Misplaced Pages

User talk:Fritzpoll: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:13, 5 March 2009 editFritzpoll (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users12,706 edits →Lightmouse: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:42, 14 February 2023 edit undoSheepLinterBot (talk | contribs)Bots50,297 editsm fix font tags linter errorsTag: AWB 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
== Confimation request ==
|maxarchivesize = 250K
Hi! Can you please allow a couple of hours to think if you are really in need of a complete flag removal. In any case, please accept my apologies for this little delay and a warm "thank you" for your work on enwiki. Ciao, ] (]) 23:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
|counter = 4
:No further time will be necessary - the account has too many permissions to be allowed to lie dormant with them intact ] (]) 23:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
|algo = old(2d)
::Okay, as you wish. Thanks again and I hope to see you on wiki again... someday! --] (]) 23:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
|archive = User talk:Fritzpoll/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Archive box|] ] ]}}<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
{{Signpost-subscription|right}}
{{wikibreak|message=Fritzpoll has found himself in need of sitting down and getting stuck in to his PhD work and a couple of other real-life project and will temporarily halt editing on January 17th, but will find himself back on Misplaced Pages in mid-February. Fritzpoll also apologises for the short notice and for referring to himself in the third person}}


===We'll miss you.===
== Further development ==
*You'll be missed, Fritz. But I wish you well in your future endeavors. ''']]'''<sup>❤</sup> 23:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)<br>
*'''support''' a speedy return back. <span style="font-family:Segoe script;">]]</span> 23:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''support''' you using your wiki-time to kick butt in the real world. Hope you didn't over-extend your volunteer work. Remember, the work you did on WP lives on in mirror sites, even if WP folds. Take care of yourself first. ]]]] 00:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*Best of luck with your dissertation :) ] ''(])'' 00:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*Sorry that things ended up with this, but I wish you luck IRL. Cheers! ]]] 01:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*Not sure if you'll read this, but I wanted to quickly say how much I appreciated working with you here, when we had that opportunity, and I was really impressed with your work both generally and at ArbCom - you've been great, and I'm very sorry to see you depart. Good luck with your study. :) - ] (]) 01:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*Not sure if you are better off leaving or not, that's always your call, I hope it's "better," but Misplaced Pages will miss you. Specially me. --] (]) 02:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*It's a loss, to see you go. You'll be missed. I hope real life will bring you all the best, good luck with your dissertation, and I ''do'' hope to see you around here someday again, or maybe in real life. Best regards, --] <sup>] ]</sup> 08:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*You'll be missed; best wishes. ] (]) 09:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*You will be missed, Fritzpoll. ]&nbsp;] 09:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*You will certainly be missed by myself, and by the community, the best of luck in whatever you chose to pursue, kindest regards, ]<sup>]</sup> 09:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Overturn'''.--] (]) 16:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*I see you {{plainlinks|1=http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Fritzpoll&diff=343392072&oldid=343391747 came to your senses}}. =) Happy trails. –]] 16:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*One of the good guys, for sure. Keep in touch, and come back if it's ever possible. Best, ]] 16:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*Its a shame that the people who are trusted enough and valued enough to be elected to ArbCOM often end up following this path... it truly is a thankless task...---''']''' '']'' 16:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*If you intended to leave so soon after being elected, what was the point in wasting time with an arb election? What happened? Anyway if you are busy with study and RL I understand. All the best for the future and thanks for all your help. You will be missed. <span style="border:2px solid #C5B358 ;padding:0px;">]</span><sup>]</sup> 16:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
::I think there is a direct cause and effect corralary there... Fritz probably didn't realize how harsh and unforgiving things can seem for ArbCOM members... last year we had how many ArbCOM members either quit, retire, or be coaxed into not quitting?---''']''' '']'' 17:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*I'm really sorry to see you go, we need more level headed administrators and editors who can keep cool under pressure. --] (]) 17:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
*Thank you so much for all your work on refereeing the Macedonia discussion. That was one of the few times Misplaced Pages's ever properly dealt with a contentious nationalism-related issue, and you were part of the solution. I regret seeing you go and hope you'll be back one of these days. Farewell until then. ] ] 02:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
*Just found out, this is really sad news (at least for us at wiki), you had such a voice of reason, and one of my favorite Arbs. Hope you have a great life away from Misplaced Pages. <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">&mdash; ] // ] // ] // </small> 22:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


You are an absolute gem, Fritzpoll. A diamond in the rough, and other such cliches all intending to mean that you'll be missed. One of the best. All the best in your endeavors/endeavours. ] | ] 03:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I am contacting you because your judgment plausibly closed a recent AfD thread -- with unanticipated consequences; and perhaps you can help in some way which mitigates the need to re-invent the wheel. Please see ]. --] (]) 16:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
*I don't know how I missed this, but I'm here to rectify that mistake. - ]&nbsp;<sup>]? ].'']</sup> 20:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
:Responded at linked page ] (]) 17:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
*You will be missed. Best, ] <span style="color:navy;">(])</span> 02:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
::I'm sorry for whatever can be construed as my part in the stressful exchanges of the past week. In retrospect, every well-intentioned contribution just made this situation worse because the most relevant factors were not within the ambit of anything written explicitly presented on the screen in front of me.


== ] ==
::I regret the extent to which my contributions exacerbated a problem I was trying to mitigate. No one could have been more surprised than me as I continued producing the opposite of intended results. I'm not unsubtle; but all I can say at this point is that I will continue trying to learn from my mistakes. I know this isn't much of an apology; but there you have it. --] (]) 15:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Could ] be made available somehow. Seems no one has anything like this. Regards, ] <sup>(])</sup> 12:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


==Dispute resolution survey==
== ] ==
{| 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> 02:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)</small>
|}


==Notice of change==
Please userfy the 63 articles to a workspaces I have set up at ]. I expect it will take several months of work, but feel I can combine and properly source these to meet concerns of the AfD. If not, I will then empty the workspaces and request CSD. Thank you, ''']''' '']'' 20:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a to the ] that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the ]. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through ]. Thank you. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
:They are all still there - you can move them without me :) I will move the single deleted article into your userspace for you ] (]) 09:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you. I knew they were there (last I looked) but did not want to run into any GFDL problems. Should I actually "move" them.... or will copy-paste do as well? ''']''' '']'' 18:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:::I'd actually move them, then the history is preserved and your additions will be made on top ] (]) 10:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
::::Thanks. As you might suppose, it will take a while. Best, ''']''' '']'' 17:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


Planning a return?♦ ] 17:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
== Neal Turner Article ==


== FAR ==
* Hello, I understand that when the speedy deletion tag was removed, it was because the article asserted notability, not because it established it, but this artist has sold over 1700 paintings and is listed in several French art reference sites. As well as not being familiar with the art reference sites in France, not fluent in French and therefore unable to read what is written on those sites, the users voting for deletion seem to have a limited, general knowledge of contemporary art in France. It would seem to me that just selling over 1700 paintings by the age of 45, as this artist has done, is notable. Perhaps you missed that part of the discussion. Several points were never addressed. Also, if the article asserted notability, and references were provided to attest to that assertion, why would the question of deletion come up at that point? Thank you for your time. - ] (]) 12:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ]. ] (]) 17:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
*:The sources provided did not, in the eyes of participants in the discussion, give a sufficient ground to establish ]. "Notability" is, rather unfortunately, not used on Misplaced Pages in the same way as one might use it in the real world. Instead, it refers to a set of inclusion guidelines, in this case ] or ], that allow admission. The sources in the article appear to have failed to satisfy these policies on the issue of finding third-party, ] that proved the subject was worthy of discussion. If you want more help, please feel free to ask, as I appreciate that Misplaced Pages can be a baffling place at times, and can be especially so when something has been deleted! If you really feel I've screwed this one up, you can ask the community for a ], but I think we can chat a bit more before it comes to that. Best wishes ] (]) 12:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
*::Thank you for your help. What you referred to was exactly what my concern was about. The question was not of notability itself, but, as you stated, failing to satisfy the WP:N guidelines on the issue of third-party reliable sources concerning notability. The sources provided were in France, as this is an American artist living in France. They are reliable and third-party. They are also in French, and while the Maison des Artistes is the main source, it contains all the information in the article. Also, the Maison des Artistes really is the most respected artist organization in France. The importance of their involvement in French contemporary art and with contemporary artists in France and the 'reliability' of the organization are well known in France. Also, while some of the discussion ended up being interesting and worthwhile, much of it seemed to be commentary by uninformed users. My impression was that this type of discussion in Misplaced Pages is not a vote, but based on valid arguments. Perhaps I am wrong. Misplaced Pages is a baffling place, and I would prefer to discuss this with you before asking the community for a deletion review. Thank you again for your help. - ] (]) 13:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
*:::If you can hang tight until around this time tomorrow, I will conduct a more detailed review of my close and check the discussion. I didn't count votes, obviously, and did inform myself from the discussion, but I need some time to check what I might have missed. By this time tomorrow, I will have had time. ] (]) 13:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
*::::Thank you. Sorry if I implied that I thought you counted votes. I am unsure of how this process works, and learning as I go. I know that the number of 'votes' are not supposed to have a bearing on the outcome, but that kind of thing is hard to overlook, and as I stated in the discussion, after looking at the talk pages of the users involved, I noticed that, for the most part, they knew each other. While I'm sure they were trying to be objective, this was another aspect of the discussion that was, for me, hard to overlook. - ] (]) 13:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
*:::::No problem - talk to you tomorrow ] (]) 14:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


== ] ==
== Youtube Cat Abuse Incident ==
Just wanted to drop you a note that you've been added to the ] list, should any fellow Editor wonder why they no longer see you around. Feel free to remove your listing if that is what you'd prefer. ] <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;">] ]</sup> 14:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


He's alive and well ], he just retired from wikipedia for personal identity/security reasons. That doesn't make him a "missing person" gone AWOL. I thought missing person was for people who have left wikipedia for unknown reasons and have simply vanished without explanation?♦ ] 15:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if it would be possible to revisit your decision on the ]. You deleted it citing ]. In my opinion, ] didn't really apply in this case, as the story had an extremely wide circulation, with stories being run by reliable sources in Ireland, the UK, and Russia, among other places. I think that the story had enough notability over and above a normal news story that that argument didn't apply. Thanks. ] (]) 15:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:You may wish to talk to the user above. They are merging the content into other, more appropriate articles with some minor assistance from me. :) My close of the discussion is not based on a personal preference or opinion on the topic, but on my interpretation of the arguments. In my interpretation, the arguments that ] applies were stronger on the basis of the sources supplied at the time of deletion. You are welcome to challenge me further on this, and I will happily discuss it with you, or you can ask for outside input at a ]. Best wishes, ] (]) 15:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
:I am also asking that this be reconsidered. Both sides had reasonable arguments, and the numbers were roughly equivalent, so the closure should have been "no consensus." ] 17:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
::Numbers ] :) The arguments were what I based it on, I saw lots of people saying notable, but mostly not really saying why, so the appeal to our ''policy'' of ] was stronger in the discussion that the appeal to the less important ''guideline'' of ]. As I always say to these comments, you are free to open a ], but since the content has been/is being incorporated into other articles (see a couple of sections above this one), might I suggest the compromise of a redirect to the appropriate section of one of these articles? ] (]) 10:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


== ]: Voting now open! ==
== Deletion review for ] ==


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Fritzpoll. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> ] (]) 20:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
== Yvonne Bradley article ==


If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I see you closed an {{tl|afd}} on the article ].
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
I would have participated in this afd, if I had been aware of it.
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/5&oldid=750543698 -->


== Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago ==
Personally, I think the redirection was a mistake. My understanding of the deletion policy is that a decision not to keep an article should be based on the merits of covering the topic -- not on the current state of the article. Have I got that right?
{{User QAIbox

| title = Awesome
I spent some time looking for references. ]. I think there are lots of good references to support an independent article on Lieutenant Colonel Bradley. ] (]) 03:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
| image = Cscr-featured.svg

| image_upright = 0.35
:On an unrelated point, why did you choose to redirect to a sub-section heading? Wikilinks from one article to another are well supported by the underlying wikimedia software. But redirection to a sub-section heading is very poorly supported.
| bold = ]

}}
:Wikilinks from one full article to another full article don't break when an article is moved from one name to another. This is a very powerful advantage the wikimedia software provides to ordinary world-wide-web pages, where links break all the time.
--] (]) 05:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

==MfD nomination of ]==
:And the wikimedia software properly supports '''"what links here"''' -- another related very powerful advantage the wikimedia software has over ordinary world-wide-web pages -- where you can really have no clue what other pages link to the current page. The wikimedia software has no equivalent for '''"what links here"''' when a wikilink is to a subsection heading in another article, or within the same article. If the subsection heading is changed, even a minor change in capitalization, spelling or punctuation, will break links to a sub-section heading.
] ], a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> <span style="color:green">'''Ten Pound Hammer'''</span> • <sup>(])</sup> 06:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

:Over and above the problem with the minor changes in the subsection heading breaking this kind of wikilinks, there is no mechanism for good faith contributors to check first to see whether an edit to a section heading will break wikilinks -- because the software won't report that the section heading is the target of wikilinks.

:Would it be desirable to have wikilinks at a more precise level of granularity than the article level? Sure -- provided it didn't complicate the wikimedia markup language and wikimedia interface. Without claiming to be a talented software designer I can't think of how to add this functionality, while having the interface remain simple to use.

:So, in my opinion, while it is technically possible to link to sub-section heading, I think it should be deprecated in article space. ] (]) 03:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::Fair enough - if you haven't already done so, I will try to get round to fixing the redirect. As to your disagreement with my close, I can only say that this outcome was the balance of the discussion - do your sources show notability independent of her involvement in this case? Best wishes ] (]) 08:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

== Neal Turner Article ==

* Hello, I was wondering if you've had time to review the discussion. Thank you. - ] (]) 08:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
*:Ah yes, give me two mins to gather my thoughts over coffee.... ] (]) 08:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
*::Take your time, as that is exactly what I am doing... - ] (]) 08:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I've reviewed the sources for the article, and here are my comments:
*Two of the four sources point to , which, from what I have read in the FAQ is essentially a self-submission site. You have to be the member of a particular group, provide them with details, and I notice that you can edit the page yourself (FAQ 9). These are not ] to establish notability, because they are self-published. For example, I could set up a webpage tomorrow saying that I am an artist specialising in fine art, whereas in reality I can barely draw. From our perspective, these sources are self-published and so cannot determine notability.
*I can't get at the other two sources, for obvious reasons (they are paper-based) but I can assess them based on the materials that they are used to reference. Specifically they reference Mr. Turner's first solo exhibition. Looking at our guidance at ], which covers Mr. Turner's field, this is nowhere near the standard required for a Misplaced Pages entry.
If you can find additional sources that you can show me meet the bullet points at ], I will happily reconsider. If you still think I'm wrong (I won't take offence), I suggest that you open up a ] and get more feedback, but I honestly think that, for now, Neal Turner's biography does not meet our inclusion requirements. ] (]) 09:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
*::Well, it's true that the Maison des Artistes site, artistescontemporains.org, requires that the artist upload photographs of their work, and in that sense it is self-submission, but it is somewhat more complicated than that, as to be able to upload photographs the artist has to belong to the Maison des Artists, and I'm not sure what the English translation of this is, but the artist has have had done de cotisation, which means that the artist must have contributed money to the Maison des Artistes, and for this to be necessary the artist must make a certain sum of money each year from the sale of their work. I'm not sure of what exactly that sum is, although I think it is considerable as it is based on the amount required to pay taxes on the income. There are thousands of artists in the Maison des Artistes, but comparable few of them fall into this category. In this context, the artist is assumed to be legit. In any case, all artists provide photographs of their work to publications, be they print or online. The question seems to be is the source reliable, and I agree that if you look at the front page it seems as if any artist could upload anything they wanted, but if you examine the process more closely you will find that this is not the case, and that inclusion in this site requires much more, basically that the artist be a contributing member of the Maison des Artistes. The sites states that the site "est réservée aux membres de l'association MdA, à jour de cotisation au moment de la demande d’inscription à « artistes contemporains.org (is reserved for 'contributing' members of the association the Maison des Artistes at the moment of they join the site). I also referenced a gallery, http://www.olivergallery.com/portfolio.html, but for some reason that was removed, and I found a page on eBay that shows the artist's work in the film, The Double Born, as well as two gallery shows, http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewUserPage&userid=blast1915, but I did not have time to list that reference as I did not understand what was happening and why the other reference had been removed. I don't know if the artist is notable enough to be listed in Misplaced Pages, but as there are other contemporary artists listed in Misplaced Pages with less notability, less references and less exposure, and in that respect I don't see why this artist would not be listed. I contacted one of the users, in the beginning of this, about the notability tag placed on the article, and basically I did not understand what was meant by notability and wanted help as I had made the mistake of thinking that that notability had been established in the first discussion, and two minutes later he or she left the message "I don't have time for this BS." Two minutes after that the article was nominated to be deleted. The article had existed for over a year without any references. I placed the references on it and that was how this started. I'm not sure I understand why. - ] (]) 10:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
*:::Alas, I fear that membership of the body and making lots of money as an artist probably doesn't qualify for our ]. I'm sorry if someone took it upon themselves to be deliberately rude to you as well when you asked a reasonable question. That should not be the norm around here. As to how this happened, somone came across the article, tagged it to place it in a category of articles that have uncertain notability. They seem to have decided that they couldn't find the sources and so sent it to be discussed at AfD. It wasn't because you added references - I suspect this was a coincidence of timing. Possibly your edits showed up in the ] lists and that attracted attention, but that is all. Sorry I can't be of more help on this point. ] (]) 11:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
*::::I understand. I wasn't trying to show that the artist made money, but that the reference to the Maison des Artistes is reliable. My discussion of membership was meant to show that the reference is reliable. And it is possible that it was a coincidence of timing. Do you think that the four sources in the article and the other two I listed above are not reliable and/or sufficient? - ] (]) 11:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
*:::::Just out of curiosity what are you doing your PhD in? I did a dissertation on periods of transition in philosophy. - ] (]) 11:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
*::::::Nothing so grand as that, I fear. My work is in the field of robotics - I don't tend to talk about it much because if I gave any more detail, people could easily find me. :) I am interested in philosophy though, albeit purely as an amateur student. As to your references, I feel they do little to establish notability per the guidance at ]. Best, ] (]) 11:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
*:::::::Fair enough. I think that if I do decide to continue with the article, I'll find more references, and then rewrite and resubmit it. For now I'll leave it alone. Good luck with your work, and thank you for your help. - ] (]) 12:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
*::::::::Not a problem - if you do find you want to do more work on it, I can ] the existing page for you so that you don't have to work on it from scratch. Happy editing! ] (]) 12:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
*:::::::::Thank you. - ] (]) 12:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

== Sorry ==

First time deletion review - was not at all meant as an attack on you, rather a comment on the improper application of policy. ] (]) 12:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:Heh - don't think there was any attack, and whilst I disagree about the idea that policy was misapplied, I just thought it would have been helpful to discuss it with me first. Best wishes ] (]) 13:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

== Lightmouse ==


== Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy/archive1 Featured article review ==
I may be out of place in asking this. As I'm sure you're aware, your fellow bot programmer Lightmouse is under heavy attack in the Date delinking arbitration case. Having perused the Bot Owners' Noticeboard and seen the quality of complaints there – soome of which appear very clearly justified – and seeing how courteous and responsive to complaints Lightmouse is by comparison, could you perhaps seeing your way to weighing in on the "Evidence" page to lend some support to Lightmouse? I believe that coming from you as a member of Bot Approvals Group, such commentary might carry more weight with arbitrators than the comments of a run-of-the-mill editor like myself.--] (]) 17:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
] has nominated ] for a ]. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets ]. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are ].<!--Template:FARMessage--> ] (]) 17:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
:Hmm. I'm not sure about this for several reasons, the most significant of which is that I'm not very familiar with Lightmouse. I'll give it some thought, but beware the dreaded ].... ] (]) 17:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
::Thank you. My message above marks the first time that I've asked anyone not previously involved in the case to weigh in, so I don't think that I've run afoul of ].--] (]) 17:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:::Oh, I know - I was just warning you to be careful in case my comment persuaded you to dash off notes to other people :) ] (]) 18:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:42, 14 February 2023

Confimation request

Hi! Can you please allow a couple of hours to think if you are really in need of a complete flag removal. In any case, please accept my apologies for this little delay and a warm "thank you" for your work on enwiki. Ciao, M/ (talk) 23:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No further time will be necessary - the account has too many permissions to be allowed to lie dormant with them intact Fritzpoll (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, as you wish. Thanks again and I hope to see you on wiki again... someday! --M/ (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

We'll miss you.

I think there is a direct cause and effect corralary there... Fritz probably didn't realize how harsh and unforgiving things can seem for ArbCOM members... last year we had how many ArbCOM members either quit, retire, or be coaxed into not quitting?---Balloonman 17:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm really sorry to see you go, we need more level headed administrators and editors who can keep cool under pressure. --Tothwolf (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much for all your work on refereeing the Macedonia discussion. That was one of the few times Misplaced Pages's ever properly dealt with a contentious nationalism-related issue, and you were part of the solution. I regret seeing you go and hope you'll be back one of these days. Farewell until then. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Just found out, this is really sad news (at least for us at wiki), you had such a voice of reason, and one of my favorite Arbs. Hope you have a great life away from Misplaced Pages. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

You are an absolute gem, Fritzpoll. A diamond in the rough, and other such cliches all intending to mean that you'll be missed. One of the best. All the best in your endeavors/endeavours. Keeper | 76 03:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests for approval/FritzpollBot 3

Could FritzpollBot 3 be made available somehow. Seems no one has anything like this. Regards, SunCreator 12:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Fritzpoll. 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.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

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 02:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Planning a return?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated The Apprentice (UK TV series) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Missing Wikipedians

Just wanted to drop you a note that you've been added to the Missing Wikipedians list, should any fellow Editor wonder why they no longer see you around. Feel free to remove your listing if that is what you'd prefer. Liz 14:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

He's alive and well Liz, he just retired from wikipedia for personal identity/security reasons. That doesn't make him a "missing person" gone AWOL. I thought missing person was for people who have left wikipedia for unknown reasons and have simply vanished without explanation?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fritzpoll. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Sharonbrain2/Johnny Cooper (musician)

User:Sharonbrain2/Johnny Cooper (musician), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sharonbrain2/Johnny Cooper (musician) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Sharonbrain2/Johnny Cooper (musician) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • 06:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy/archive1 Featured article review

User:Nutez has nominated Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)