| Revision as of 20:56, 9 January 2009 editBefore My Ken (talk | contribs)42,112 edits →Decade links← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:25, 22 March 2024 edit undo2402:8100:279a:ee0e:a177:437e:5a0f:7019 (talk) →S: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Not around|3=October 2011}} | |||
| <!-- | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 0 | |minthreadsleft = 0 | ||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(3d) | |||
| |algo = old(5d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s | |archive = User talk:Lightmouse/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| --> | |||
| == 'Eighteenth century' == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Your bot has delinked the term ']' in at least two articles (] and ]), and I don't understand why. In both cases, it is useful for the reader to be able to read about the eighteenth century in general in order to get a greater sense of the historical context of these two subjects. Could you please explain your reasoning? – ] 00:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Feel like doing some units standardization work at ] again? I updated the article today to add the findings of a seismic survey at a drilling license. There're also some figures that use superscripts that don't look right, but I'm not sure what the convention is.—] (]) 10:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :The guidance at ] says: | |||
| :* ''Chronological items—such as days, years, decades and centuries—should generally not be linked unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic. | |||
| :It has been extensively discussed many times. However, if you disagree, don't my word for it or the guidance. Feel free to ask other people at ] for an opinion about those articles. I hope that helps. Regards ] (]) 00:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == (degrees) Celsius == | |||
| ::Right, but my point is that in this case there clearly is a need for linking to the article on the eighteenth century, as it is "demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic." I can see why using the bot to delink numerical dates would be helfpul, but I imagine that the majority of linked centuries are there for a reason. – ] 05:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::In the ideal world, where such an article is genuinely capable of providing a proper context, yes. Although the ']' article isn't as useless in this respect as the date articles (collectively), it merely contains a collection of trivia which is of doubtful use in deepening understanding of the article linked to it ostensibly for that purpose. ] (]) 06:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I do not understand . As far as I know, unlike for "]", "degree" is part of the unit name ("]"). --] 11:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I disagree on two grounds. First, the quality of the article being linked to does not determine whether linking to an article on that subject is useful (if that were true, nobody would ever link to stubs, and those stubs would never be developed as a consequence). Second, in this particular case, knowing that the eighteenth century includes the French, American, and industrial revolutions, for example, is helpful to someone who is researching nationalism and its study. Situating social phenomena in a time line is often very useful in explaining them. – ] 19:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Apologies for my colleague: he appears to be overwhelmed by real-life work and other commitments, and hasn't edited for some time. Could you do your best to sort this out by yourself in the meantime? <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em;">] ]</span> 12:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We are not discussing quality. We are discussing ''relevance''. The current method of most articles about chronological items do not provide real context. For an exception, see ]. ] (]) 03:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Season's tidings!== | |||
| == Lightbot: possible to be more constructive? == | |||
| ] FWiW ] (]) 02:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC). | |||
| == Repetition == | |||
| Today Lightbot made that showed on my Watchlist. Frankly, I think the edits are rather useless. Would it be possible to make other improvements to articles while doing "Units/dates/other"? Then the bot would be a little more constructive. The bot may have approval for the current edits, but I just felt like I had to let you know that the edits do not sit well with me. Regards, --] (]) 12:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Lightbot's user page says not to leave messages on his talkpage (but on yours instead) twice. It only needs to say it once. ] (]) 19:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I am sorry that the edits don't 'sit well with you'. As you say, the bot is approved and there have been extensive discussions at ] for years about this issue. You may not have encountered it in your articles before, but Lightbot has done many tasks prior to this one. It will continue to do many tasks after this one. I think the bot is useful and constructive but I respect your alternative opinion. I try to combine tasks where I can (believe me, I prefer to reduce article processing) but it makes the code more complicated and reduces the ratio between hits and false positives. The cost of false positives is much higher than cost of repeat edits. With mass edits like this one, it is safest to keep it simple by only doing one task at a time. Thanks for the suggestion though. Regards. ] (]) 12:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| You can also turn off bot edits on your watchlist if they annoy you. --] (]) 13:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Dispute resolution survey== | |||
| ::Thank you for your thorough reply Lightmouse. Don't worry, I have encountered Lightbot a lot! And Closedmouth, I know you can turn off bots for the watchlist, but I like to see what bots are doing so I do not create more work for them when working on future articles :-) I don't know where to suggest new ] tools, but perhaps a tool could be created that takes an article name and shows the edits that bots can be are expected to do. For example at ] the tool could have shown that the years need delinking, that "Twentieth century" needed delinking etc. That way humans can use the tool to bring the articles up to the current style guideline and give bot operators a break.--] (]) 13:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="background-color: #CCFFFF; border: 4px solid #3399cc; width:100%" cellpadding="5" | |||
| | ] | |||
| <big>'''Dispute Resolution – ''Survey Invite'''''</big> | |||
| ---- | |||
| Hello {{BASEPAGENAME}}. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. | |||
| '''Please click to participate.'''<br> | |||
| Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. | |||
| ---- | |||
| <small>You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated ]. <span style="font-family:Verdana;">] ] <sup>]</sup></span> 22:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| |} | |||
| == Spoilers in episode lists? == | |||
| And thanks for the positive follow-up. I don't know about tools either. However, if you look at ] you will see the phrase: | |||
| * ''A script has been used to generate a semi-] review ... | |||
| That may be the kind of thing you mean. I saw it before but the coding was beyond me. ] (]) 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I see you've been involved in ]. I have begun ] and would appreciate your input. -- ] (]) 02:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *I cannot agree with ] more as to the uselessness of the edits he pointed out. Am I correct in understanding that he believes humans should make those changes? These useless edits are what bots do best, and I am sorry they do not sit well with him. I delink dates too, and I am glad I don't have to do them by hand, one by one. ] (]) 14:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice of move request == | |||
| I must concur with Commander Keane. I don't remember seeing any clear consensus emerge at the ] for the kind of edits your bot is making. -- ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 17:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| It has been proposed that ], to which you have contributed, be moved to "Daimler V8 engine". Your input into ] would be welcome. ] (]) 20:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :It would be helpful if you could provide an example and I can investigate. ] (]) 18:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Pick any article where your bot is indiscriminately removing year links. For example, ], where I have twice had to revert it for removing a link in the introduction to the article. -- ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 10:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js == | |||
| Thank you for the example. Now we can see what the issue is. Firstly, a reader would have to want to click on the link '1624'. Secondly, they would have to learn something of relevance to the article. Things of relevance to the article should be the in origin article itself. The only section of relevance is a repeat of something in the origin article. ] (]) 11:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Sorry, but you are completely off the mark with your second and third points. Firstly, believing that you know what the reader wants is a bad idea. The number of potential reasons for clicking on a year link is as large as the number of potential readers of the article. Secondly, your idea of "relevant only" is fatally flawed. When I follow year links it's because I want to know what happened in that year. In this case, I am able to find out that in the same year that the school I went to was founded, Cardinal Richlieu was appointed as an adviser by Louis XIII. Is that relevant to Latymer Upper School? No, not at all. But it enriched my knowledge as a reader, and that kind of freeform learning is something you seem dead set on preventing. -- ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 17:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. Arbitrators have been that people use this instead of Ohconfucius' script, but it looks from the path as if it only works on monobook. Any comment? --] (]) 09:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I am not set against preventing anything. The points you make were all made in the recent RFC at ] and debated extensively there. Since your points are about date linking policy, perhaps that is where this discussion belongs. ] (]) 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Season's tidings!== | |||
| ] ''To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year!'' ] (]) 20:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Request to take part in a survey == | |||
| : Indeed. My point was not to bring the discussion here, but that the recent RFC did not conclusively demonstrate consensus that dates should be delinked. Until such a consensus is clear, you should not be running a bot that performs this activity. -- ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Earle, we've spent months debating the usefulness of these links to chronological articles. There were two RfCs on it, and I think that the consensus is quite clear. Our Featured Articles and Featured Lists have already implemented this change months ago. Numerous editors voiced support for the change even before it happened—see ]. Indeed, if you want to bring the subject up again, feel free, but don't be surprised if you see a rash of editors suppressing a discussion that has been brought up many times. It is time to move on. ] (]) 03:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::"It is time to move on"? How patronizing. I certainly will be bringing the subject up again. And as I pointed out above, no overwhelming consensus was displayed in the RfCs that year links should be expunged in their entirety. I don't know also why you're pointing at some discussion of autoformatting which has nothing to do with the point here. -- ] ]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>] 10:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hi there. I would very much appreciate it if you could spend ~2 minutes and take a short survey - a project trying to understand why the most active Misplaced Pages contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. I sent you an email with details, if you did not get it please ], so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. I would very much appreciate your cooperation, as you are among the most active Misplaced Pages editors who show a pattern of reduced activity, and thus your response would be extremely valuable. Thanks! --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 12:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| {{you've got mail}} | |||
| Hi, your bot did some recently which might be "less than desirable" -- can such be prevented? I, for myself, do not really care, but I think the rules are that an article where non-free media are used has to be linked from the rationale "somehow". Best, ]] 18:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Missing Wikipedians == | |||
| :You think it is 'less then desirable'. I think it is desirable and improves the article. You may be interested to note that guidance at ] says: | |||
| Hello, ], <br> | |||
| :* ''Chronological items—such as days, years, decades and centuries—should generally not be linked unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of the topic. Articles about other chronological items or related topics are an exception to this guideline. | |||
| I just wanted to let you know that your account is listed now at ]. Feel free to remove your name if you return or prefer not to be listed. You are missed! ] <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;">] ]</sup> 22:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :If you don't care, then perhaps you will accept an edit from somebody that does. I hope that helps. ] (]) 18:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::W, although I'd agree this this isn't a good edit, it's ultimately not a problem in this case. It looks like that image was removed from the ] article back on December 2nd, so the fair use rationale is no longer needed. | |||
| ::That being said, Lightmouse, please have another look at the diff that W provided — the edit that the bot made was to remove a link to the article from the file namespace. Had the image not already been removed from the article, the effect of this would have been to break the fair use rationale for the use of that image within the article. This definitely falls outside of ]. I suspect that your bot is coded to skip past the Image namespace, and it may just need to be updated to also skip past the File namespace now that the namespace has been converted. I've seen that change cause problems in other areas as well. ] (]) 19:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Template talk:Height == | |||
| Ah, I see now. It was a bad edit. I have stopped the bot from doing that now. I haven't time to respond in detail right now, I may want to discuss the nature of file namespace etc a bit more when I have time. Thank you very much for the feedback. ] (]) 19:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Given your previous involvement in the discussion at ], I just thought I'd bring a closely related ] to your attention (as per ]).--] (]) 03:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Link == | |||
| == please, dont add convert template to the urls == | |||
| I just clicked the "talk" link next to your name...because it was there. Carry on. —<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> ] 01:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I hope that you got the humor in that. :) —<span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span> ] 15:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| About your AWB edit: diff 392798962 15:09, 25 October 2010 "''Mostly units using AWB (7290)''". Text before edit: | |||
| Actually, I didn't understand what you mean. I shrugged and then didn't give any more thought. Now that you have prompted me again, I think you are referring to where I said "Do you believe that people will click on the link just because it is there?". Now I get it. - small smile - ] (]) 15:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| (Page 5), ]</ref>. | |||
| Text after edit with incorrect URL: | |||
| == Template:Onlinesoures == | |||
| (Page 5), ]</ref> | |||
| Hi I've just reverted a removal of wikilinked date (example), since the preseeding text states otherwise. Maybe both should be changed (haven't looked at it since I'm only on my mobile). Happy edititing! ] (]) 22:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Nsaa, I have changed both the date and the corresponding text, so everything should be good now. ] (]) 22:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Date templates for bots == | |||
| I've created {{tl|dmy}} and {{tl|mdy}} in the hopes that it could make future automated maintenance easier. My idea is to incorporate these into the relevant scripts, so that we can potentially insert these templates to the top of any given article when work is done to unify the formats. This would indicate, in the body of the article, that work has been done to convert all dates (exc ISO) to a given format. Down the line, a bot can be programmed to maintain all those articles which have been so tagged. The tags can remain invisible, as at present, or they can be made to insert markers of some description like the star at the top of each ]. What do you think? I have already started using it - see ] (]) 02:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I think we should not change units inside the URLs. Does current version of AWD convert it? Should we report bug to AWB developers? `] (]) 08:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == Has everything changed? == | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Has everything gone weird on Wikipeida i.e. the headings are no longer bold and the font's changed, or have I bugged up my options some how? ] (]) 05:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692057745 --> | |||
| == Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon - April 22nd - 2PM EST == | |||
| :Recommend you delete cookies, etc.--] (]) 06:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {|style="background:#00000; border:1px solid #6881b9; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius: 8px;" | |||
| ::Sorry, all fixed now. Firefox accidentally "zoomed in" ] (]) 13:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| !colspan=2 style="font-size:150%; padding: .4em;"|You're invited! NYC Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon! April 22nd! | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="padding-left: .6em;" | | |||
| ] | |||
| ] and the ] invite you to join us for: | |||
| *] 2pm - 4pm EST (April 22nd) online via Zoom and in person | |||
| This Edit-a-Thon is part of a larger Earth Day celebration, hosted by Brooklyn based recycling and community center Sure We Can, that runs from 1PM-7PM and is open to the public! See this flyer for more information: https://www.instagram.com/p/CcGr4FyuqEa/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link | |||
| |} | |||
| -- ] | |||
| == ] nomination of ] == | |||
| ==Lightbot unlinking of solitary years== | |||
| ] | |||
| Since solitary years may be linked on rare occasions, what provision exists to prevent Lightbot from visiting the same article over and over again, and unlinking solitary years, even if the editors of the article have determined that a solitary year link is appropriate? --] (]) 14:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{Quote box | |||
| :I've yet to hear a good argument for keeping a solitary year-link. One way of protecting the odd one (I think) is to pipe it. It's very important that housecleaning on WP involve treatment from time to time of an article. Editors are not perfect and deserve automated assistance. ] ] 15:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| | quote = <p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p> | |||
| ::Lightmouse, is it still the case that the bot passes over date links that include a nondate term, so that something like <nowiki>]</nowiki> can be placed in an article's "see also" section, or in a "see also" line appended to a paragraph? which also alerts human editors that the link was deliberate, valued by someone, etc. ] (]) 17:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| | align = right | |||
| | width = 20% | |||
| That is not currently true. But it could be made to be true. ] (]) 17:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| }} | |||
| ::(e.c.)I don't think piping would do as Lightbot's currently configured, Tony, as I know I've seen it remove piped links to 'year-in-X' articles — that may only have been in the context of broken autoformatting, though. If piping would work, that would be a great solution, as would commenting as was just suggested. I'm slowly getting sold on the idea that removing these links is useful bot work, but I still worry about the collateral damage. I don't want to sound like a fiend for date linking, but I do think it's important that we find a way to ensure that, where a bot — any bot — removes a solitary year-link as part of a mass clean-up and an editor (in all reasoning and good judgment) does find that rare case where restoring the link provides valuable context, the bot doesn't overrule that editor's judgment and later remove the link again. Otherwise, there's no point in our style manual saying that solitary years should ''rarely'' be linked — we might as well say ''never, ever, ever under any circumstances''. I know you haven't heard a good argument yet, but I don't think even you would say that it's ''completely'' impossible for a year link to ''ever'' be useful, would you? ] (]) 17:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| A tag has been placed on ], requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read ] and ] for more information. | |||
| If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] 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 deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=EROCKIT|deleting administrator}}. <!-- Template:Db-spam-notice --> ] (]) 20:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::A ] rejected the notion that "year links should never be made". About 35 editors supported the idea that years should never be linked, while about 64 expressed some degree of support for year linking (even if only very rarely). If Lightbot repeatedly unlink years and offers no recourse to protect linked years, it is in violation of consensus and measures will have to be taken to bring it into compliance with the consensus. --] (]) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== S == | ||
| er ] (]) 16:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. Lightbot is deleting links to decade articles, such as ] and ], but these deletions really ought to be done manually, as some of them are legitimate. For instance, removing to ] in the article ] seems correct, since it's just a generic reference, but , in the hatnote to the article on the film ], is completely legitimate. If there's some way to have the bot make this differentiation, that would be great, but if not, perhaps it should stop making those types of edits. <b><i>]</i> <sub>] / ]</sub></b> 18:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :@] ] (]) 16:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :You make a fair point. A title like that is somewhat of a clue, although not always reliable either way. I will retune the bot to be more conservative. Thanks for the feedback. ] (]) 18:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::No problem, thanks for the response. <b><i>]</i> <sub>] / ]</sub></b> 20:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:25, 22 March 2024
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Lightmouse has not edited Misplaced Pages since October 2011. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
Modiin Energy
Feel like doing some units standardization work at Modiin Energy again? I updated the article today to add the findings of a seismic survey at a drilling license. There're also some figures that use superscripts that don't look right, but I'm not sure what the convention is.—Biosketch (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
(degrees) Celsius
I do not understand this Lightbot edit. As far as I know, unlike for "kelvin", "degree" is part of the unit name ("degree Celsius"). --Lambiam 11:14, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies for my colleague: he appears to be overwhelmed by real-life work and other commitments, and hasn't edited for some time. Could you do your best to sort this out by yourself in the meantime? Tony (talk) 12:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
Repetition
Lightbot's user page says not to leave messages on his talkpage (but on yours instead) twice. It only needs to say it once. Pdiddyjr (talk) 19:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Dispute resolution survey
 Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Lightmouse. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Misplaced Pages, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang 22:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
Spoilers in episode lists?
Hi, I see you've been involved in Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Television. I have begun a discussion on spoilers in episode lists and would appreciate your input. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Notice of move request
It has been proposed that Daimler 2.5 & 4.5 litre, to which you have contributed, be moved to "Daimler V8 engine". Your input into the discussion would be welcome. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js
Hi. Arbitrators have been suggesting that people use this instead of Ohconfucius' script, but it looks from the path as if it only works on monobook. Any comment? --Mirokado (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Request to take part in a survey
Hi there. I would very much appreciate it if you could spend ~2 minutes and take a short survey - a project trying to understand why the most active Misplaced Pages contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. I sent you an email with details, if you did not get it please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. I would very much appreciate your cooperation, as you are among the most active Misplaced Pages editors who show a pattern of reduced activity, and thus your response would be extremely valuable. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:37, 22 July 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Missing Wikipedians
Hello, Lightmouse,
I just wanted to let you know that your account is listed now at Misplaced Pages:Missing Wikipedians. Feel free to remove your name if you return or prefer not to be listed. You are missed! Liz 22:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Template talk:Height
Given your previous involvement in the discussion at Template_talk:Height#Centimetres, I just thought I'd bring a closely related Request for Comment to your attention (as per Misplaced Pages:Canvassing).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
please, dont add convert template to the urls
About your AWB edit: Strategic Petroleum Reserve (United States) diff 392798962 15:09, 25 October 2010 "Mostly units using AWB (7290)". Text before edit:
Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan Expansion To One Billion Barrels Submitted To Congress (Page 5), United States Department of Energy</ref>.
Text after edit with incorrect URL:
billion barrels (160×10^m).pdf Strategic Petroleum Reserve Plan Expansion To One Billion Barrels Submitted To Congress (Page 5), United States Department of Energy</ref>
I think we should not change units inside the URLs. Does current version of AWD convert it? Should we report bug to AWB developers? `a5b (talk) 08:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon - April 22nd - 2PM EST
| You're invited! NYC Earth Day 2022 Edit-a-thon! April 22nd! | |
|---|---|
 Sure We Can and the Environment of New York City Task Force invite you to join us for:
This Edit-a-Thon is part of a larger Earth Day celebration, hosted by Brooklyn based recycling and community center Sure We Can, that runs from 1PM-7PM and is open to the public! See this flyer for more information: https://www.instagram.com/p/CcGr4FyuqEa/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link | |
-- Environment of New York City Task Force
Speedy deletion nomination of EROCKIT
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on EROCKIT, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
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 deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Zenphia1 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
S
er 2402:8100:279A:EE0E:A177:437E:5A0F:7019 (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Categories: