Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 11,836 last month to 11,889 on June 1st). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 115 is ahead of WP:GM who have 83. WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 59 out of a total number of 3,502 articles.
Currently we have thirty three Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
York Meet-up
Members are invited to a meet-up in York on 15 June 2015 where you can meet other Wikipedians and discuss things. You can also have a meal and drink together. The meeting will be at 12:30 at Your Bike Shed, 148/150 Micklegate, York, YO1 6JX. If you are interested then you can find more details and sign-up at the meet-up page.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The June 2015 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered June 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 11,889 last month to 12,008 on June 29th). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 115 is ahead of WP:GM who have 83. WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 59 out of a total number of 3,512 articles.
Currently we have thirty three Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The July 2015 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered July 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 12,008 last month to 12,031 on July 30th). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 116 is ahead of WP:GM who have 83. WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 60 out of a total number of 3,517 articles.
Currently we have thirty four Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The August 2015 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered August 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 12,031 last month to 12,045 on August 26th). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 116 is ahead of WP:GM who have 83. WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 60 out of a total number of 3,525 articles.
Currently we have thirty four Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The September 2015 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered September 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 12,045 last month to 12,193 on September 29th). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 119 is ahead of WP:GM who have 84. WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 60 out of a total number of 3,532 articles.
Currently we have thirty five Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The October 2015 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered October 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Wgolf (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Norman Krieger requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.laphil.com/philpedia/norman-krieger. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. EricEnfermero (Talk) 11:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bindi Cheng until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sophia91 (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 12,193 last month to 12,209 on October 30th). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 118 is ahead of WP:GM who have 84. WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 60 out of a total number of 3,534 articles.
Currently we have thirty seven Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The November 2015 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered November 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
09:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
All the best for you, Mshae! Massimo Poggio 17:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Unblock request
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
First of all, I would like to apologize to WritKeeper for lying to him about previous unblock, and I am vowing to not doing it again. I also promise to be civil and not disruptive. I will from now on adhere to the policies and am promising to be civil and not disruptive. I honestly hope to be unblocked because a) I understood that my actions were uncivil and disruptive and b) I would like to write some articles on people and plants and archive some as well. If consensus will allow it, I will be greatful. Many thanks.
Decline reason:
This isn't a "You're never coming back" decline, but "You need to show you actually understand why you were blocked", given that last time you were unblocked you immediately went back to repeating the problematic behaviour.
Normally I dislike "we're not letting you back until you promise to conform" unblock declines, but given that the above outburst wasn't a one off incident but part of a pattern of racism and offensive commentary I'd want to see, and I presume any other admin would also want to see, an explicit acknowledgement from you that you actually understand why your behaviour was unacceptable, which this request does nothing to address.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Note: I explicitly abrogate Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason as regards my decline, if you can convince another admin, or the community, that you deserve to be unblocked. ‑ iridescent10:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Iridescent: My behavior was unacceptable because it was in gross violation of WP:NPA which I violated because I was frustrated with the whole block thing. I promise to abide by NPA policy and refrain from racism and incivility in general.--Mishae (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Softlavender: I understand your concern about my behavior. As for my problematic behavior, before my PTA was revoked I talked to @Worm That Turned: and he explained to me that I shouldn't have done that. The reason why I did it again was because someone told me that I might get unblocked numerous of times, but I didn't knew that it was for different violations. I was stupid back then, now after 6 months of being blocked I am ready to be civil and competent.--Mishae (talk) 15:58, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's not strictly true, given that the comments which eventually led to your talk page access being restricted were made well after your conversation with WTT, and if you really need to have it explained to you why calling another editor a fascist Jew or statements like Wikipedia is hijacked by kikes aren't appropriate, a multinational collaborative environment is probably not the place for you. Per my comments above and at WP:AN#Mishae, I explicitly abrogate the wheel-warring clause with regards this decline; if you do want to place another unblock request I won't be the one to accept/decline it. ‑ iridescent16:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Softlavender: I think it was you who told me back then that we can unblock him after Standard Offer will expire and that if I will violate it, I will get a short block term. By the way, point me where I generalized in this discussion? I already said numerous of times that I have changed my behavior, I wont be racist anymore, and I will abide by the rules. If you all worried about me coming back and pursue the same edits then you can topic ban me on WikiProject Insects and Beetles, deal?--Mishae (talk) 21:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: So even after 6 months of cooling off and promising not to do it again you still wont believe me? I don't have a single grudge against you all but why should you? As I proposed above, why not unblock me, and topic ban me if your are so worried about your poor beetle articles. Prior to joining WikiProject Insects and starting vandalistic edits I was civilly archiving and writing articles on numerous of things. And if you will unblock me and topic ban me instead I will do just that; Archiving and writing articles. Do you need editors who write articles or not?--Mishae (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm largely planning not to engage you further, but I spent a long time cleaning up your thousands of edits (though it did introduce me to some nice Wiki-tools). That alone sets off caution bells seeing you now appealing your block. To solidify that, the cycle of incivility and large-scale edit warring that explicitly did not have consensus followed by sincere apology appears to have been going on much longer than I've interacted with you looking at other comments here. If you want to mistakenly call that a grudge, then I guess you'll do so, but that does not help a block appeal when it's your behavior you need to be confronting. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kingofaces43: I understand that what I did was wrong but then why voting on decline as good, if you don't have a grudge against me either (or however you wanna call it)? Besides, I was under a block for 6 months and I did learned my lesson on civility and disruptive edits, so you have no reason to worry about me appealing my block in a civil manner. Even vandals allow to appeal their blocks after they serve their time and promise not to do it again. I already apologized for my behavior, for my later stupidity, for my incivility. I promised not to do it again, and despite that I wont be unblocked? How do I convince you all that I changed my behavior? That I understood what was wrong? As I said above, if you don't trust me with Insects topic ban me there and I will be back archiving and writing other articles like I was doing earlier. Sounds like a deal?--Mishae (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The issue is large scale disruption coupled with this cycle of saying you're sorry and going right back to the problem behavior not long after regardless of what you say now. The insect tagging is only one incident in a history of problems that I think indicates you won't stop causing further disruption after being given many chances to show you won't revert back to the problem behaviors. You don't get unlimited chances. I don't plan to respond here further. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Why? No one should get a second chance "just because". We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to run an egalitarian society. If it's decided that unblocking you is likely to be disruptive to the efforts of other editors to build an encyclopedia, then you should most definitely not be unblocked. It's up to you to convince an admin that you deserve to be unblocked, and that it won't harm the project. I see nothing so far that convinces me of that. Either try harder, or drop the whole thing, because you get nothing "as of right". BMK (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Delta13C (talk) 22:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Morningstar until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Delta13C (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Unblock request
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Over the 6 months of my block I thought a lot about my behavior back then and the reasons for the block. It all started with my disruptive editing. I was rather uncivil in discussions about editing rules that followed and tried to forcefully implement my ideas about editing which resulted in a block. I was soon unblocked after promising to refrain from disruptive editing. However,
I stupidly broke my promise and got another warning. At this point I started arguing with admins about edits and this involved very rude and inappropriate language, including racial slurs. This resulted in the 6 month block. I deeply regret my behavior and understand that this block was absolutely justified. I understand that such behavior is totally unacceptable, especially in an international collaboration. I promise to never again engage in such behavior and strictly abide by the rules of Wikipedia and hope for a positive outcome of this unblock appeal.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Sweet sounding words, very similar to the ones you used before to get yourself unblocked. What reason can you give for anyone believing that you're actually sincere this time? BMK (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: Because 6 months is enough for anyone to learn a lesson. People need to get a second chance not "because" but for a reason. And if they will remain blocked they wont be able to show that they changed. I was doing very good edits before I joined Insects project. I even was awarded barnstars for greeting users and writing articles and I would like to continue writing those articles on scientists. You don't believe me, then unblock me and topic ban me instead!--Mishae (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
OK. Lets invite users @Koavf:, @Salvidrim!:, and @Randykitty: to whom I never was wrong. I hope maybe they will shed light here, since the way how it feels like is that the block is being set as punishment and not as prevention.--Mishae (talk) 04:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Koavf: Thanks for stopping by. Yes, this is something that I try to explain to them that I learned my lesson that I am sorry, that I promise no to breach any rules ever again (especially after 6 months), and that I came back with new me (a person who wants to archive and write more articles). But the admins are concerned about my pattern... And, I can't show them that I changed because I am blocked and can only edit this talkpage. O and please look here.--Mishae (talk) 04:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Blackmane: After reading your mockery of my inability to edit, I feel pity that I don't have a right to send a block request for you right now. This is a gross violation of WP:NPA. And yes, the outbursts were because of my disability and if you would had one, you would have behaved the same. O and I already stated several times that I understood why I was blocked 1) For disruptive editing and 2) Racism and violation of NPA. And as far as my inability to fully understand goes, how about @Koavf: will explain to you the difference between inability and disability. To me, there is no difference. Inability is a part of a disability.--Mishae (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yep folks, he's at it again, blaming everyone else, twisting every possible word he can, calling for other people to be blocked, calling their words gross personal attacks, claiming that he can't understand the rules/regulations/policies/distinctions. It doesn't look like anything has really changed, does it? That didn't take long. This time only 24 hours. Softlavender (talk) 06:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Softlavender: If I see that someone else is violating the rules, I have a right to say it. I didn't claimed that I can't understand the rules/regulations/policies/distinctions. Don't you ever put your words into my mouth! You just want attention? I will give you one! How about @Koavf: will come here and take a look at these accusations!--Mishae (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Blackmane hasn't violated any rules. You on the other hand have violated rules beyond nearly everyone's patience to endure. And you are the one claiming an inability to fully understand. You can't have it both ways: either you can understand or you can't. You can't just retain that as a trump card to pull out as you wish to evade blocks or sanctions (as you've tried to do frequently in the past). And if you can't fully understand, you can't operate on Wikipedia. There's no room here for incompetence or ignorance or for editors who are a liability to the project and to other editors. Softlavender (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Um..........................................................................................................no. BMK (talk) 07:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to ask for an uninvolved admin to look over what I wrote. I think you'll find that no admin would consider what I wrote an attack in the light of your actions in the past. Inability =/= disability, check up a dictionary some time. Also, to any admin that is watching this page, feel free to slap whatever you feel is appropriate on my talk page, trout/whale/warning/block. Blackmane (talk) 10:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken:Um..........................................................................................................yes. Unlike you all I don't gang up on blocked users and intimidate them. I already admitted that what I did was wrong. What other proof do you need? Not to evade another block? OK I can promise that too, but no matter what I promise you wont believe me, even after spending 6 months and not evading it.--Mishae (talk) 12:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Only in death: Yes it was a pattern but now look at another pattern, how Softlavender, BMK, and the rest trying to sound as if I am the worst editor they ever met. Do you see a pattern in their behavior of constantly egging on on a blocked user? I do. In fact, realize that Softlavender and BMK sound identical I am wondering if one them is a sock?..--Mishae (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
In fact, neither of us is a sock. I am a half a Bosc, and Softlavender is half a Bartlett. Together, we're quite a pear. BMK (talk) 08:20, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Trying to obfuscate the issue at hand by attempting to paint other editors as socks isn't going to help your case. Suggesting Softlavender and BMK being socks is laughable, not to mention an allegation that requires exceptional evidence. Blackmane (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@Blackmane: I don't paint. I can prove it that both editors use sweet words as description of my plead. However, if this is not the evidence, then I am ready to take my words back.--Mishae (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Claiming BMK is a sock of Softlavender or the opposite is very laughable and clearly your definition of sockpuppetry is very different from Wikipedia's. Your "evidence" is, in fact, not evidence at all. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑00:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Callmemirela: OK. I'm taking my words back. By the way, beautiful name. You know, I looked at your userpage and it says that you are pending changes reviewer. I used to be one too, and now this (sigh). And at the same time the articles which I wrote (and wanted to expand) are now proposed for deletion and can't add a single ref (sigh again).--Mishae (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. May I however ask you to stop telling the world about your recent struggles with Wikipedia? It's considered gloating in a bad way. No offense, but I could care less about your issues right now, as they don't target me in any way. Nobody needs to know about what happened. Secondly, I am no sure if I am correct, but your pinging of several users of the first unblock request may be considered canvassing. Another experienced editor may correct me if I am wrong. I don't like your approach of pinging a handful of users out of frustration from your block and attempts to get unblocked. Callmemirela🍁{Talk}♑02:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
May I say that if Mishae is really competent to edit on Wikipedia, he wouldn't be blaming everyone else and not use the redundant "I promise not to... blah blah" again. I don't think accusing people for things they have not committed doesn't help your situation either, it clearly shows you have not changed at all. If you were to be unblocked, I believe your edits should be watched and carefully monitored. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Burklemore1: Yes I did changed. You know why I blame others? Its because I apologized and promised and I still don't get unblocked! As I said, if I am wrong anywhere, I will take my words back, and I did. WHAT ELSE DO I NEED TO DO TO PROVE MY COMPETENCE! Thank you.--Mishae (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
......Clearly not if you are still blocked. That makes no sense either, blaming people because you apologised and didn't get unblocked? If you reread iridescent's comment in your 1st unblock request, he mentioned nothing about apologising, but acknowledge that you understand why your behaviour was unacceptable. That should make others recognise your competence. Burklemore1 (talk) 05:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I reread iridescent's 1st unblock request and I did say that my behavior was wrong because it was racist and disruptive. I'm fine with monitoring, although I don't think it will be necessary.--Mishae (talk) 06:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
You still accused people for being possible socks and calling for others to be blocked though, that behaviour is still problematic. In this matter it should be necessary just so we know you keep to your "promises". Burklemore1 (talk) 06:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Mishae, while I have endorsed your continued block I will say that if you want to convince the community to endorse an unblock you're going to have to lay out in clear detail what you did wrong, why it was wrong and what you are going to do in future to prevent it from reoccurring. You just need to commit yourself to a course of action that will be preventative. As near as possible, blocks are not punitive. Your block was to stop you going off the rails and accusing people of being socks, attacking them with racist slurs, disruption and incompetence. Step away for a while and have a think about what any number of people have been telling you. Blackmane (talk) 09:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Burklemore1: People make mistakes. They apologize, promise not to do it again and move on. I did a mistake by calling someone a sock, I took the words back, and I promise on not doing it again. Do I need to prove on how I will not do it again?--Mishae (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Mishae, the advice I gave you on this page has already been archived. However, just as a reminder: If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Thanks for reminder, but I was blocked for 6 months and it is already expired. That is why I was allowed to appeal for an unblock. I'm trying to sound as more convincing as possible though with each unblock request.--Mishae (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Just got it, sorry. I was confused at first about which declined block were you referring to (the 1st or the 2nd). I'm being civil and I don't verge anything. OK, I wont bother you anymore.--Mishae (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@Burklemore1: OK. Another question, should I put another unblock request, or this one can be overwritten if I convince admins to unblock me? My fear is is that if I will make another unblock request that according to Kudpung (as an example of one of the admins) will considered to be unconvincing or disruptive I will be blocked from editing my talkpage.--Mishae (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I think your fear is well founded, particularly as Ritchie333 declined your last request only three days ago. Another admin might well have pulled the plug already. Now please take the hint. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
So what you are saying that the more I ping you, the more chances I wont be unblocked because it is disruptive? Another question Kudpung, should I wait until the discussion is done, or should I put another unblock request, or I just continue discussion here?--Mishae (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a community-placed block and will require a communty discussion to unblock you. That will not happen any time soon. As you fail to get the point, and as this is a case of WP:IDHT I am now removing your talk page access. You must make any further requests for unblocking to WP:UTRS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 12,209 last month to 12,218 on November 29th). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 118 is ahead of WP:GM who have 84. WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 60 out of a total number of 3,539 articles.
Currently we have thirty eight Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Happy Christmas
A Happy Christmas to all members of the project and a big thank you for all the hard work on Yorkshire related articles during the year.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The December 2015 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered December 2015 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
00:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Changing citation style
When you edited Discalis with the edit summary "Wikified journals and publisher" you changed the consistent citation style in the article from CS2 (commas between items) to CS1 (full stops between items). As per WP:CITEVAR you should not do this. I've now changed it back. I also object to your removing the spaces between parameters in the citation templates. Without spaces the source doesn't line-wrap properly and is then very difficult to edit on devices with small screens. Please don't make this kind of change in future. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 12,218 last month to 12,254 on January 4th). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 120 is ahead of WP:GM who have 85. WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 60 out of a total number of 3,559 articles.
Currently we have thirty eight Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
Happy New Year
A Happy New Year to all members of the project.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The January 2016 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered January 2016 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavlos Lagoudakis until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Huon (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 12,254 last month to 12,301 on January 31st). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 121 is ahead of WP:GM who have 85. WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 60 out of a total number of 3,563 articles.
Currently we have thirty eight Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The February 2016 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered February 2016 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideyuki Akaza (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 12,301 last month to 12,503 on 29 February). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 123 is ahead of WP:GM who have 85. WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 61 out of a total number of 3,580 articles.
Currently we have thirty nine Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The March 2016 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered March 2016 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
Thanks to the contributions of our many members and supporters, WP:YORKS has become a leading local British WikiProject in terms of the total number of articles supported (up from 12,503 last month to 12,534 on 3 April). In the area of GAs WP:YORKS at 123 is ahead of WP:GM who have 85. WP:GM has the lead in FAs at 61 out of a total number of 3,586 articles.
Currently we have forty Yorkshire featured articles:
The number has been kept deliberately low to give us a fighting chance of improving them to at least GA status, also so we can concentrate our efforts on these first.
WikiProject Yorkshire Collaboration of the Month Project
The April 2016 articles selected below are an editor choice as there were no further suggestions from the project talk page.
The project is subscribed to a clean-up listing which lists articles tagged with various clean-up tags that need attention. The listing is refreshed by a bot on a regular basis.
Monitoring is essential Use the watchlist to keep an eye on changes to the project's articles so that vandalism and spamming can be removed as quickly as possible.
Moves Please be careful when performing articles moves and ensure that you also move all the talk sub-pages and update any image fair use rational. Otherwise the archives, to-do lists, assessment comments and GA reviews get lost and the image may be deleted as it has an incorrect FUR. You will also have to check that the Commons link is set correctly.
Comments, questions and suggestions about this, or any, issue of the newsletter are always welcome and can be made by pressing the feedback button below...
Delivered April 2016 by MediaWiki message delivery.
If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an N to the column against your username on the Project Mainpage.
Previous issue | Index | Next issue 
Wikipedia:WikiGoat, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiGoat and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiGoat during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
