problem. Thanks. Will you be !voting at the category deletion discussion? Arcturus (talk) 19:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I just did, but I thought replying to you first about my mistake was more important. Almost everything that was said at the 'People' CfD applies to 'Officials' (and then some), so I've expressed my feelings. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, thanks again. Arcturus (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Lifting restrictions. When phased partially back in, all localities reported a sharp spike in cases wherever this occured. People that are infected but asymptomatic area all over the place, so expect more cases as they open back up. The balance between economy/death will be a political decision - what will the public accept in mortality vs. damage to economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.6.129 (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

No. You made a statement on the pandemic page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.6.129 (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Sheldrake RfCs

Hi Arcturus. I've decided to take the route of some modest RfCs to address some of the issues in the Sheldrake article. They are based on my reverted edits for style to the opening sentence (RfC 1) and reducing repetition in the lede (RfC 2). Perhaps you would be interested in participating. Kind regards HappyWanderer15 (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@HappyWanderer15: Hi HW, yes, I'll certainly give an opinion. As they stand, the sentences are riddled with POV, but there will be much resistance to any change. Arcturus (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notice - ARBPS

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sheldrake redux

Hi there, Arcturus. As you can see from this edit, even minor copy-editing work is still being reverted by the usual suspects. While I would hope that WP:DR would be fruitful, I'm not holding my breath. It appears Esowteric is correct that Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans and WP:FRINGE are believed by a majority of editors to trump concerns about NPOV and BLP as we see them. It's a big problem for Wikipedia that a small group of dedicated ideologues can lock down particular articles, but I'm not sure that we are in a position to solve it, given that our views are clearly in the minority. What do you think? HappyWanderer15 (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi HappyWanderer15, the reversion is not surprising, nor is the response to the recent proposal about Sheldrake being a biologist. I think we have to go through the motions here - proposal on Talk page etc - before we can move to dispute resolution, but as soon as the stonewalling is complete I think that's where we should go. I give it 50:50, but the advantage of DR is that it should bring in other editors who don't spend all their spare time at the WP:FRINGE Noticeboard, and I would hope we could get a truly unbiased arbitrator mediator. Arcturus (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
You misunderstand WP:DR as it is not a process by which an "unbiased arbitrator" makes a decision for or against you. It is a process by which editors can agree with each other using the help of a mediator. Mediation and arbitration are very different processes and DR is an example of the former. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a difficult, involved, and last-resort process which exists to impose solutions on disputes "that neither community discussion nor administrators have successfully resolved." Attempting to bounce to DR after your proposals have failed multiple times will likely be considered forum shopping. You have clearly declared your intention to keep going to different areas until you get the answer you want. Historically, this results in very poor outcomes for both the editor and their POV. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Fixed it. Arcturus (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
Comparing it with a court of law: judges aren't "unbiased"; they are biased for applying the law. We don't consider WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP as "just another opinion", in order to give it false equivalence with WP:FRINGE views. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Well said, —PaleoNeonate – 07:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:COVID-19 pandemic data

You appear to be updating the cases in Template:COVID-19 pandemic data for the UK each day but not the deaths. (The deaths were not shown for a period but are now back.) Perhaps you could do both to avoid confusion. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Dudley Miles Ah yes, sorry about that. Thanks for reminding me. I keep forgetting in that template. Even though the death data is extremely questionable, I guess we should put in it now and revise it in future, if needed. Arcturus (talk) 20:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree it is questionable, but updating is the least bad option. The evidence is that the figures for almost all countries are very unreliable, but official figures are better than none at all. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Full protection on Susie Boniface". Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. GirthSummit (blether) 14:42, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

For clarity, I mean the 'which idiot' thing. Since the history makes it clear who put it there, that is a clear PA targeting an specific individual, which is not acceptable. Please don't do it again. With regard to the comment you went there to make, you might have been looking for the main talk page, rather than the 'Current consensus' subpage? GirthSummit (blether) 14:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit Well I couldn't find anything in the history because it only appears when trying to edit. Instead of issuing yet more blocking threats (this is on of the more unsavoury aspects of Wikipedia, that so many users just can't help threatening blocks; it's laughable) why don't you just tell me who it is? Arcturus (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I find one of the more unsavoury aspects of Wikipedia to be people who blatantly ignore the no personal attacks policy. Understand this: you are not permitted to call other editors idiots. I'm not running around indiscriminately threatening people with blocks - I'm an uninvolved administrator informing you that you are breeching one of our core conduct policies. It's not a threat, so much as a warning - I'm not obliged to give a warning before blocking an account, but in cases like this I prefer to do so out of courtesy. Since you seem not to appreciate warnings, if you do it again I will go straight to the block.
With regard to the editing message on the subpage, the correct place to discuss it is at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic. You are welcome to do so, but if you are disruptive or abusive you know what will happen. Best GirthSummit (blether) 15:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit Yes, using the word 'idiot' was uncalled for. I knew that at the outset, but the banner in question is so infuriating that it provoked such a response. Regarding your responses to me, here's some advice, sincerely meant. Try not to talk down to other editors as though they are children. There's no need for such constructs as "Understand this" and "if you do it again", and I find the general tone of your last response somewhat threatening. I've not looked at your edit history and other responses to editors, but I would hope your words here are not typical. Arcturus (talk) 16:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for at least accepting that calling another editor an idiot is uncalled for - had you accepted that in your initial response, I wouldn't have resorted to the constructs you mention. If you feel I've been patronising towards you, I apologise for that, but please consider that the only interaction we have ever had is over an abusive comment of yours at the talk page of a highly contentious article. If my response was less than cordial, that's probably because my experience has been coloured by dealing with hundreds of people who have left similar messages in the past, who are often deeply unpleasant to interact with. I'm delighted to find that you are an exception to the rule.
Seriously though - don't call people idiots, or anything else similar, even if you think they've done something indescribably stupid. You can say 'This message is fucking stupid' - that's fine, you're commenting on the content - but as soon as you start commenting on the contributor who put it there, you've crossed the line into personal attacks. That policy really is worth reading and taking on board, I do not mean to be chilling or threatening, but it is my duty to inform users that it's a core policy, and it is enforced. Best GirthSummit (blether) 16:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit Okay, thanks. Let's draw a line under this. However, do you know of a straightforward way to identify the editor placing a message on a (Talk) page that only appears when editing the page? I could wade through the various procedures, but maybe you know anyway? Arcturus (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Those are called editnotices. I don't know if you can see the button (it may be limited to admin/TE/PM only) but on clicking "Edit source" there's a "Page notice" link on my interface, which takes you to the page of the editnotice. If it's not there, you can manually go to the page of Template:Editnotices/Page/%PAGETITLE%. In this case, the editnotice for the page is Template:Editnotices/Page/Talk:COVID-19 pandemic/Current consensus ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
I confess that I'm not clear on exactly which bit of code causes that message to appear, so I can't tell you right now who put it there - I'd have to do a bit of reading to figure it out myself. Given that the page is there to record consensuses that have been arrived at on the main talk page though, I'd be surprised if it wasn't put there without discussion. The message is definitely jarring, but I believe that's the intention - if someone was planning to change one of the entries on the list without consensus, their account would be probably blocked without further warning very shortly after they clicked 'Publish changes' - I think it's only fair to draw their attention to that quite prominently. GirthSummit (blether) 16:54, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah - I see ProcrastinatingReader got in a helpful response while I was composing mine - thanks, templates are definitely not my area of expertise, that's very helpful. GirthSummit (blether) 16:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit, ProcrastinatingReader Thanks both. I'm just having a look now, but it seems like I don't have the authorisation to work with edit notices (not a problem). Looking at the history, the banner has attracted criticism today for being too severe. It looks like a recent addition. I'll put in a comment. Cheers, Arcturus (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
There is currently an edit request for its removal, or trimming it down. I agree with you that one needs a change. Editnotices are quite easy to create and generally don't take much discussion, so unfortunately a lot of pages (across the wiki) have poor, unnecessary, inconsistent or unwelcoming editnotices. Generally speaking, it's much easier to create one than it is to get consensus to remove one, hence it's hard to tidy up. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
From what I can see, the banner has been there since March 22. It's been tweaked a couple of times, but there's not much difference between the original and the current version. It's been worked on by three editors, all of whom could reasonably be described as exceedingly experienced and well-regarded. By all means express your view about it but... you know... play nice. GirthSummit (blether) 17:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
(ec)Just seen it. Thanks. I've put in a comment suggesting toning down or removal. Arcturus (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Alert to COVID general sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions - such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks - on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Comment deletions

You are repeatedly deleting my comments at Talk:Great Barrington Declaration, and have had to be reverted several times now. Stop it, or you will no doubt get sanctioned for such disruption. Alexbrn (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC) Okay, sorry - looks like there's been some kind of software (?) SNAFU here with messy results. Alexbrn (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alexbrn:Okay, thanks. A couple of comments were duplicated. I thought it might have been the result of an edit conflict or something. The page seems in order now. On a personal note, I see you are a cancer survivor. How do you feel about the effects lockdown in the UK has apparently had, vis-à-vis cancer treatment? I'm not trying to make any judgement or anything, but I would no doubt find your views interesting. Arcturus (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
The impact this whole COVID-19 episode has is to crowd out everything else (including cancer diagnosis and treatment). Although people have been encouraged *not* to defer visiting their doctor for investigation of other health conditions, in reality people will have deferred, and the net effect of this on public health will only be known after a while. Of course, if the virus outbreak becomes more severe this "crowding out" effect would surely be more pronounced, which is why the "let it rip" school of thinking is so very hazardous to public health. Alexbrn (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I know of someone who needed urgent skin cancer treatment in the last couple of months and there was no problem. Treatment was immediately available (NE England). I do wonder sometimes what the real situation is, and the government has done themselves no favours by instilling fear into the population. Anyway, back to more mundane matters; GBD :) Arcturus (talk) 20:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

0.0109735652232816% rise in deaths

Hi, did watch live NHS's briefing on "Covid-19: Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine judged safe for use in UK from next week" (usually they record this kind of statements), and, did not deduct anywhere sayings like "648" of today's fatalities (0.0109735652232816%).., so, bearing in mind that in the beginning of this year it (%%s) was kind of useful/transparent/informative, now it seems more appropriate to present nos (prhps e.g. in 3020 for England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland sth like 8/8/8/8, or whatever the Fate brings along)... any thoughts? — Pietadè (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
By the way, appears that I tend to make mistakes, 'cane' instead of 'can', 'thumbs' instead of 'tombs', et cetera, these I've spotted, started somewhere in the last century ('tutors' night life tasks instead of 'tutors' tasks), really do hope that You'll not take me for a computer or likewise... — Pietadè (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Makes one wonder/guess — does anyone read the letters (words, if combined) written; once translated, and commented, Machiavelli's Il Principe, basing on some 10 Italian versions of the text (ALL different from each other), and, some others (~15+ texts in English, ALL different, about 5 in Russian, ALL different, etc.) — Pietadè (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Pietadè, Ideally both percentages and numbers should be displayed, but there could be a space problem in doing so. If we are to have just one, I would support a change to numbers over percentages, but I think there'll be a lot of resistance to this. It's unfortunate that the various countries use slightly different versions of the template; some use numbers, others percentages, and others use different formats (having a unified approach might be a subject to raise on the COVID project page). No problems with your spelling mistakes; we're all guilty to a greater or lesser extent :). BTW, where are you based (I'm just being a bit nosey here!). Arcturus (talk) 19:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
A very nice (sounding) question indeed; the answer, though not (?) very sincere, would be as follows: I do follow the events (on an unidentifiable basis, like m'camera being separated from me (e.g., while in Sevastopol, taking pictures of the defenders of peace (nuclear submarines, so silky...)), 800+ FTA channels in the corner (a smart TV screen); otherwise: a data/info mediator for an entity Mr Soros recently predicted a/the fate of USSR; EU, in other words, though, every my "wrong" word equals to smth 4,000€ of penalty/reminder, so, trying to make some economy for my purse, I am a Pieta+dè (was nice to have a chat with U, indeed) — Pietadè (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

E.g., today's (17:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)) data:
ITA cases / deaths ===   1 938 083 (+16 305) / 68 447 (+553) (+0.848433065629849% / +0.8145049636197602%)
ENG cases / deaths === 2 004 219 (+27 052) / 67 075 (+534) (+1.368220286905456% / +0.8025127365083182%)
as for me, prefer people, for various reasons; sorry for bothering! — Pietadè (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Pietadè, The absolute numbers are, I think, more useful in many contexts. I just found this discussion about the matter [4]. Might be worth contributing - I'll add my thoughts to it over the next couple of days. One suggestion is a button for the user to switch between the two versions. That would be a good compromise. Arcturus (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
As for me, have managed to present all the 39 countries I'm currently "filling in", in numbers, no complaints so far; as for the discussion U refer, reminds me, e.g, of Russian-Ukrainian War, where at some point the number of dead was considered too small... so, let the numbers/percentage evolve by themselves...
As for me: presented by heart “Tears, Idle Tears” in my secondary school, in 1970s (besides learning French, Finnish, Russian; and, military translation, from English, to, whoever knows which language, in 1970s), though later it appeared, that some "inappropriate" lines were dismissed (for "growatory" purposes of Soviet youth); followed later by some 2 yrs of bomber navigator courses (that was must to do in a Forest Academy...), and, after that, landed in a 9 y-lasting courses of history (managed to combine some 10 different Italian sources of Il Principe as a result... — Pietadè (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi Pietadè, I restarted the discussion at the Template talk page … Arcturus (talk) 21:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021

Please don't bait other editors, and for heaven's sake what in the world would make you do so on my talk page in a section they opened and where they asked you not to post? Special:Diff/998944224 —valereee (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee:. It was a joke! Surely you could see that? Having said that, I have valid concerns. First, you flag an article protection as being due to persistent disruptive editing when there was none, and then the editor to which I responded seems to take great delight in having the "riff-raff" prevented from editing an article, just so that he could have a "treat". I must say, it represents deplorable poor behaviour on both your parts. Arcturus (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi Arcturus, I have been vandalized again. I have an account but this platform is not appropriate as a means of communication. The next thing will be that they dox me. So sorry, would that I could communicate on this platform, but as soon as I counter their personal attacks, they delete the text. We need a better platform for honest discussion and this isn't it. 216.197.221.129 (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
No problem. Arcturus (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank You

Hello

Thank you for your nice message and welcome. 80.42.39.51 (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Arcturus/Archive_1&oldid=1146646771"