User talk:Ultraexactzz/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ultraexactzz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
This archive features edits to my talk page from January 2013 through January 2015.
Thanks re. AfD / orphan+notability
Thanks for your help explaining AfDs. Many of these companies cite the same trade publications fairly extensively and there is a web of COIs surrounding those publications and the companies they report on. Combined with dubious notability, advertorial nature and orphaned state I think many of these articles are really just spam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notnoteworthy (talk • contribs) 19:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Edit: Thanks for your other reply! Appreciate the help. Notnoteworthy (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it's a big problem. You just deleted the article about Russian-based company if I recreated it aside from Russian language because I requested that it will be undeleted, especially Sigma Team Games. If you delete it again, damn I'm so miserable and I just remind you. Can you please restore it from the edit history immediately. Thanks. Rabbitgentleman (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Are There Circumstances under which You'd Unblock my Talkpage?
Hi UltraExactZZ. You said last year to me "If the old account continued to edit, this is a sock and was properly blocked. If not, but this new account continued to edit the same sorts of subjects as the old account, it may still be a violation." The answer to both of those was "no," as far as I can recall, unless there's some tenuous stretching that a WP:CLEANSTART whose prior account for example edited a bird entry may never again edit an article about another bird, or who commented or edited a guideline or policy may never again comment or edit an wholly separate guideline or policy. Since you blocked me from editing my talkpage, hangers on have questioned my honesty and lobbed sarcastic jabs there. I don't like it and I was hoping you'd unblock the talkpage that I might respond with strict attention to WP:CIV, pledging not to fire back in kind, with adherence to other policy, and welcoming you to monitor it and revert and reblock it should I deviate from that, without complaint. If someone has said something not true about me, I will call it "not true about me" and no sharper language.
I think I know why you blocked the page. I was frustrated at the block, didn't feel I was getting a fair hearing, and my responses were couunter-productive and not aligned with WP:CIV. You may have been stopping it from getting worse, so I can see (basically) your reasoning if that's what it was. I don't want to revisit that stuff but in case you're holding some other thing I did against me, let me recap my side of some key things very briefly:
A) The indef. block occurred without warning, without comment, apparently done with a script and mere button click, and linking to a deleted policy section. As a long-time editor (granted, not so judging merely by the cleanstart account) I was perturbed by this, and I think you must admit understandably so, though it doesn't excuse all from me that followed. B) Mastcell was an editor I had no or virtually no prior interaction with (maybe he was one of 12 or certain in a conversation a policy talkpage that I initiated?) and then he shows up to grill me on my prior account and then volunteers to serve as lead prosecutor in my blocking case. I was thrown by this. My responses to him were meant not as disregard for the rules or really contempt of him, but more "who are you, are you even an admin, and why are you doing this here." C) The single instance of edit-warring I was said to have done occurred on a BLP of a "real-life superhero" who has received, demonstrably and linkably, a death-threat of the "I have a gun and I know your name and where you live [providing an address]" variety. What the editors were doing there was turning the entry into an expose, not only on his real identity, but complete with links to a state traffic record database purportedly linking his violations, his personal unrelated Facebook account, and so forth. There are several other real-life superhero entries on Wikipedia, none of them receive this treatment. I deleted the personal information, was reverted, reverted back, was reverted, and then made a much smaller edit (but yes it was part of the previous) of what I thought was unrelated and little contested content. To me it was really one revert and that on a WP:BLP violation (privacy of names). D) I had criticized WP:ROPE as purposeless and having self-absorbed ("belly-gazing") text, but really didn't mean that as personal criticism of anybody. I didn't understand what "essays" were. I got there following a link from someone who appeared to cite it as policy or guideline. To me it can be productive to bash a bad policy, it sparks a debate, nobody has reason to take anything personally, and the result can be an improved policy. But an essay is different. I apologized to the original author for my carelessness as soon as I realized. E) What else did MastCell say? I "challenged" a Checkuser and then turned it into a "federal case" on the associated policy talkpage? No, I politely asked a Checkuser to explain something I didn't understand, didn't really fault him or her at all, and then politely sought improvement to a policy that indeed raised a small commotion that I sought to avoid. F) Yes, ArbCom "declined to lift" my block, but that's not an "ArbCom block," it still persists only on the authority of the original admin. G) Yes, I've block-evaded significantly since the block, but in my view, block-evasion can't retroactively justify a block, there's a logical short-circuit with such reasoning. You could possibly unblock a unjustified and abusive block, and then reblock for block evasion. I say the block-evading has been justified, not because the case went against me, but because there was *never any case at all* it was a "my authority" block from a guy who clicked a button and provided neither diff nor explanation. I clearly identified each IP edit with my user name. There has never been a deceptive, unidentified, or community-misleading edit from me on Wikipedia yet that I'm aware of.
Sorry for all that, but you know it's like six or seven apparently uninvolved people show up to lob charges at me there, and I never know what you're going to go by. Anyhow like I said, Wikipedia editing was my hobby for a long time, and I hate for it to end without me at least furnishing my side to the jabs, including at my honesty, that have gone at me at my talkpage after you blocked me there. I reiterate I am calmer now and I commit strictly to WP:CIV if you unblock me there. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.126.199 (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC) PS: Oh heck, this too, the Bwilkins thing. In contrast to what you said, I didn't view what he said as a genuine offer (he said, paraphrasing, emphasis added, "if you send me your pre-cleanstart account etc. I *may* unblock you") in other words he may or may not, so where's the offer. Plus there was no basis of trust between he and me, and I did not know if he'd "preserve my privacy" as you said. Plus, I genuinely didn't know his email, I later found the email link doesn't show up unless you also have entered an email into your account, which I hadn't at the time. Plus, by impolitely threatening to block my page because of my "BS" I felt he was attempting to intimidate me, which I resented, and Jimbo Wales himself some days or weeks later criticized BWilkins for "bullying" behavior and asked him to take six months off. So I just didn't see it like you said, and that's why.
- Even if I were inclined to re-evaluate your block, I would be unable to do so. You appealed to the Arbitration Committee in August, and they declined your appeal - but did say that, if you do not edit from IP addresses for six months, you could have the block re-evaluated. One look at User talk:Colton Cosmic shows that this is not the case. My advice - actually listen to arbcom and stay away for the full 6 months, then show that you can be a productive editor again. If you do that, you have a shot. But continuing to press your case from IP addresses does absolutely nothing whatsoever other than to reset the six month timer. You might have good points, you might not - but none of that matters as long as you continue to evade the block. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 17:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- ArbCom only declined to lift the original block, it didn't affirm it. If ArbCom wanted to endorse or affirm or "uphold" the block, it would have done so. Any admin can still lift the original block within policy as far as I can tell. And looking at it, ArbCom took *no action at all* with regard to *your* subsidiary block of my talkpage, which is all I asked you about here. You are in fact able to reevaluate my talkpage block. As well, it provided me no explanation, publicly or privately for its reasoning (privately a single Arb suggested I should demonstrate better control, that's a WP:CIV observation I think, if it is I won't quarrel the point, but that wasn't what I was blocked for, and WP:CIV violations are typically not indefinite). As well, ArbCom made an additional explanationless requirement that I must disclose it my pre-cleanstart account, which I won't do for the privacy concerns I've previously mentioned. Not only is this at odds with WP:CLEANSTART and WP:FAITH, but ArbCom's emails have been partially compromised in the past, plus the admin that blocked me is now at ArbCom and he won't get it, ahem, from me.
- But by all this I am not meaning to complain about the decision, to some extent ArbCom makes its own policy and I'll accept that. It only gave me those pre-conditions that I must meet before reapplying to it, but I have not reapplied to it. You catch my meaning? This is not spurious talk, I'm saying that there's nothing in ArbCom's decision that says I can't seek the overturning of my blocks through other channels not blocked by policy, and the only policy since my blocks that I've violated (I think, MastCell could likely prosecute some sentence of it) is that on block evasion itself. I say the block evasion is justifiable because the original block is clearly abusive. Lastly, with regard to your advice... I know you are not going to make a deal, and this is not meant as an offer, but the fact is I would be less likely to block evade, yea even for six months, if I had the outlet of defending myself against the sarcastic jabs and attacks on my honesty (which are not true about me) at my talkpage. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.126.199 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Let me put it this way: no admin in their right mind will unblock you while you continue to evade your block, so stop evading and take Arbcom's offer. It's your best and only chance, really. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- But by all this I am not meaning to complain about the decision, to some extent ArbCom makes its own policy and I'll accept that. It only gave me those pre-conditions that I must meet before reapplying to it, but I have not reapplied to it. You catch my meaning? This is not spurious talk, I'm saying that there's nothing in ArbCom's decision that says I can't seek the overturning of my blocks through other channels not blocked by policy, and the only policy since my blocks that I've violated (I think, MastCell could likely prosecute some sentence of it) is that on block evasion itself. I say the block evasion is justifiable because the original block is clearly abusive. Lastly, with regard to your advice... I know you are not going to make a deal, and this is not meant as an offer, but the fact is I would be less likely to block evade, yea even for six months, if I had the outlet of defending myself against the sarcastic jabs and attacks on my honesty (which are not true about me) at my talkpage. Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.126.199 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think Writ Keeper has it. Whatever the merit of your arguments (and I make no judgement on those merits), no one will listen to you until you have gone six months (or more, now) without evading your block. Put it another way, not evading your block is the quickest way to show admins that you intend to edit productively and without disruption if unblocked. After that six months, e-mail arbcom and ask for access to your talk page so that you can post an unblock request. Something like "It's been several months, and I've stayed away. Now can I post a public unblock request to be evaluated on the merits?" or some such would be fine. This is the process. Admins have some leeway in many cases, but your continued block evasion has taken that away - if I were to unblock you now, even if just to ask for unblock on your talk page, I'd likely be desysopped, and rightly so. Suck it up, find something else to do for a few months, and come back calm and ready to discuss how best to move forward. Or, you know, don't. But this is your best path forward. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Bah, you "make no judgement?" I didn't do it and you know it. Spare me the excuses, you're quick enough to back up the would-be bullies[1][2] against editors with no way to defend themselves, but when it comes time where you ought act it's "but Colton, if I even LISTED your block for another to review on your talkpage, I might be DESYSOPPED!" Timid much? I wouldn't even have known to go to ArbCom had I not block-evaded. Your UTRS link is exploitable as a fingerprint tool for every snoopy sniffer admin an editor ever came into contact with, glad I didn't get suckered into that one. Bad admins damage the project more than any editor ever did, because they destroy potential. "Disruption?" Cowardice is not the opposite of courage, conformity is. You're a conformist. This is Colton Cosmic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.3.126.199 (talk) 21:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, so much for my attempt at being subtle. Here's why I won't amend your block - because the instant you post a rant such as that one on the talk page as an unblock request, another admin will decline it as "Declined - more of the same" and re-lock the talk page. It's not a worthwhile exercise at this point. It's a waste of your time, my time, and some other admin's time. The only potential I see here is the potential for more wasted time and effort on all sides. You want to be unblocked? You want to contribute to this project? Fine - prove me wrong. Don't evade your block for 8 months. Given your conduct here, I don't think you can pull it off. Prove me wrong. Or, alternatively, you can continue to evade your block and thus burn all bridges. You've been graciously given a path forward - now's the time to take it. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- I've also blocked this IP for that 8 month period. FYI. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:54, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
An invitation for you!
|
| Hello, Ultraexactzz. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 01:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC) |
Hi Ultraexactzz
Then maybe you might have an interest in joining WikiProject Gerald Ford! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the life, career, and presidency of Gerald Ford.
We're very much a new project, so you have the opportunity to help form the design and structure of the WikiProject itself in addition to creating and improving content about Ford. You are more than welcome to join us by adding your username under the "Participants" section of our WikiProject page. Everyone is welcome, and you are free to contribute where and when you like.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask a member, and we'll be happy to help you. Hopefully we'll see you around the WikiProject!- You received this invitation in view of your significant contributions to the Gerald Ford article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 09:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Gerald Ford
Thanks for joining us! We are honored to have you. 2013 marks Ford's centennial year, and we have events planned at the Ford Library and Museum facilities in Michigan. Since Ford's bio article cannot run again, I'd love to see an article on some policy/event from the Ford administration featured on Wikipedia's front page on Ford's birthday July 14.
If you have any interest in developing a new topic or beefing up one that's already on Wikipedia, please let me know. I can supply whatever primary source materials you'd need. Thanks so much. Bdcousineau (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello! You recently deleted the page Autonet Group, which was mentioned in the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Textil Group. However, please notice that the consensus to delete the page was only regarding the Textil Group page. All three users voting "Delete" mentioned somehow that their vote refers only to Textil Group, not to Autonet Group (notice that Autonet Group has a revenue over 100 milion euros, much greater than the 5 milion mentioned by Lucifero4). Razvan Socol (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- In the absence of a statement from the closing admin, the close applies to all nominated articles. Note that I did not review or evaluate the closing of that debate, I simply saw Autonet Group on the "Article links to a closed AFD" list, saw that the result was Delete, and deleted it. I've asked the closing admin for clarification, and will of course defer to his judgement. If the closing admin's comments don't satisfy, you may wish to proceed over to Deletion Review. But let's wait for the closing admin's comment first, yes? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there Razvan Socol! The AFD was never intended to close Autonet Group as a delete, but instead a keep. For some reason my comment specifying this was not added when closing the AFD. I have restored the article noting this. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 15:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, to both of you. Razvan Socol (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all - thanks for catching that. And thanks to Addshore for the quick response. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Just in case you'd like to revisit the discussion... since you commented, sources have been found and the article has been undergoing improvement.[3] Yes, more to do. Cheers, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for revisiting. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Fork?
Hi. Ultraexactzz. What is forking?--Rapsar (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Anniversary
|
Wishing Ultraexactzz/Archive 12 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- Trevj (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC) |
Thanks
For helping out with the AfD. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Sandy Hook Mistake
Thanks for correcting my botched entries on the conspiracy page. I didn't realise it had already been nominated, had never done it before, tried to follow the directions and frankly got in over my head. After I nominated it, I saw debates but it said not to add any more input, so I didn't know what to do nor where to do it. It doesn't seem like there was a very long period of time to discuss it, but as is obvious, I am new to many aspects of Wiki other than minor editing. I assume at this point it is a settled issue, and appreciate your fixing my clumsy attempt to do something that had apparently already been done. JohnKAndersen (talk) 04:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)JohnKAndersen
February update from WikiProject Gerald Ford
Now that the project has more or less completed the start-up, assessment, and tagging phases, we're really getting going now. If you're interested, there are a few things you can do:
- There is a new article on the Vladivostok Summit in our new Peer Review section that could use a look-over before it goes live in the main article space.
- There are a number of documents to be transcribed and proofread on Wikisource: currently, we've only scratched the surface on this one and there is more than plenty for everyone who wants to chip in.
The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the Article Sharma yamijala
Dear editor Ultraexactzz,
Firstly, I hope I am writing correctly on the talk page and I apologize you, if I am doing some thing wrong on this page. To the point, I agree that the page Sharma yamijala has been created by myself and it is about my-self. If you feel that these type of pages shouldn't be there and should be deleted (though I feel the content is completely neutral) please let me know. Also, I have a small question. Consider that my friend has an user account and he created a page about me with some information (including citations and references) which is neutral (as described on the wiki page about neutrality). Then, does the wikipedia considers it as a normal article ? Thanking you,
Sharma Yamijala. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharma yamijala (talk • contribs) 16:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
- Replied. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Abacus(GDS)
Don't disagree with closing the page. But the redirect to a local distributor is very incorrect, it was more appropriate to revive the page than to have completely wrong information in there. Royal Brunei Airline is the distributor for Abacus (GDS) within the territory of Brunei. Each GDS has one such national distribution agency in every country. To list the GDS as subsidiary of one such distributor is wrong. The Abacus (GDS) page may be merged or redirected to Global Distribution System but redirecting it to a local dealership is not exactly accurate. If you had read the content in the redirect, the error would have become apparent to you. If you insist on adding misleading information to Wikipedia, be my guest, I back off :) --Sahir 15:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
- Replied. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 13:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Roger (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
See WP:COIN#International Swaps and Derivatives Association . You offered to help Prokurator (talk · contribs); if you have time, he needs help. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Shirt58 RfA
Hi Ultraexactzz, I noted you recently opposed Shirt58's RfA in part due to his non-answering of questions. Shirt58 has now explained that this was in part due to a car accident and has since answered some questions. I was wondering if you might come back to the RfA page and take another look. WormTT(talk) 11:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bohlin Cywinski Jackson
Thank you very much for your help regarding this nomination.
As you obviously know, I am not a registered Wikipedia user. I use a computer with a shared internet IP address; the comments on the User page are for other people. Because of your help in this area, I have decided to register an account on Wikipedia. I will probably do this sometime later this week or early next week. Any recommendations that you have or tips that you could give me would be appreciated. Thanks!--74.0.166.140 (talk) 14:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- No problem at all - welcome! The best advice I could offer would be to go slowly - but you seem to have a pretty good idea of what's going on from your time editing anonymously, so that's less of a concern. The other bit would be to always ask for help if you need it - either by posting {{helpme}} on your new talk page or by posting at the help desk. Or here, if you need it. Good luck! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Article Feedback deployment
Hey Ultraexactzz; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Why was his article deleted? The first deletion was because he still hadn't made his professional debut, so he wasn't eligible to have a page yet, but he made his Serie B debut for Vicenza last Saturday so he should have his page now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinoAvdic94 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you!
I was the user who wanted to know if I could vote on an article nominated for deletion; you helped me out! I have just established my account here. You are the reason that I have done this; thank you again! --TheGuyFromPhilly (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
"Accept the Gift of Sin"
Dear Ultraexactzz: Can you please send article "Accept the Gift of Sin" to my userpage? Thanks! --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
AN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The thread is Unblocking Colton Cosmic. Yunshui 雲水 18:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar |
| Thanks amigo for the swift response. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:12, 22 April 2013 (UTC) |
I think there's two other ip addresses which have been involved in the attacks [4], both Toronto area based. "don't touch my user page" in edit summary ts to throw off people, it isn't him who made those summaries, as he reverted them.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:16, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Re: RfA nom
Thank you Ultraexactzz!
As I wrote on Smtchahal's talk page I do not think I am going to withdraw my nomination. I think I will wait and see what happens. Also, there are very good chances of winning the prize for the worst nomination in RfA history... and a record is a record! :)
Thanks for your message and suggestions, I really appreciated. Cheers! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
First time I have ever found someone deliberately adding something into edit history like that... cheers sats 14:32, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry.
I'm just trying to help. These were not meant to be "troll" edits. And no, I don't even know who the heck Onelifefreak2007 is. Defender miz (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks much
Thanks for your final warning to Defender miz (talk · contribs), much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 16:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please note all the other numerous warnings on the user's page that the user has seemingly ignored until now. These include vandalism, and adding unsourced info to WP:BLPs, repeatedly. — Cirt (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi
I'm not sure but you sound very angry in the ANI thread - so I apologize if something I've done has gotten under your skin. I've asked you several times, but you haven't yet responded, as to where did you see a consensus that diffusion was no longer allowed at all - and if such a consensus was reached, what does it apply to? Writers? poets? Journalists? Non-Americans?? Can you provide diffs, or a link to the relevant conversation? I've already stated that I won't move any more women novelist bios, and meanwhile, other editors have been diffusing hundreds of bios. I'm just not sure why I'm being put up for execution as a result of two or three diffs. I also don't know why everyone is making these actions of diffusion so dramatic. If there is a CFD, for example, to delete Category:20th-century American novelists, then all bios will be moved back to the top by a bot. If there is an RFC to say, for example, that Category:20th-century American novelists should be non-diffusing, then again, a bot can move them all to the top. But in the absence of a clear community consensus on either of those, I don't know why it is a violation of anything at all to follow the pre-existing community norms like WP:Categorization and WP:EGRS (WP:EGRS states that any category for which there is a gendered or ethnic subdivision must be fully diffusing - so since the community kept Category:American women novelists, that implies that Category:American novelists _must_ be fully diffusing as well. Best regards,--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Belair National Bank et al
Hey, I didn't know you could combine the two related AFD's together. Thanks! I still can't believe a couple of people want to keep the articles when they are only a couple of sentences long and aren't notable enough to keep on Wikipedia. Jgera5 (talk) 13:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aesthesia
That's totally fine, thanks for correcting it to be more specific / useful. I agree sending people to a disambig page is rarely helpful :) LFaraone 13:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Article for deletion/Thomas Smith (author)
I am writing you since you offered meaningful insights in your comments.Based upon the comments received in the deletion discussion, I have made revisions to the article by deleting references.
The article that I wrote is supported by non-mainstream publications references (non-leather publications Lavendar magazine in Minneapolis, MN, THE WORD, Indianapolis, IN, and The Leather Journal, Los Angeles, CA.) Additionally, references include Leather Archives & Museum Timeline, Chicago and Pantheon of Leather Awards. The LA&M is a national recognized archives and the Pantheon Awards are selected by an independent panel and has been existence for many years. The subject of the article is in non-mainstream categories commensurate with the references.
The other matter is that I am trying to understand are articles in Wikipedia that appear to have less support and are for similar persons, yet the article that I wrote is the only one being subjected to a Deletion Discussion.
https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/V._M._Johnson
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Guy_Baldwin
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Desmond_Ravenstone
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Steve_Maidhof
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Susan_Wright_%28American_writer%29
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hardy_Haberman
Thank you for your input.WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Re: here
No contributor has a license to persistently engage in reprehensible conduct. If a user does something that can be specified and shown to be wrong, then they are to be admonished in that particular area, and hopefully the issue is resolved. However, suggesting that a contributor (and another who simply defended them) should just take a hike is not the right way of confronting problem behavior. Two wrongs don't make a right, especially when the discussion at hand revolves around perceptions of workplace hostility. — C M B J 13:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Removing afd tags
Thanks, was a stupid novice error on my part. NativeForeigner Talk 14:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Skin game (novel)
No, I don't think I have any questions - the link will be resolved in a fully fledged article soon enough. Ngebendi (talk) 12:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Adoptive Couple
Did you not notice the major edit template?
GregJackP Boomer! 18:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 22:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
GregJackP Boomer! 22:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Your opinion
- I was contemplating nominating the Chris Alexander article for deletion because outside of editing a horror magazine and writing movie reviews for a free newspaper, he hasn't really done anything to be considered notable enough for his own wiki page. I just wanted your opinion if he fits the criteria for non-notability or not.Giantdevilfish (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm just curious where is the reliable sources noticeboard?Giantdevilfish (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Chili burger AfD #2
I'm getting a serious sockpuppet vibe from that AfD pbp 03:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
Bermans AFD
Thanks for fixing the AFD page for Bermans. That was a dumb mistake that I shouldn't have made. Cheers, Andrew327 21:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
minor correction
My appeal to ANI was approximately 10 days after the sanction. I'm not going to respond there, as the mistake is minor, probably didn't impact your response in any real way, was partly my fault for linking the wrong diff. Also, I don't want to use it to distract from the real issue(s).William Jockusch (talk) 05:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thank you for your help with the AfD. I can't say that I have the process figured out yet but I appreciate you coming to me and politely stating what I had done incorrectly. I hope to make proposals in the future so it's important to learn the ropes. Newjerseyliz (talk) 13:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Justin Kuykendall
Hi, I noticed that you delete this page. I don't undertand what's the problem about this page. I have wrote on the discution page about that but nobody answer it. I really need this page online and I toke other wiki articles like examples to make it. I had put external references, etc.... Please, I need an anwer. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivulina (talk • contribs) 14:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
User:Freighttrainman
Yo, Ultraexact, could you block this guy? AFAICT, they're creating these articles (now under different titles to avoid the salt) to continue to linkspam a single Youtube video, which they had been also doing to other, pre-existing articles. All of the external links in the created articles are to the same video. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 14:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- As an aside, I'm pretty sure the new articles are being created as a pretense to linkspam the video, since, as I alluded, he added the very same link to an unrelated article with a misleading edit summary and re-added it when XLinkBot reverted. Given that, I can't see how this could be an innocent attempt to create an article. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 14:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see that. I was concerned about WP:BITE, but I don't think this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. I'm at work and won't click the video, is it at all related to a recently deceased teacher or freight trains? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's a link to a video about a novelty ceiling fan at some restaurant somewhere. I'm also at work, so I clicked on it with some trepidation and didn't watch it all the way through. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 14:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, he's blocked indef and I salted the third attempt. Noticing now. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Fascinating the things people will get blocked for. I think we've cleaned up everything, so we'll see what happens next. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:50, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, thank you; I'm on a shared computer, so I can't get into my admin account to deal with it myself. :P I am usually conscious of WP:BITE issues, but given the content of the link, the subjects of the articles it was being inserted into, the edit summaries ("reverting vandalbot"?), and the multiple identical in each version of the newly created pages, I figured it was a pretty safe bet that this is not an innocent, and likely not a new, user. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 14:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- And, in what may be one of the quickest block reviews in the history of the project, User:Alexf agrees. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I found it through AIV. I checked his contributions, then I saw you posted your message pointing here, so I came here and considered this. -- Alexf(talk) 15:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- *eyeroll* and now he's linkspamming in his unblock requests. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 15:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Gotta get those views, gotta make those numbers go up. I'll revoke talk page access if you don't beat me to it, Alex - I doubt he plans to heed your final warning. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Be my guest if he does. -- Alexf(talk) 15:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Gotta get those views, gotta make those numbers go up. I'll revoke talk page access if you don't beat me to it, Alex - I doubt he plans to heed your final warning. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- And, in what may be one of the quickest block reviews in the history of the project, User:Alexf agrees. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, thank you; I'm on a shared computer, so I can't get into my admin account to deal with it myself. :P I am usually conscious of WP:BITE issues, but given the content of the link, the subjects of the articles it was being inserted into, the edit summaries ("reverting vandalbot"?), and the multiple identical in each version of the newly created pages, I figured it was a pretty safe bet that this is not an innocent, and likely not a new, user. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 14:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's a link to a video about a novelty ceiling fan at some restaurant somewhere. I'm also at work, so I clicked on it with some trepidation and didn't watch it all the way through. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 14:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I see that. I was concerned about WP:BITE, but I don't think this editor is here to build an encyclopedia. I'm at work and won't click the video, is it at all related to a recently deceased teacher or freight trains? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Whadda tweest! Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 15:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Turns out it was the present day all along. How about that? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi. Just wondering if this (the latest diff) was a decline. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 15:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- In effect; I changed the template to get him out of hte list of unblocks to be reviewed. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 15:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I probably should have declined it but didn't, since I'm the blocking editor. WK took care of it, though. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- In effect; I changed the template to get him out of hte list of unblocks to be reviewed. Writ Keeper (WK to move) ⚇♔ 15:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute
Dear Ultraexactzz.
This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Strawman arugments
I see no reason to continue this discussion on the case page, so please forgive my trespass to discuss it here. In your comments you made the following statements:
- Wait, so BLP allows us to harm living persons, as long as it's in the title?
- Or is it your position that we wait for the old name to cause harm before moving the article?
When one attempts to define another's position, and indefensible positions as such you made, that is the very definition of a strawman argument. Then again, you could have been using sarcasm.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Bit of Column A, bit of Column B, I think. The second one, maybe. But I still think that the difference between BLP limiting harm in statements only (i.e. Article text) and permitting harm in titles is much narrower than you suggest. Either it applies to titles or it does not. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 00:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sarcasm is lovely stuff, no worries. And I agree that BLP applies equally to titles as anywhere else. TyTwo kinds of pork (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Bit of Column A, bit of Column B, I think. The second one, maybe. But I still think that the difference between BLP limiting harm in statements only (i.e. Article text) and permitting harm in titles is much narrower than you suggest. Either it applies to titles or it does not. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 00:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Hi Ultraexactzz
I've possibly just sent you a "thanks" message for an edit to the Chelsea Manning arbcom workshop that has been oversighted. I did this for testing purposes as I can't see the edit. I would appreciate if you could say whether you received this thanks, and if so how it linked to the edit and whether it was still visible. If you have a bugzilla account then the relevant place for the comment is T56100, otherwise just reply here (with a ping) or on my talk page. Thanks and apologise for any confusion or inconvenience. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: - You did thank me, and it seemed to appear normally. The view edit link gave me this, which goes to the oversighted diff. Not a bugzilla guy, but there did not seem to be anything overly broken about it. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:53, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Cheers. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Who determines gender?
I'm new to this dispute, so please indulge me if my question has been asked a bajillion times.
Multiple editors, such as yourself and Chris, have stated that the only person that can determine a persons gender is that person. Just how literal is that statement? And I mean full on strawman levels literal here. Is it actually your position that a subject has the right to declare a gender and society, either as a whole, a subsection or an individual, has no right or recourse to dispute that declaration and must accept it unconditionally? 204.101.237.139 (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- AFAICT, the individual determines their gender. IMO a lot of the confusion stems around the differences between gender and sex. When someone uses "she" are they referring to gender or sex, and conversely how does a someone who hears such a statement perceive the pronoun?Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Sex_and_gender_distinction is good reading for this. Since gender is a thing you identify mentally, you can only question someone's asserted gender by accusing them of dishonesty; you can't reject it as a matter of fact because the fact is an unobservable state of mind. Compare sex, which is a biological situation and determined in a variety of ways for which physical evidence is obtainable; for example, athletics organisations do sex testing rather than gender testing. When it comes to pronouns, generally sex and gender coincide so the distinction is not obvious -- however, trans people generally prefer that you identify their gender, not their sex, and often find it highly offensive to do the opposite and so reject their identity. As this applies to the Manning case, there is no serious case that she could be dishonest (some people claim her declaration could be a legal manouvre, but as the diagnosis goes back to 2010 that seems highly unlikely), so I personally regard it as ethically mandatory to use the name and pronoun corresponding to her given gender. Chris Smowton (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2013
- Is it ethically mandatory to use the name and pronoun of the stated gender (presumably, the gender and sex do not match) if there is a serious case of dishonesty? Who decides if there is dishonesty and how? Does that standard apply to everyone or just in Mannings case? 204.101.237.139 (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- How would you assess dishonesty about a belief? Obviously there's a far-fetched possibility someone would misrepresent themselves as trans in order to mess with you, but in practice it's incredibly unlikely. It's like if someone told you they were a Buddhist -- how would you decide if they were for real? Unless you have a very good reason why not, you should take their statement at face value and be polite about it, which in the case of a trans person means conforming to their chosen identity. None of this is Manning-specific. Chris Smowton (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that an individual should be able to live their lives as the gender they prefer. If they feel that they are female, and were born male, then they should have the right to identify themselves as female - and to be identified by others as female in turn. Bradley Manning wishes to be identified as a woman named Chelsea Manning? Great. Mazel tov. I see no moral reason to deny her this. Continuing to use male pronouns in reference to her seems to say that she is not qualified to make that sort of decision - which translates, at least to me, as accusing her of being mentally deficient, morally suspect, or some variation thereof. One might question whether the decision was a wise one, or whether she has the legal right to be formally recognized by the state as a female (does she go to a women's prison? Does her appeal become Chelsea Manning v. United States? If she receives hormone treatment, who pays? etc etc.). But to deny that the choice was even made is at the very least disrespectful - unnecessarily so.
- I'd address the dishonesty question in this way: Prove the dishonesty, and until there is proof you assume good faith. If one of her attorneys admits in open court that her gender identity was changed to gain advantage in legal proceedings, then document that. Add your sources, etc. But that doesn't change the fact that the identity was changed. Now, if you find that someone claimed to have changed their gender identity and did not (i.e. a man used a female alias in a scam or something), then document that too. But it's all case by case. The key here is that there is no evidence of any motive other than a sincere expression of gender identity. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 00:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
- It is complicated. Some background:
- Transness can overlap with some aspects of sex and some aspects of gender.
- The leading explanation being transsexual is that parts of the brain develop differently in males in females; it's possible for these to develop one way while the rest of the body develops the other way, and this might cause the brain to have trouble with hormone levels, body map, etc. The research has covered a lot of the brain, beginning with the bstc in the hypothalamus. Some bigender and genderqueer people may be transsexual with an intermediate brain.
- There are a number of other ways of being transgender.
- In any case, most transsexual people want to transition both their body and at least part of their social perception/roles, either because they prefer the changed social roles, or because they are required to change their social roles to access transition-related medical care, which is often called gatekeeping, or because they find the old social role to be a reminder of gender dysphoria, body issues, and other problems.
- The idea that people determine their own gender is partly an objection to gatekeeping and an objection to the catch-22s which people can encounter in transition while searching for self-understanding in the middle of this. The idea is also partly an observation that people tend to know themselves better than doctors, therapists, etc. do. The idea is also partly to avoid bringing up old gender dysphoria, or even old trauma, when people aren't prepared for it. I'd also second Chris Smowton's comment above, about states of mind.
- I hope this helps. Ananiujitha (talk) 02:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
I have been pondering your answers at length and came up with a discovery, of sorts. I think I have identified a particular log in the logjam. Though I admit I have no idea what to do with it. I was wondering where the seemingly instinctual hostility to this idea was coming from by people with little to no knowledge of the situation. I think I have it.
- Who gave transgendered people the right to unilaterally redefine the English language while simultaneously labelling everyone who disagrees with them a hater?
See, we start by saying gender and sex are no longer one and the same. Fine, that's not too big a pill to swallow, provided I get some advance warning. But then on top of that pronouns have been defined. Not a word, not a few words, but a fundamental aspect of grammar has been changed. Pronouns now refer to gender, not sex. Who decided that? I certainly didn't get a vote. I wasn't ever aware someone held an WP:RFC! What if I want to keep using it for sex? I'M A TRANSPHOBE NOW? When did that happen? I don't even know what a transphobe is but if sure it has something to do with hate crimes. Screw you for judging me!
And BAM! A person who may have been sympathetic finds out that the lines were drawn beneath them and a side was chosen for them. No other choice but to dig in and defend. Personally I think that line of thinking happened to more than one bystander to this without them even being aware of it or able to put it into words.
Damage has been done to the English language. We now have a void where we used to have definition. There is no pronoun for sex and there used to be one. If Transgendered people want the right to redefine pronouns they should at least accept responsibility for the fallout. Instead, anyone who seeks to even identify, let alone address, the damage is being slapped with a hate label.
I think thats why people are being offended by this. It's taking something from them. Even if they aren't sure what it is. But as I said before. I'm not really sure what to do with this discovery. Maybe you do. Maybe just knowing is enough. 96.52.254.130 (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
My IP changed. Kewl. Hasn't done that in a while. Not sure why, but this is just to say that 96.52... And 204.101... Are both me. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Lots to discuss, here. I've seen it and will reply later on. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 22:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think this is pretty accurate. People get weirded out when things don't mean what they expect and have this knee-jerk contrarian, "don't nobody tell me what to do!" response. Regarding the IP thing though, you might want to click the Register button up the way. You'll even get your own talk page so we can stop borrowing Ultraexactzz's one :) Chris Smowton (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
- Nah, this is the most interesting conversation I think I've ever had on this talk page. No worries. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 18:12, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Ebionites 3 arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 1, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Ebionites 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pamela M. Snyder, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pamela M. Snyder, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote
Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis
The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at WP:COIN#Michael Mic Neumann
You are invited to join the discussion at WP:COIN#Michael Mic Neumann. You were involved in a prior discussion about that user. -- Lexein (talk) 10:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Never mind, the matter was closed soon after this was posted. --Lexein (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Deletion
The "our trikes" and such were removed, I never stopped editing the page, it was deleted before i was finished. There were power surges all day so i kept saving page so i wouldn't loose anything. I should of completed the edit's before the final post, but again, power problems. The last edit before deletion had all those removed. Can you please reinstate so I can finish and it will have references. thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stok123 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Belated thanks
I know this is terribly late but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your participation at my RfA. I appreciated your thoughtful and compassionate participation in the process. I look forward to the opportunity to work together in the days to come. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
Your upload of File:Chandikadevikatol.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Request for comment
Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CI, August 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 August 16#File:Hearts XP.png. Thanks. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Admin's barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| I know you didn't end up pulling the trigger on the unblock, but from your comments, I can tell you really took time to look into the issue, and I appreciate that from an administrator. Keep up the good work! LHMask me a question 02:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC) |
Hi User:Ultraexactzz i would love you to follow up on the Page deletion of Slim Burna, Monica Ogah and M Trill . This Articles should be deleted because it fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO . The subject of this article has not been discussed in significant detail. The accolades listed in this articles are not notable. Wikediss (talk) 16:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'll have a look later tonight. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux
|
NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CV, December 2014
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!! |
|
Hello Ultraexactzz, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list