| Revision as of 02:22, 23 December 2009 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,000 edits FAC pr/ar← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:23, 1 January 2025 edit undoJJMC89 bot (talk | contribs)Bots1,162,910 edits →Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder: new section | ||
| (514 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Not around|date=2 January 2024}} | |||
| <!-- <center><div style="text-align:center;width:60%;padding:1em;border:{{{border|solid 2px gold}}};letter-spacing: 12px;background-color:blue;color:white;font-weight:bold">On indefinite vacation</div></center> --> | <!-- <center><div style="text-align:center;width:60%;padding:1em;border:{{{border|solid 2px gold}}};letter-spacing: 12px;background-color:blue;color:white;font-weight:bold">On indefinite vacation</div></center> --> | ||
| {| style="float:right;" | {| style="float:right;" | ||
| Line 9: | Line 10: | ||
| * | * | ||
| * | * | ||
| * | * | ||
| * | |||
| |] | |] | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| == |
== Unwelcome == | ||
| Since apparently the community accepts talk page bans, the following <i>people</i> are unwelcome to post here in any manner. | |||
| * Kww, Malleus, John, Nuclear, Merridew | |||
| This ban includes any other accounts they may hold. | |||
| If any of these people have something to say to me, their reprseentative must contact me first through "email this user" and obtain my authorisation. | |||
| Their represeentative may not post here on their behalf either. | |||
| ] 12:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Return of sysop user-right == | |||
| Getting all the brainiacs on board ! Any ideas at ]? Best, ] (]) 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hi Gimmetrow. Welcome back. I have returned your sysop user-right, and I do hope to see you around a bit more. As always, there's lots to do! As I mentioned at BN, if you could use the ] for the birthdate references, I am sure that will help people in the future. ]<sup>TT</sup>(]) 13:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Meg Foster date == | ||
| Sure. I know Google Books (and more generally Google) gives different results for different users, but if you insert the string ''"Meg Foster" "May 14, 1948"'' on Google Books you should be able to locate it. Obviously if you want to remove the date of birth or want to mention only the year of birth on the basis of privacy concerns you are free to do it, but the reference is certainly correct. ] 08:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Welcome back == | |||
| The quote on Jinnah's death describes the journeys taken due to his poor health and gives dates and locations from mohammed ali jinnah's sister. This would help a reader in terms of his death know the events in run up to his death and would indicate how bad his health was in his last days alive. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| I noticed in the administrator's newsletter that you are again an administrator, and I wanted to thank you for resuming your service, and to welcome you back. ] (]) 01:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Pre-botify == | |||
| : I swear, I'm talking to walls in here. ] (]) 00:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:: What do you mean? Are you asking me into the latest CCI thing? ] 06:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC) | ||
| :: |
:::No :) I was just frustrated that no one does what you did, and few seem to be paying attention. I type 'til I'm blue in the fingers ! ] (]) 10:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC) | ||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) 22:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Good article reassessment for ] == | |||
| == Failed GA for Ozark Jubilee == | |||
| ] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] ] 01:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message == | |||
| I apologize for not letting you know yesterday on why the GA nomination failed for '']'', but here are reasons listed below: | |||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| : | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div> | |||
| ] (]) 15:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| : Thanks. Glad someone looked at this. ] 16:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
| 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. | |||
| == ] == | |||
| If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> | |||
| Hi, | |||
| </div> | |||
| What was in aid of? One column of large references is wasting whitespace, and the lede consists of a scant three sentences. Both were readily justifiable. ] - ] 16:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| : You tagged it with {{tlf|tone}}, which has nothing to do with a "short" lead, and one column of notes in the same readable font size as the rest of the text is at least as justifiable as a column in a smaller, less readable font size. ] 19:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1187132049 --> | |||
| ==] has been nominated for merging== | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>] has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 03:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ==bot== | |||
| Hi Gimmetrow. I finally finished the promotions/archive for this weekend. Please run the bot at your convenience. Thanks so much! ] (]) 21:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Gimmetrow, can you run your bot over ], which has been withdrawn from FLC and immediately submitted to FAC? Thanks, ] (]) 22:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder == | |||
| ==Thanks== | |||
| ...for catching my accidental deletion. I meant to only delete the Front Page Mag citation as not a reliable source, and not the Time reference. ] (]) 17:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ]This is a reminder that established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.{{pb}}Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at ]. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the ].{{pb}}Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — ] 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Alefbe == | |||
| == "]" listed at ] == | |||
| Left a message at his userapge saying his IP is still autoblocked. I tried to remove it but couldn't find it in the blocklist, so if you can find it that would be helpful.<br/>By the way, I don't mind your unblocking him (indeed, the whole reason I reported it to ANI was for oversight, so he could be unblocked if others thought it appropriate), but in your messages to me at ANI I think you're missing the point: this user was deliberately undoing edits to scores of articles across the project when he knew it was controversial and had refused to participate in conversation (and, in fact, he did not go to start reverting those articles until he had "given up" at the main article). That's also quite inappropriate, and he shouldn't have a free ticket to do whatever he wants just because he believes he's above discussion. Heck, I wish I could change whatever I wanted across the entire project just by saying "I refuse to talk to you, that means I'm right!" <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 23:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| : I'm still working out the sequence of events. Even if your first set of edits were justifiable, it's not quite clear to me yet that undoing Alefbe's undos was a good idea. ] 23:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 2#WP:BRRRRRD}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ]] 17:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::And his reverting at 17 articles after explicitly refusing to contribute to the relevant discussion ''was'' a good idea? I'm sorry, but there is no need for us to baby disruptive editors who edit-war deliberately and express no interest in actually improving the article at hand. (This whole thing is Alefbe's way of trying to get back at me blocking him in the past—as you can see from his unwillingness to actually discuss the topic at hand, and single-minded interest in harping over how I "shouldn't have moved the page without consensus" a month ago, he clearly has no interest in the article itself and is only interested in winning a WP:BATTLE.) So far, he has been willing to discuss nothing but past non-issues (why I should or should not have BOLDly moved the page over a month ago) and has ignored the actual article. Honestly, who cares about a move that happened a month ago and violated no policies (keep in mind BRD)? I feel like I'm the only editor here who's tried to be constructive by talking about the article itself, and what should be done with it, rather than crying about things that happened a month ago. Now Alefbe has gone quiet since his block; I imagine that's because he's drafting some long report about why I am so abusive and should be desysopped. So much for actually talking about the article; for some people, the purpose of Misplaced Pages is not articles, but looking for drama. <b class="Unicode">]</b> <small><sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></small> 23:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C == | |||
| {{tb|Rjanag|The last word}} | |||
| <section begin="announcement-content" /> | |||
| ==JLo== | |||
| :''] '' | |||
| Please explain these edit summaries. How is this vandalism (I resent the implication)? This format youre pushing does not conform to other discographies, particularly ones featured at ]. There's no reason why the table was changed from how it was months ago. Why would you prefer left-aligned columns? - ] (]) 12:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I said this form facilitates vandalism. WP:DISCOG, whatever weight it might have, says nothing about this. ] 12:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Look at the featured lists at WP:DISCOG and just about every other discography page in Misplaced Pages. You've yet to explain why your preferred version should stay. - ] (]) 12:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Because your version facilitates vandalism; that is, it makes it more difficult to undo. ] 12:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's not a reason to keep it incorrectly and sloppily formatted. Vandalism happens everywhere. - ] (]) 12:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: And you have no reason to change a format which in your own words doesn't change content, given that other editors object. Do you even know what the issue is? Have you asked? Why do you continue making the same stylistic edit over objections? ] 12:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::You're the only one objecting. The table was changed without explanation on September 15. I do have a reason to change it (technically, change it BACK to a version which existed for quite a long time). Look at just about every other discography page in Misplaced Pages, look at the discographies that are featured lists and held up as examples at WP:DISCOG. Obviously there is a strong consensus about the set-up, formatting, layout and sources of these "good" lists, otherwise they wouldn't be given special attention. Do I really need to tell you that vandalism is inevitable no matter what? The answer is not to keep this one particular discography looking sloppy and different than all the others. - ] (]) 13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::: What version on or before September 15 do you think was better? ] 17:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Dear Wikimedian, | |||
| If you two can both take a deep breath and explain your argument, I'll be happy to help you settle this. When I looked at both versions, the only thing that stood out to me was that the citations are very badly done. I'm curious as the arguments pro and con over the horizontal format vs. vertical (which is what I presume the dispute is here.—](]) 13:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :My problem was with the singles table. Why are the positions left-aligned? I changed this, tweaked the column header text size and combined the two tables ("lead" and "featured") into one. Why this format has suddenly been deemed one that "facilitates vandalism" is beyond me (and I have no idea what is meant by "more difficult to undo"; that doesn't explain much). - ] (]) 01:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. | |||
| ==Me and Ms Bollea== | |||
| This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the ] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. | |||
| Well does one reply to this? I think one should. I don't envy someone who has to update Brooke Hogan's Wiki page with news, a tough love. | |||
| The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please ]. | |||
| But, okay I hear you, however she does look 51 though! | |||
| Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. | |||
| Rightly you are correct and apologies all round. I shall lurk from now on only correcting the Queen's English and the odd shocking discography entries. | |||
| On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> | |||
| mind you | |||
| my good outweighs my bad | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/68.84.32.199 <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| ] 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Risk == | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list&oldid=26721206 --> | |||
| == Nomination for deletion of ] == | |||
| ]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> <b>]]</b> (] • he/they) 23:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity == | |||
| Why do you prefer the 1963 rules rather then the original 1959?--] (]) 01:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Featured stars and featured pictures == | |||
| If word on the street is correct, you maintain the featured stars on FA and FL pages. There's a proposal to improve the display of featured pictures by adding a featured content star to caption boxes. The assistance of an experienced coder would be very helpful--basically a simple script to make sure the right display corresponds to featured material. A preliminary discussion has unanimous consensus with featured picture regulars; we're close to bringing this to the Village Pump. Please see ]: we'd love to get your input. Best regards, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 21:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ] Established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month. | |||
| == Re: AbdullahKhaleeji7 == | |||
| Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at ]. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at ]. | |||
| Re : Eh, I get they are new, but six reverts is a bit much. I don't have a problem unblocking as long as they don't revert for an seventh time and go straight to the talk page. -- ] (]) 05:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thank you for your past contributions to the project. <!-- Template:Inactive admin -->— ] 00:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :See ] | |||
| :Unfortunatly your good faith unblock and second chance for this user didn't deter him/her from continuing disruption. I've had to block for 24hrs, FYI.--] (]) 18:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder == | |||
| == DYK for Race the Sun == | |||
| ]This is a reminder that established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.{{pb}}Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at ]. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the ].{{pb}}Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — ] 00:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| {| class="messagebox standard-talk" | |||
| |- | |||
| |] | |||
| |On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page <sub>(])</sub> and add it to ] if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the ]. | |||
| |} ]] 05:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == GO template == | |||
| Thank you, Gimme; I was just staring at it, trying to decide if I was too tired to add the dates :) Best, ] (]) 00:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Rjanag Arbitration == | |||
| Hello. I mentioned you and referenced your Misplaced Pages posts in a recently-filed request for arbitration. I therefore thought it appropriate to notify you of the fact. | |||
| The request is at ].--] (]) 10:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Gimmebot glitch == | |||
| I noticed a glitch with {{u|Gimmebot}} at ]. It does not update project templates that do not already have "class=" in them.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 16:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Cold Stone == | |||
| Title of cited article: Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc. Reports 6% Increase in Second Quarter Earnings--] <small>(] • ])</small> 08:03, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : The wiki article attributed the 6% Q2 to co-branding with CS. Is that attribution in the article cited? 12:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| When I did the Google search, the summary of the article had the two sections highlighted. The CEO or CFO of Rocky Mountain was quoted that much of the profit they garnered in the quarter was generated as a result of the partnership with Cold Stone. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Rjanag Conduct RfC == | |||
| A has been opened concerning the conduct of ]. This follows the of a number of arbitrators at the . I am contacting you because you are mentioned in this RfC and the prior RfA, and you discussed Rjanag's conduct with him. | |||
| The RfC can be found . | |||
| Editors (including those who certify the RfC) can offer comments by: | |||
| :(a) ''posting their own view''; and/or | |||
| :(b) ''endorsing'' one or more views of others. | |||
| You may certify or endorse the original RfC statement. You may also endorse as many views as you wish, including Rjanag's response. Anyone can endorse any views, regardless of whether they are outside parties or inside parties. | |||
| Information on the RfC process can be found at: | |||
| :#] | |||
| :#] | |||
| :#] | |||
| :#] | |||
| Thanks. --] (]) 10:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: That RfC page is sure confusing. I'm not sure there is a consistent pattern of behaviour to discuss, and in any event I don't see it from the description on the RfC. The Turfan/Alefbe incident was more subtle than the presentations in the RfC and former Arb request seem to make it. Basically, it seemed to me that the third editor, whatever his motivations, was asking a legit content question, and that discussing the content question would have also provided time and opportunity to clarify any user conduct questions. ] 13:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hopefully its less confusing now, but the format itself is sure confusing (and another editor has deleted the explanatory hatnotes). | |||
| :::Just to explain the background, Draeco brought an AN/I, concerning behavior that surrounded two AfDs. The RfA followed. At the RfA, Rjanag wrote in his initial (since withdrawn) response, "all the I've seen are for...disputes that have ". Similarly, Gatoclass pointed out that there had not been "evidence presented that has demonstrated a pattern of ." In response to those two points, the further misbehavior (including the Alefbe/Serezin matter), all from the past year, has been presented. It seems rather clear, at minimum, that in a content dispute admin blocking tools were used, and I believe Serezin has discussed this in a couple of places.--] (]) 02:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Post-bot promotion == | |||
| Gimme, there was an after-the-bot promotion that might need your review. (PS: RFC/U is a mess because uninvolved parties rarely review them to keep them on track.) ] (]) 13:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I have a renewed appreciation for your bot, Gimmetrow! I do not make a great pseudo-bot. I (and a few nice talk page stalkers) have done the following: | |||
| :*Updated the FAC nomination to say promoted with the appropriate diff to when I promoted the article and removed it from the archive | |||
| :*Changed the articlehistory template to show that the FA nomination was successful, that the current status is now FA, and that class= on the wikiprojects is FA | |||
| :*Added the featured article template to the article | |||
| :*Removed the article name from the list of GAs | |||
| :Can you think of anything else I need to do? Thanks! ] (]) 14:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Karanacs, you're braver and more industrious than I am! I know how hard after-bot work is :) I might have been afraid to tackle this work, and reinstated a new nom myself, with a note:) Good for you for making the effort ! ] (]) 15:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It's not necessary to remove it from the list of GAs; that's part of the GA update script, not the FA processing script. Good you remembered the FA star, though. ] 15:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thanks, Gimme! ] (]) 16:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == DRV in articlehistory == | |||
| Gimme, in ah errors. I don't know how to link to a DRV, since they aren't done on individual pages? ] (]) 16:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : PS: ]. ] (]) 17:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::See ] for an example of DRV in AH. You can't link to the version of the article, AFAIK.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 18:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thanks TTT. I fixed that one, Gimme. TTT, yes, you can link to the version of the article, see the article talk on List of scientists opposing ... ] (]) 18:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That is different because it was a kept/no consensus that was DRVed. When a deleted one is DRVed there is no article in the articlespace history.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 20:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Correct! In that case, we can't link to an oldid. ] (]) 21:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: But if a deleted article is restored through DRV, so is the history, and an oldid is possible. If a deleted article is not restored, then the talk page probably won't exist, let alone an AH template. ] 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::With my ] example, her article has been recreated as opposed to restored through DRV. The history is unavailable and probably irrelevant.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 22:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : well, darn, Gimme, I still don't know what I'm doing there. but doens't endorse mean endorse the delete-- or does it mean endorse a keep? But the article is still there, so I may have entered the wrong thing on ah ??? I don't follow AFD at all, so I'm not sure what's going on here. ] (]) 19:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: "Endorsed" can mean either a keep or a delete, however the AfD ended. It looks like in that one, the DRV was started by someone disputing the "keep" votes. ] 19:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Thanks, Gimme. I'm finished at FAR and may have time now to archive some FACs, but promotions may need to wait 'til tomorrow. I'll see what I can get done. ] (]) 19:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Articlehistory query == | |||
| Gimme, what is the current limit on articlehistory entries (I think it used to be 15)? See ]; I am considering asking the FAC community for a FAC nominating restriction if issues at ] continue. ] (]) 02:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Up to 20 right now. I'm pretty sure there is an article with more than 15 already. 03:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks, Gimme ... I just needed to factor that into how many times he should be allowed to bring the article back with the same, unaddressed issues. I'll promote tomorrow. Best, ] (]) 04:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I don't know anythig with more than 10 or so at ] since both Hillary and Barack don't get anywhere near 15. Ralph Bakshi is unusual.--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 05:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Block 81.93.24.245 == | |||
| 81.93.24.245 still is only anonymous, still only vandalizes, etc. You had blocked it (with exceptions) for 12 hours back in May; I think you need to block it from everything for at least six months. --] (]) 20:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Schoolblock done, starting for 3 months. ] 20:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks; now I need to find out what a "schoolblock" is. I assume when I do I'll also see why you thought 3 months was more appropriate than 6 mos. --] (]) 01:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop == | |||
| As you participated in the recent ] election, or in one of two ] that relate to the use of ] for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the ]. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.<br/> | |||
| <br/> | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, <br/> | |||
| ] (]) 08:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0005 --> | |||
| == Thank you == | |||
| Thanks, Gimme; I'm going to have to watch more closely. ] (]) 01:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Cardinals == | |||
| If you're still interested in the question, would you please see ]. ] (]) 12:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Jennifer Lopez == | |||
| You removed many of the "citation needed" tags. Was it that a citation was not necessary, or that the claims were covered by some neighboring citation? or something else? For example, the "Human Right Advocacy" section still has no citations, and you removed its tag. That section mentions specific dates, as well as "special recognition" that she has received. Surely claims like that can and should be cited.(?) <b><font color="green">Jwesley</font>]</b> 17:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I object to fact-bombing. Specifically about the "human rights advocacy" section, the section clearly refers to Amnesty International, which ought to be sufficient for verifiability. It's not as if you made any dispute about the facts. ] 17:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: So citations are not needed if the section mentions a well-known entity, e.g. Amnesty International? I'm not sure exactly what "fact-bombing" is, but I suppose it's when one requests too many citations for a BLP article. I would appreciate it if you would assume good faith about my edits instead of insulting me in the edit comments ("holy factbomb, batman"). -- <b><font color="green">Jwesley</font>]</b> 18:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: What exactly do you want? Are you positively disputing the facts of the Amnesty International section? Or are you just seeking to add more citations to the article? What do you think is the appropriate course of action in each instance? ] 18:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I'm simply saying that if there is a claim that "On February 14, 2007" she received an award, that it should be cited. And if an entire section lacks a single citation, then editors should probably be looking for a reference. Are you saying that only controversial claims require citation in a BLP? I read through the article looking for claims which might require citation. Perhaps I was wrong about a few. <b><font color="green">Jwesley</font>]</b> 18:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Again, what exactly do you want to accomplish? If the goal is to add citations to improve a fairly well-developed article, adding a large number of cleanup tags may not be the best approach. It may be more constructive to add a few citations. ] 19:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : I agree. I should've taken more time to find citations, than simply marking "citation needed". And honestly, most of it was that I was offended that you accused me of "fact bombing" (in your response and in your edit's comment). I'll be more wary of marking "citation needed" in the future. Cheers -- <b><font color="green">Jwesley</font>]</b> 01:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Botification query == | |||
| Hi, Gimme. I've noticed over past years that the list size at FAC tends to really grow over the holidays. On the one hand, we get more nominations because some people have free time during holidays, but on the other hand, we sometimes get less reviews and delayed responses because of vacation breaks. The list size is the longest it's been in months, yet many are close and can't be closed. Would you mind if we temporarily went back to a more frequent pr/ar schedule, to help manage the page size? ] (]) 17:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Well, you can always remove them from the FAC page and I'll try to get to them eventually. One of you hasn't been following the schedule for ages. ] 18:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Is that me? :) I thought we had decided weekends could be either Friday, Saturday or Sunday to accomodate my "real life"? ] (]) 18:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: No, someone else. By the way, another page move over at ]. Also page moves at ] and ] were beyond the script - one FA was moved to a new name to make room for another FA. At least ] got resolved for now. ] 18:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Rachael Ray / EVOO == | |||
| Your edits are admirable, but the distinction between coining EVOO and helping to popularize it are important. The OAD acknowledged that she helped to popularize the term, but no claim has been made that she coined it (and that claim would be incorrect). Her popularizing "EVOO" is mentioned in the sentence following the sentence of contention, and should satisfy the need for acknowledging her use of the term. But no mention of her "coining" EVOO can be correctly placed in the article. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 02:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I can't find the articlehistory error there ... ] (]) 05:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Got it—an extra space in 'speedily deleted', apparently. ] (]) 05:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Goodness! Thank you! ] (]) 05:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| A routine Maralia check: ]. ] (]) 14:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Rachael Ray== | |||
| I've explained in detail on the talk page why information about her coining words is both incorrect, and is not supported by references. Could you please pay a little more attention to this? Thanks. ] (]) 00:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I have reverted Piano non troppo's continued vandalism of the ] page. We are having the same problem with him blatantly vandalizing television station pages outside policy or consensus. He seems to be acting on his own and should be immediately reported and blocked. His behavior is so bad that people have emailed me (and I am retired) and I had to come out of retirement to fix the problems on the TV station side. So this isn't a one-area issue. - ] (]) 01:04, 28 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Can you point me to anyone who can explain what is going on in these other areas? I've seen Piano revert vandalism in other articles, which is a good thing, so I would tend to assume other edits are mistaken notions rather than bad intent. ] 01:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Please see , , , , , and . | |||
| :::Each of these pages have had the information of where a reporter went after leaving the station removed. For example, Troppo removed the "Where Are They Now" information for ] from the page as "uncited, off-topic statement about non-Wiki notable". Katie Couric is easily citable and clearly notable since she has her own article. | |||
| :::Troppo claims he took this to "RfA, in ANI, in refused mediation, and in WP:TVS discussion" and while that was true, it was shot down in RfA, ANI, and WP:TVS and mediation (with me) just wasn't necessary. He cites no policy, no consensus, nothing, yet continues to vandalize and edit war to his "perfered version" that isn't within reason. - ] (]) | |||
| ::::One also should note that Troppo is accusing me of being "abusive", while he is digging into my clearly out there past to somehow slam me with and post. I personally don't care, I can take the abuse from him, but it shows how he acts when he doesn't get his way. I am unsure what to do. I believe Troppo should be blocked, even if just for 24 hours, for multiple 3RR violations. | |||
| ::::Side note, I am not sure why my time code is not appearing in my sig. My apologizes for that. - ] (]) 01:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::As of 04:28 (EST) on November 28, Troppo AGAIN vandalized the television station articles I listed above. This has turned into a clear edit war for him and he more-than-likely has broken 3RR and clearly doesn't care. Troppo should be blocked for 3RR violations and for vandalism, I ask that this be done immediately, if not soon. Thank you :) - ] (]) 00:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Katy Perry discography== | |||
| You are an admin, right? I'm having troubles in ]. An not-logged user (with the IP 201.209.253.17) is removing important informations in the article, such as Perry's debut album, singles certifications and references. He/she has been alarmed several times (by me and other editors) and he/she still removing those informations. I got tired of that - is there a way to ban this IP or just protect the page? Thanks so much. ] (]) 02:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Page protected. These discography pages are disasters. So much number switching or vandalism even when sources are attached. Anyway, the IP also seems to be changing "x" in certification multipliers (like 2x) to "×" (like 2×). That may be an OK change. ] 03:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Ok, thanks so much! ] (]) 15:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == FACClosed == | |||
| Gimme, I discovered last night that the bot is removing the {{t1|FACClosed}} template (good), but leaving my sig hanging. This was happening because I was having to add my sig to a separate line, because of a noinclude in the template. I think but could you check whether that was the right way to correct the problem? Thanks, ] (]) 18:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : The script currently removes anything matching <code>'\{\{FCClosed*}}.*'</code> If your current fix doesn't work, I could modify this code to match line breaks, but then it would remove everything after the template. Alternately, you could add a signature parameter inside the template, similar to the way {{tlp|uw-block|2=sig=yes}} works, which would work easily so long as templates were not nested inside the {{tlf|FACClosed}}. 19:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: Let's see if my current fix works on today's bot run? ] (]) 19:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==Catholic Church== | |||
| Hi Gimmetrow, we are discussing the sex abuse paragraph here . I am trying to get some past editors to come to the discussion so we can discover what others think. Thanks, ] <sup> ]</sup> 19:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Merged-from == | |||
| Hi, I saw that you reverted the changes I'd made to {{tl|merge-from}} because it was causing the old page to be transcluded, but I don't see how you were determining that. I momentarily switched the template to my version and looked at ]. One of the pages given in a merge-from template is ], so I went to that page and clicked ], and the list was empty—no transclusions or anything else. | |||
| I hope I've fixed the problem by using '''#ifexist''' instead of '''exists''', but since I don't know how you observed a problem to begin with, I can't check it. Can you please tell me where this transclusion was showing up and tell me if it's a problem now? Thanks! ] (]) 03:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : It seems to be gone. If you "edit" the entire page and not a section, a list of all transcluded pages and templates will appear at the bottom. ] 08:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ah, OK, thanks for the info ''and'' for checking! ] (]) 13:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Talk:Stephania Bell == | |||
| What should current status be for ].--] <small>(]/]/]/]/]) </small> 00:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == ] nomination of ] == | |||
| ]An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for ]. The nominated article is ]. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also ] and "]"). | |||
| Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to ]. Please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). | |||
| You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the ] template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. | |||
| '''Please note:''' This is an automatic notification by a ]. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --] (]) 01:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Cooneyites links == | |||
| Although the links you removed from the ] article would likely be reliable enough for a links section (both are referenced on sites which have met RS consensus), a bigger concern is that neither site contains much information on the current followers of Edward Cooney. Perhaps there is some specific page on those sites which I've missed, and which deals specifically with the Cooneyite group. But if so, it would be best to link only to that page(s). Because I and others haven't had the time to flesh out this article, a convenience link to a site with more detail specifically on Cooney's followers would make a good addition until the article is more complete. It is just that I don't see the links which were added as filling that role. I'll note this to the editor who inserted the links. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == GimmeBot bug == | |||
| shouldn't happen (creating an ArticleHistory when another exists). I'm guessing it's because the first ArticleHistory is inside a WikiProjectBannerShell. Don't know if it's common enough to be worth it to fix, but I thought I'd let you know. ] (]) 22:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Suggestion for ] addition to Gimmebot == | |||
| Hi Gimmetrow, you may have been asked this before. I started a discussion at ] asking about talk page project templates GA class designation. Would it be a good idea to semi-automate a process whereby, if someone DGAs an article in ArticleHistory but forgets to change the project class templates, for a bot to change (probably remove) the GA class listing, similar to what Gimmebot does for featured articles? A bot could perhaps report differences between the article history designation and the project templates designations? In any case, it's a very useful bot, thanks for all the work on this, ] (]) 11:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == FAC pr/ar == | |||
| Busy because of holidays, but will finish pr/ar by tonight. Merry Christmas, Gimme! ] (]) 02:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:23, 1 January 2025
 | This user may have left Misplaced Pages. Gimmetrow has not edited Misplaced Pages since 2 January 2024. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else. |
|
|
|
Unwelcome
Since apparently the community accepts talk page bans, the following people are unwelcome to post here in any manner.
- Kww, Malleus, John, Nuclear, Merridew
This ban includes any other accounts they may hold. If any of these people have something to say to me, their reprseentative must contact me first through "email this user" and obtain my authorisation. Their represeentative may not post here on their behalf either. Gimmetrow 12:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Return of sysop user-right
Hi Gimmetrow. Welcome back. I have returned your sysop user-right, and I do hope to see you around a bit more. As always, there's lots to do! As I mentioned at BN, if you could use the Template:Cite web for the birthdate references, I am sure that will help people in the future. Worm(talk) 13:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Meg Foster date
Sure. I know Google Books (and more generally Google) gives different results for different users, but if you insert the string "Meg Foster" "May 14, 1948" on Google Books you should be able to locate it. Obviously if you want to remove the date of birth or want to mention only the year of birth on the basis of privacy concerns you are free to do it, but the reference is certainly correct. Cavarrone 08:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Welcome back
I noticed in the administrator's newsletter that you are again an administrator, and I wanted to thank you for resuming your service, and to welcome you back. Cullen328 (talk) 01:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
- I swear, I'm talking to walls in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Are you asking me into the latest CCI thing? Gimmetrow 06:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- No :) I was just frustrated that no one does what you did, and few seem to be paying attention. I type 'til I'm blue in the fingers ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
- What do you mean? Are you asking me into the latest CCI thing? Gimmetrow 06:04, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Featured article tools
Template:Featured article tools has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. SWinxy (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Spinixster (chat!) 01:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Category:Catholic personal coat of arms images has been nominated for merging
Category:Catholic personal coat of arms images has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder
This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
"WP:BRRRRRD" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect WP:BRRRRRD has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 2 § WP:BRRRRRD until a consensus is reached. mwwv(converse) 17:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:PPR
Template:PPR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder
This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: