User talk:Technophant: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:40, 16 November 2014 editTechnophant (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,780 edits →Unblock comments: comment, taking out the trash← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 00:33, 28 November 2023 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk \| contribs)Bots3,133,055 edits →ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery
(399 intermediate revisions by 49 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			'''I am semi-active, response time may be days to weeks.
	<!-- start of personal message-->
			'''
			==MfD nomination of ]==
			] ], 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 --> ] (]) 17:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
			:I was too late on to vote, however I marked it as inactive and I'm fine with deletion. ] (]) 18:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

			== ArbCom 2019 election voter message ==
	{{User health inactive}}
	Welcome to my talk page! Please remember to remain ] and follow ] guidelines. Due to peronal health issues, there may unanticipated periods of little or no editing or monitoring. If there's an urgent issue you can Thank one of my edits to trigger an email alert.~] <small>(])</small> 16:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

			<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
	{{User:MiszaBot/config
			<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2019\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
	\| algo=old(19d)
	\| archive=User talk:Technophant/Archive %(counter)d
	\| counter=4
	\| maxarchivesize=76K
	\| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
	\| minthreadsleft=9
	\| minthreadstoarchive=4
	}}
	{{archives\|auto=short}}

			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.
	== Timeline of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant events ==

			If you wish to participate in the 2019 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. ] (]) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
	I was not the author of all the nonsense edits on the ISIL events timeline page. Except for updates on situation in Kobane, my only edit was "*1 October: the town of Taza Kharmatho is retaken by Peshmerga and Iraqi Army forces, but remains uninhabitable due to booby traps left by ISIL.". It was sourced, and if that is not considered a reliable source, then half of what is on that page doesn't have a reliable source. It seems to me that you refused all the additions caught in the review period without checking each one, and that's pretty irritating.--] (]) 21:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
			</td></tr>
	:{{ping\|2.35.58.16}} I wasn't the editor that rejected the edits. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Feel free to redo you unaccepted edit. I'll remove your warning.~] <small>(])</small> 21:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
			</table>
	::Thank you.--] (]) 21:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/04&oldid=926750357 -->

			== Response about Clampi on the Cleanup project page ==
	==Using The in ISIL==
			Hey Technophant, have you seen my response? Kind regards from ] (]) 12:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
	You reverted my changes . Can you please help me understand why this is better or more clear? I don't see it that way.~] <small>(])</small> 20:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Technophant}}: I thought it was a mistake. The version just before the one I altered started with "As Islamic State of Iraq" and then went on to add a "the" before the ISIS and IS headings. I also remembered that when the article had "As" in the subheadings, there was no "the" in the titles. I didn't realise you had added "the" deliberately! I do think "the" looks a little strange, but would you like me to revert? --] (]) 21:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|Technophant}}: I am trying to archive my Talk page, not very successfully, and thought I had better put your message here in case it gets lost. --] (]) 22:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::] Do you need help? I prefer to manually archive my talk page but I can also set up automatic.~] <small>(])</small> 22:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::Thanks, but I managed it! It was by trial and error like last time because I couldn't understand the WP Help on archiving properly. I couldn't remember some of the steps I took last time. Phew! What about the edit? Would you like me to change it back? I don't mind, but it will have to be tomorrow as it is very late here. Let me know. --] (]) 23:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::] Yes, please change it back. I want to get wider input on it b4 relenting to remove it. (was that too sarcastic?)~] <small>(])</small> 23:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::Done. I couldn't self-revert, as the I got wasn't mine, so did it manually. Remember it was only two "The"s that I changed, and no, it wasn't sarcastic! --] (]) 00:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
	==ISIS Talk page==
	Potential trouble . See last few entries. --] (]) 07:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|P123ct1}} I took him to ]. Please go there and give supporting evidence.~] <small>(])</small> 17:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	::{{ping\|P123ct1}} ], in future cases like this please consider transparency issues related to the using of peoples names when canvassing. ] ] 07:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

			== ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message ==
	== SCW&ISIL sanctions ==

			<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
	*{{ping\|Technophant}} I recommend that you remove this notification at once. If you'll notice at the general sanctions log, Gregkaye has already been notified. Editors are never supposed to notify someone of the existence of these sanctions more than once, and certainly not for the sake of badgering editors. Please read the following: {{quotation\|Editors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.}} This comes from ]. ] — ] 16:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
			<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2020\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
	:] thanks for catching that. I didn't check the log closely enough before I notified. The entry has been removed. I apologized . I be more careful in the future.~] <small>(])</small> 17:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	::], as you know, when ] apolgized the text read as follows:
	::*:I've been informed that you were already on the notify log. The duplicate entry has been removed. I apologize for the oversight.~] <small>(])</small> 17:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	::This edit, placed late on Monday afternoon (UK time), states: "The duplicate entry has been removed" but gives no link to a removal. Following the edit Technophant would have been able to see that the offending banner remained in place.
	::Never-the-less, this editor was then involved in a large number of other edits during which I made no reply to the "I've been informed" text. It was then only at 01:56 (UK time) on the Tuesday morning that the following which, at 04:08 (UK time), .
	::] ] 08:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	:See ] request for clarification in this regard.] (]) 21:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	*{{ping\|Technophant}} do you want to explain the content of this thread? ] ] 22:30, 25 October 2014 (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.
	==About one of your posts==

	Could you tell me what you mean here , in particular the word "forced", when you wrote "This section was forced to be put into this article as part of the general censorship of his name debacle." Is this an on-Misplaced Pages discussion you are talking about? ] (]) 16:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	:{{ping\|Tiptoethrutheminefield}} Yes. I was notified through edit summaries (and further clarified by email) that at that time there was a general consensus among Oversight to not allow his name to be on Misplaced Pages. After his execution that ban expired.~] <small>(])</small> 17:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	::That seems rather disturbing (to me anyway). It amounts to Misplaced Pages self-censoring itself because of the opinions or the restrictions of governments or governmental agencies. I wonder where else on Misplaced Pages this sort of thing has occurred? Did a similar thing happen regarding ], I wonder? BTW, I do not think the "Haines' family requested that his abduction be kept a secret" claim in the article is correct - it was entirely a UK Foreign Office position. I recall media reports to that effect, but I will have to look into it. ] (]) 20:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::] Actually the "forced" (see edit history at {{noredirect\|David Cawthorne Haines}}) was due to and the lengthy discussion at ] (or similar thread) not edit summaries or emails. The name redaction was as I stated. I requested several time to several forums pleading that Oversight release a statement as to why the name was being revdeleted and what's going on (when a decision is going to be made) however to the best of my knowledge no public statements were ever made. It's kind of like the NSA, you know they are listening, you know they can take actions, but if you ask them to explain what they are doing you won't ever get a reply. Very distasteful. Goes against what I thought Misplaced Pages was about. ~] <small>(])</small> 21:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::BTW, I didn't realise you were editing the David Haines article at ''exactly'' the same time as I was! Sorry if I disrupted any of your edits. ] (]) 21:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::::WOW - reading the village pump contributions, it is disturbing that that false claim that the Haines' family had requested his name not be used in the news was being put forward by some editors as a reason to censor Misplaced Pages. I'm fairly certain that news of the abduction, and the family's increasing anger at the inactivity of the British government and the ongoing media ban, was in some sections of the media before the video release. ] (]) 21:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::::All of the discussion happened behind closed doors. I too couldn't find any source that claimed that the family didn't want it in the media. His widow went the press and didn't mention anything about it. Even after that happened the "censors" refused to budge from their position, nor did any members of the Oversight committee participate in the Village Pump discussions. ~] <small>(])</small> 22:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

			If you wish to participate in the 2020 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. ] (]) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
	*] - I'm going to repost my email I sent to On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 10:00 AM to functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org:
			</td></tr>
			</table>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/04&oldid=990308269 -->

			== NSFW ==
	:I'm not sure why this matter isn't being debated openly. I would like to add this comment I posted to Jimbo's talk page to discussion:

			Just a quick note, as I saw your edit on the Death of Darren Rainey page:
	:I'm very concerned about the current trend. There seems to be not only reversions, revdeletes, and even blocks regarding this matter. It's one thing to have an open disagreement as to what should or shouldn't be in article space but it's a whole different game when the normal consensus building processes is subverted. The given reason that there's been a media blackout is that the family requested it so that hostage negotiations aren't affected. The subject's wife however isn't playing along with this however. She broke here silence and did a news interview, . She does NOT mention a request for this to be kept out of the media. I think this current trend is toxic to consensus building and article writing and is eroding the pillars that this project was founded on.
			There is no NSFW on Misplaced Pages; it is uncensored and for educational purposes.
			See ]

			Happy editing! ] (]) 01:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
	Out of the 20+ persons on the ] list I received '''no reply'''.

			== ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message ==
	Later, on Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 12:59 PM I sent:
	:There's another issue with a different hostage, and American woman whom ] has requested not be named. See ].

			<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
	:Also, I was wonder if Oversight has released public statement regarding this issue? I'm also wondering what the stance is regarding inclusion of the name of the 4th Western hostage, a British subject. So far his name is included on <font color="#000000">].</font>
			<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2021\|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.
	:Could I please be emailed old revisions of ]]? I want to make sure that all usable user contributions are included and also since I copied the original Draft from Google cache there needs to be proper CC-BY attribution to original author(s).

			If you wish to participate in the 2021 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>] (]) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
	I got one reply saying there's a discussion underway, comples issue, etc. Frustrating. I complained to ] demanding transparency and a public statement but also didn't get a reply. ~] <small>(])</small> 22:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
			</td></tr>
			</table>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/04&oldid=1056563273 -->

			== ''The WikiEagle'' - January 2022 ==
	: I apologize for the long delay. I have an interest in promoting transparency, and here is the reason why there was no public statement: I could not solicit a sufficient response and reach a consensus from my colleagues after forwarding your request to release any public statement.

	: Unfortunately I cannot act unilaterally because not everyone may be in agreement as to what to do, but I can only offer you advice in my own ''personal'' capacity. (1) The unfortunate death of the hostage is this case makes moot the need for suppression, and the suppression has since been lifted. (2) This case does raise a valid issue as to how to deal with similar future cases, and in the absence of any reference to specific outstanding (in the sense of unresolved) examples, the community should have a wider and fuller discussion as to how to approach such a situation in future.

			{\|width=100% style="border:2px solid #87CEEB; color:black; background-color:#F0FFFF;"
	: Again I apologize for the protracted delay, and I hope this will address your concerns and have provided directions on the next step forward. - ] 14:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
			\|]
			\|-
			\|style="padding:0px 2em; font-size:42px; text-align:center; font-family:Times New Roman;"\|The WikiEagle
			\|-
			\|style="text-align:center;"\|The ] Newsletter
			\|}
			{\|{{#ifeq:{{ROOTPAGENAME}}\|WikiProject Aviation\|\|class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"}} border=1 width=100% style="border:2px solid SkyBlue; border-collapse:collapse; background-color:#white;"
			!colspan=2 style="color:black; background-color:#87CEEB; padding:5px;"\|Volume I — Issue 1
			\|-
			\|colspan=2 style="text-align:center; padding:5px;"\|]{{•}}]{{•}}]{{•}}]{{•}}]{{•}}]
			\|-
			\|colspan=2 style="padding:5px; vertical-align:top;"\|<span style="font-size:22px;">'''''Announcements'''''</span>
			----
			*After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name ''The WikiEagle''. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its ]. If you wish to continue receiving ''The WikiEagle'', you can add your username to the ]. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please ]. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
			*On 16 December, ] which determined ''theaerodrome.com'' to be an unreliable source. The website, which is , mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue.
			*''Luft46.com'' has been added to the ] after ].
			*The ] article was ''']''' to ''Featured Article'' status on 26 December after being nominated by {{Noping\|Hawkeye7}}.
			*The ] article was ''']''' to ''Good Article'' status on 4 December after being nominated by {{Noping\|Zawed}}.
			*The ] article was ''']''' to ''Good Article'' status on 22 December after being nominated by {{Noping\|Amitchell125}}.
			*The ] article was ''']''' to ''Good Article'' status on 26 December after being nominated by {{Noping\|Zawed}}.

			\|-
	::] It sounds like the committee didn't know what to do or couldn't come to a consensus on the issue. I did request that a page be started explaining any new policy of guideline decision and an summary of the ] incident. Just having an explanation on my talk page doesn't answer the lingering questions posed by the community in multiple discussion. ~] <small>(])</small> 02:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
			\|style="padding:5px; vertical-align:top;"\|<span style="font-size:22px;">'''Members'''</span>
	::: I understand. If you intend to start a wider policy discussion, do let me know on my talk page so that I can pass the message on for other OS members to participate in the discussion. - ] 03:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
			----
	*Ping involved editors {{ping\|MeropeRiddle}} and {{ping\|Wnt}}~] <small>(])</small> 02:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
			'''New Members'''
			*{{Noping\|KingAviationKid}} (Joined on 17 December)
			*{{Noping\|PatrickChiao}} (Joined on 22 December)
			*{{Noping\|Wp9097}} (Joined on 16 December)
			{{columns-list\|colwidth=15em\|Number of active members: 386.
			Total number of members: 921.}}
			----
			<span style="font-size:22px;">'''Closed Discussions'''</span>
			----
			] '''Featured Article assessment'''
			*] (]) – Closed as '''promoted''' on 26 December 2021

			] '''Good Article assessment'''
	:Because of the lack of interest in consensus, I can only look at the oversighters' behavior - I haven't looked as carefully as I ought, but I'm not aware of them doing anything with ]. Unfortunately, , we're probably going to have another chance to see how the issue plays out, but I'll hope that they are through interfering. Their position on Haines was so over the top, beyond all other media even in Britain, that I really have no adequate theory to explain it. (At some point I should go over the viewpoint vis-a-vis DA-Notice 5, but it's likely a snipe hunt) ] (]) 04:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
			*] (]) – Closed as '''not promoted''' on 30 December 2021
			*] (]) – Closed as '''promoted''' on 26 December 2021
			*] (]) – Closed as '''promoted''' on 22 December 2021
			*] (]) – Closed as '''promoted''' on 4 December 2021

			] '''Deletion'''
			*] (]) – Closed as '''delete and redirect''' on 30 December 2021
			*] (]) – Closed as '''keep''' on 25 December 2021

			] '''Requested moves'''
	@technophant, I have been out of the loop for a bit! <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			*] → ] (]) – Closed as '''moved''' on 30 December 2021
			*] → ] (]) – Closed as '''moved''' on 30 December 2021
			*] → ] (]) – '''Withdrawn''' on 28 December 2021

			\|width=50% style="padding:5px; vertical-align:top;"\|<span style="font-size:22px;">'''Article Statistics'''</span><br/><span style="font-size:12px;">This data reflects values from DMY.</span>
	== RFC/U ==
			----
			{\| class="ratingstable wikitable plainlinks" style="text-align: right;"
			\|-
			! colspan="3" class="ratingstabletitle" \| Aviation pages by quality
			\|-
			! rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: bottom" \| '''Quality'''

			\|-
	I saw your post on ANI discussing an RFC/U that you had about another editor. You mention on ANI that you have a consensus to topic ban that editor. This consensus is it in the RFC/U? If so I'm wondering if you perhaps missed ]] (]) 09:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
			! style="text-align: center;" \| '''Total'''
	:] Topic ban was not part of the original proposed solutions, it was just the last resort consenssu after the editor refused to cooperate and attacked the nominators. That part was on the rfcu talk page. I took it to requests for close, which has a backlog. I guess it could have been taken to AN. There was a general apathy because the editor had quit editing. I suggest you read the rfcu and talk page.~] <small>(])</small> 16:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
			\|-
	::I've read the RFC/U and the talk page. I was just stopping by to inform you that while you may have a consensus at the RFC/U for a ban, A RFC/ U is still a voluntary process and you still can't use it to "Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures".] (]) 19:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
			\| {{FA-Class\|category=Category:FA-Class_aviation_articles}}
	:::] The RFC/U has been closed for "inactivity". The discussion on the talk page of the RFC/U continues. There's a clear consensus to take this to AN for a topic ban {CBAN}. I am excusing myself from starting any further noticeboard discussion and have asked for help taking getting the proposed CBAN placed. You are an uninvolved editor, would you be willing to close the talk page discussion and take the proper actions to put the proposed sanctions in place?~] <small>(])</small> 02:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
			\|\| ''''''
	::::My apologies but no I would rather stay uninvolved. Being uninvolved is not helpful in this situation. I'm unaware of what has actually taken place. It would probably be best for you or one of those have endorsed your RFC to take it to ANI.] (]) 03:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
			\|-
	:::::] - English was the only topic in school that I didn't get straight-A's in, and it wasn't for lack of trying - I'm just not very good at spelling, grammar, and vocabulary. Anyway, I was hoping that other users would take my RFC/U '''draft''', expand upon it and copy the content into the WP namespace. That didn't happen (see AN). There's no reason to delete content in userspace, in fact it wouldn't be proper to. If/when the block is lifted I '''may''' (or may not) pursue this in the proper way. ~] <small>(])</small> 21:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
			\| {{FL-Class\|category=Category:FL-Class_aviation_articles}}
	::::::There ]. <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 21:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
			\|\| ''''''
	:::::::Your RFCU against Worldedixor doesn't seem to be a draft. It seems to have concluded and I think it may have been archived. This topic was about that RFCU. The RFC you created below doesn't seem to have intended to be a draft if that is the one you are talking about.] (]) 21:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
			\|-
			\| {{A-Class\|category=Category:A-Class_aviation_articles}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| {{GA-Class\|category=Category:GA-Class_aviation_articles}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| {{B-Class\|category=Category:B-Class_aviation_articles}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| {{C-Class\|category=Category:C-Class_aviation_articles}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| {{Start-Class\|category=Category:Start-Class_aviation_articles}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| {{Stub-Class\|category=Category:Stub-Class_aviation_articles}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| {{List-Class\|category=Category:List-Class_aviation_articles}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| {{Category-Class\|category=Category:Category-Class_aviation_articles}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| {{Disambig-Class\|category=Category:Disambig-Class_aviation_articles}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| {{File-Class\|category=Category:File-Class_aviation_articles}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| {{Portal-Class\|category=Category:Portal-Class_aviation_articles}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| {{Project-Class\|category=Category:Project-Class_aviation_articles}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| {{Redirect-Class\|category=Category:Redirect-Class_aviation_articles}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| {{Template-Class\|category=Category:Template-Class_aviation_articles}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| {{NA-Class\|category=Category:NA-Class_aviation_articles}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| {{Assessed-Class}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| {{Unassessed-Class\|category=Category:Unassessed_aviation_articles}}
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			\| style="text-align: center;" \| '''Total'''
			\|\| ''''''
			\|-
			{{User:WP 1.0 bot/WikiWork\|project=Aviation\|export=table}}
			\|-
			\|}
			\|-
			\|colspan=2 style="padding:5px; vertical-align:top;"\|<span style="font-size:22px;">'''New/Ongoing Discussions'''</span>
			----
			{{Col-begin}}
			{{Col-2}}

			] '''Featured Article review'''
	==1RR notification on Syrian Civil War articles==
			*''']''' (]) – Since 14 December 2021
	My friend, you are very much mistaken by notifying users on the sanctions (including me). You see, i was one of the people to propose ] and i'm very much aware that non-administrators (like you) are not permitted to issue warnings and/or record them officially at the sanctions log. You are welcome to withdraw all your allegations for the 5 users (], ], ], ], ]), you mistakenly logged in and delete the notifications logs as well. If you don't do it my friend, you might be accused of pretending being an administrator, which you are obviously not. I assume you are simply unfamiliar with the sanctions protocol for that matter - if you suspect someone to violate 1RR, you report to the ], and not take the law into your hands. You were already warned on similar actions by ]. Cheers.] (]) 16:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	:There's a discussion on my talk page about this. Obviously these are not warnings and any editor can place them. ] (]) 18:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::{{replyto\|Dougweller}} See ] on whether and when official warnings may be issued (interpretation of the ARBCOM guidelines).] (]) 21:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	::::] ] They are notifications, not warnings. With the recent clarification that they are not required before punitive actions being taken, and that because they are on the talk page and boldly unavoidable in the edit notice I'm not sure there's much reason to use them further, unless it is on articles that do not have the Syrian war edit notice.~] <small>(])</small> 09:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

			] '''A-class Article assessment'''
	== Fix signature ==
			*] (]) – Since 21 April 2020
			*] (]) – Since 22 February 2010

			] '''Good Article assessment'''
	You need to fix your signature on -- ] (]) 08:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
			*''']''' (]) – Since 25 December 2021
	:] I fixed it. Most likely I missed one of the ~'s. I wouldn't have minded if you would have fixed it yourself. It's an important log and needs to be clear.~] <small>(])</small> 16:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
			*] (]) – Since 2 October 2021
	::Which is why you had to fix it. It is one thing using {{tl\|unsigned2}} on talk pages, but when it comes to sanctions it is better that the i are dotted and the t are crossed by the editor who does the notification. The danger is otherwise we run into ]. -- ] (]) 16:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
	:::] I've had this happen several times, and the last time it happened it was very clear in the changes review that I had used four ~'s. I don't know if it's a bug with my browser or an issue with Wikimedia not substituting the timestamp properly. If it keeps happening I'll ask at Technical to see if it is a general issue that others are experiencing.~] <small>(])</small> 20:36, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::Perhaps the tilde you have at the front of the signature is confusing it, however there is also an option to have the signature placed semi automatically (using the option directly below the edit page) see after the dash, ndash etc where says in bold "'''Sign your posts on talk pages:'''". If you try using that and the error occurs then talk to technical -- ] (]) 20:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

			] '''Merger proposals'''
	==Heads up==
			*] → ] (]) – Since 10 August 2021
	Given your previous comments, here is heads-up over ] -- ] (]) 16:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
			*] → ] (]) – Since 10 August 2021
			*] → ] (]) – Since 10 August 2021
			*] → ] (]) – Since 23 June 2021
			*] → ] (]) – Since 30 May 2021
			*] → ] (]) – Since 29 May 2021
			*] → ] (]) – Since 28 May 2021

			] '''Splitting proposals'''
	== Genuine concern ==
			*] (]) – Since 23 November 2021
			*] (]) – Since 24 September 2021
			*] (]) – Since 16 August 2021
			*] (]) – Since 8 September 2019

			{{Col-2}}
	I know that you don't know me but I would still like to make a genuine offer. Please take some time to consider various of your behaviours that other editors have described with meanings related to aggression. Life is complicated and we all have issues that we need to work through. I'm sure that, if there are people in your social network that you can help and from whom you can receive help. If by any chance you lack such contacts then, without prejudice of activities here, I would be happy to swap contacts and be involved in any suitable way. ] ] 18:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC) edited
			] '''Deletion'''
	:] I'm not sure what you mean by aggression. Have other users described my actions as aggressive? I've backed down from editing in general, trying to recover from this back surgery, which is finally starting to improve luckily. Pain does affect me and I try my best not to make my pain a problem for others, but it could happened. Can you please give me more input on what you mean?~] <small>(])</small> 09:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
			*''']''' (]) – Since 29 December 2021
	:*Even on this page Legacypac has left a message, to which you have not replied, in which x/he talks of you acting vindictively towards him/her. See: ]
	:*] makes regular comment regarding your vindictive action.
	:*In my personal situation I can list several instances of your questionable behaviour. In one instance, which was in relation to an AN/I that you placed against me that related to a discussion with which you had no involvement, you applied amplification and manipulation of an existing rhetorical content. For independent comment PBS it as a "breach of guidance ... as it invites someone to a lynching rather than giving a factual statement of attending a court case." You can go to ] and check various linking methodologies through the use of the "what links here" function.
	::I have not seen your approach to be balanced or proportionate. It is really your responsibility to reflect on your editing behaviours and, for the general good of the community, I sincerely hope that you can do so.
	::] ] 10:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

			] '''Requested moves'''
	@Technophant I have warned Gregkaye not to alter any changes I make to edits made by Gregkaye to the talk pages under the General Sanctions of the Syrian Civil War... . Please read ] and the relevant sections on my talk page (] etc).
			*'''] → ]''' (]) – Since 30 December 2021

			*'''] → ]''' (]) – Since 28 December 2021
	Gregkaye has been a little selective of what I wrote on his talk page about your edits, and has recently linked another section as a heads up () which includes a link to by you (dated 22 October 2014).
			*'''] → ]''' (]) – Since 28 December 2021

			*'''] → ]''' (]) – Since 28 December 2021
	I did not take any action the edit(s) on 22 October 2014, because I did not see it and even if I had I might not have done anything because it was a less obvious breach then the one that Gregkaye made at a later date. As Gregkaye has raised the issue, I wish to explain in more detail.
			*'''] → ]''' (]) – Since 28 December 2021

			*'''] → ]''' (]) – Since 28 December 2021
	Here are two of your posts:
			*'''] → ]''' (]) – Since 27 December 2021
	{{quotation\|
			*'''] → ]''' (]) – Since 26 December 2021
	;Disruptive editing by User<nowiki>:</nowiki>Gregkaye
			*'''] → ]''' (]) – Since 25 December 2021

			*'''] → ]''' (]) – Since 13 December 2021
	{{User3\|Gregkaye}} has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violated ] and talk page consensus. The is an open discussion on ]. If you want to participate in this discussion please go to the discussion at ] and please refrain from discussion here.~] <small>(])</small> 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)}}
			*'''] → ]''' (]) – Since 13 December 2021

			*'''] → ]''' (]) – Since 13 December 2021
	moved 11 minutes later (00:46, 22 October 2014) to a new place within an existing section, edited again at 00:51, 22 October 2014 (and as there was no intervening edits they count as one edit).

	{{quotation\|
	*NOTICE: {{User3\|Gregkaye}} has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violated ] and talk page consensus. The is an open discussion on ]. If you want to participate in this discussion please go to the discussion at ] and please refrain from discussion here. It is against ]. ~] <small>(])</small> 00:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
	}}

	The first part of the edit was unacceptable for exactly the same reason as I explained to Gregkaye why his similarly constructed edit was a breach of ] and ].

	However although the move of the sentences meant that the second part of the edit no longer breached ], it did not place the edit within the guidelines, because the first sentence is phrased in such a way that it invites people to a lynching. If you wished to raise this issue on the talk page all that is need is a simple bland statement along the lines of your second sentence.

	The second sentence is informative for both interested and disinterested editors, without breaching the ] guidelines. Although you probably ought not to advertise such things in article talk space, because what is wanted at AN/I are the opinions of disinterested editors to form a consensus on the specific issue that you think is a breach of policy or guidance. Advertising the AN/I in article talk space tends to turn the AN/I discussion into a Wikidrama which ends up as a continuation of the content debate in another forum. At the end of which the disinterested editors tend to decide "A plague on both your houses" (Shakespeare) and so no consensus is reached and no action taken at AN/I.

	Statements by Gregkaye justifying attack edits on other editors because (s)he thinks that (s)he has suffered similar attacks shows why breaches of the ] guidelines is in the long term counter productive, because it encourages a ] and makes the building of a consensus over content more difficult.

	So, I hope you see why the edit quoted above above was counter productive and not the best way forward, but if you do not, and if you post things in the future that I think clearly breach ] and/or other guidelines, I may take administrative action over such edits. If I do, then I am doing so as an uninvolved administrator under the general sanctions, and, if the action that I take is to edit the talk page, do not change my edits. If you think an administrative action that I have made under the auspices of the general sections, is unreasonable then you may ask me to change it on my talk page. If I refuse and after you have read my explanation why I refuse, then you may of course appeal thorough the usual channels. -- ] (]) 16:16, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
	:] Please strike all content by which you have contravened Misplaced Pages's guidelines in relation to your related lynching adverts.
	:I would further recommend that if you move an edit that you mark it as moved. Please also pay attention to time stamps used. The impression that you gave to me as a pinged editor was of the addition of yet another lynching text which also has the unjustifiable effect of an attempt to shut down related talk page debate.
	:I also want to ask, and please for once answer, in all your many encounters with Misplaced Pages's Administrative resolution systems and in response to accusations of vindictiveness by other editors have you at any point become aware that "what is wanted at AN/I are the opinions of disinterested editors to form a consensus on the specific issue"? By this point I think I deserve honesty. It is needed if there is to be trust between us as editors. These issues should not be merely a matter of skirting rules so as to achieve the best results for a personal agenda but they are best as internal guides of good behaviour.
	:10:15, 3 November 2014 ] ] 13:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
	:@] Thank you for the your detailed explanation of Talk and AN guidelines. I knew that user issues shouldn't be on the Talk page but now have a much better grasp of how to handle any future issues. Perhaps it's best, in most situations, not mention AN/ANI on article talk pages unless there's a pressing need to do so. @] I'll make the redactions you've requested but I feel that your motives are go beyond "genuine concern". I hope we can bury the hatchet and get back to work on things like the series of maps project that got put aside before this all happened.~] <small>(])</small> 23:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
	::@] there has always been a genuine concern. I see the very fact, given your history of conflict, that you needed input on aggression to be a sign that you may not be totally in touch with issues here. I would like to think that you will act cordially, proportionately and fairly with all editors here. These are wider concerns. Again, you have never been involved in the jihadist debate and yet, in short order after the issue had entered into a consensus phase, you added dismissing the whole debate claiming, "I've seen this issue drone on and on". Its just another loaded, biased, manipulative content which, due to context and timing, is also incredibly disruptive. I take your point about mediation but, in the current context, why couldn't you just let things run their course? For whatever reason it has been you that has carried the "hatchet". You that has made use of belittling, sidelining, defamatory and manipulative tactics. My hope is still that you can face up to these issues and conduct yourself on the page in a neutral, more neutral manner. I have genuinely been trying to assume good faith with regard to your actions. If that fails what other conclusions do I have? ] ] 03:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::], you are really taking this too far. You objections are laughable. I was asked to put some input in and I did. Just because things don't always go your way doesn't mean that everybody who doesn't agree with you is "vindictive". Your talk page shows a lot of different editors trying to either resolve things with you are asking you to back down. I'm going to have to do the latter in this case. ~] <small>(])</small> 03:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::] If you sincerely want to bury the hatchet as you describe that will be more than welcome. ] ] 04:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::] yes I really do. I happened to notice your request on PBS's talkpage to do something about my comments (you should ping other users when complaining about them on admin talk page). I feel like you are doing anything and everything in your power to make things more difficult for me as an act of retribution. Please stop. You're just making yourself look bad. You could start by withdrawing your request.~] <small>(])</small> 05:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::] I don't agree with the your presentation above. is my mail on the talk page of ] and your account, intentionally or not, can be read as being disingenuous with an incomplete description of an actual situation. As is apparent on the historical link provided above I had set up the pings and, amongst other content, stated "I would naturally ping the people mentioned but don't want to do that on your user page without permission." There is nothing in the content that I thought that editors might necessarily want to comment directly on but, as you know, the intended pings with full intention of notification. This I took as a clear example of you being disingenuous (but at the time of this text re-edit and, having listened to comment of our ] and still trying to assume good faith, I have decided to consider this an oversight). I also noted that you had seen the edit yet have placed no comment.
	:::::::Editor's can still read related comment on all above situations and come to their own conclusions relating to your comment: "You're just making yourself look bad". I regarded this as being characteristically prejudging and as being out of place. I cannot retract that I do have genuine concerns about the use of language like this and, to me, its use here leaves me with concerns as to whether you have taken the above content to heart. I have made an enquiry, in this case entitled "]" in regard to your "alternate and dismissively worded proposal." I also presented a now edited comment that, "I regard this to be <s>bad faith and</s> disruptive while <s>showing no</s> (<small>add:</small> lacking) willingness to let things run their course." I certainly still think that, in the context, this has an unwarranted effect of disruption and my reasoning was to place this on an admin's talk page for nothing more than the reason to find out what action, if any, might be appropriate. If you think that no wrong has been done then you have nothing to worry about. 06:05, 4 November 2014, edited 06:21, 4 November 2014 and re edited after hopefully conciliatory discussion with ] ] ] 07:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
	*], you shut me out of the conversation on your talk page. I was trying to explain myself. If you take a chance later to re-read what was said the message is that ] and I respect you and want to keep the conversation going so we can at least be on good terms when discussing editing matters.~] <small>(])</small> 16:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
	::] Just to be clear, was the state of dialogue on my page at the time of your last edit above in which you started with your instructions regarding the resolution of a misedit of yours; continued with your cryptic content of a pain related "riddle" that you seemed unwilling to explain; which you then claimed was related to my editing of the lead despite the fact that the conversation had concerned ] which is validated both by your initial comments and by another editors comment part way through; you then proceeded with content that was totally inappropriate in the context of a productive conversation that I had been holding with someone else, namely you came out with a whole range of non-specific allegations. This is phenomenally unhelpful with regard to potential resolution. Show diffs. Raise clear issues that can be reacted to accordingly. I finished with the question as to whether you had ]'s permission to share the information that you shared and whether it was in anyone else's interest other than your own to share it. I am still curious for an answer. I have now moved the content of this roller coaster of an interjection to the last content on my talk page to which you contributed to. Again was another thread that someone else had started that you seem to have felt at liberty to join. I am more than happy to discuss various matters but would prefer to do it without swings in the conversation, riddles, potential breaches of confidence and vague presentation of views. ] ] 17:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

	==Bare URLs==
	You mentioned bare URLs in "Timeline 2" on my Talk page. I have given up on these. I once left a shame list of about 15 on the Talk page and they were gradually reduced, but they keep piling up and I will not convert any more. It is sheer laziness by editors. As the Wikiblame tool is broken, it is no longer possible to tell who the offenders are. When I knew who had left one, I would give them the footnote template I devised, but more often than not it was ignored. I raised this with Dougweller some time ago and he had no solution. I don't know what can be done about this problem. Sometimes an editor will come along and convert some of them using the replacement Reflinks tool, but it is not very good as it leaves out a lot of parameters and the editor will not fill in the missing ones. I don't think Reflinks will return, from what I have read on the Help Desk. I am shocked that there are now '''46''' bare URLs for the page. The most it ever was before at any one time was about 15. What is the solution? Removing edits when editors have left bare URLs? I would suggest getting an admin to do something about it, but when the editor cannot be traced, nothing can be done. As you noted, they are mostly in the Timeline section. ~ ] (]) 07:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	:] If I could find a good tool that can handle them quickly I'd work on them more. Doing them manually is very tedious, however I've done quite a few. I think just taking an ] (it will be one day be corrected) view is perhaps the best thing to do. With modern news services very few of them will actually "link rot" like they did in the past. I'm thinking that if the Timeline is completely cut out of the main article only perhaps 1 in 1000 casual readers will ever see it and the quality of both pages will suffer.~] <small>(])</small> 09:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	::Some months ago I went through all of the footnotes (350 plus) checking they were accurately configured, so that is why I resent cleaning up new bare URLs (there were very few then)! They do get converted eventually by keen editors, but as you say it is very tedious to do now that Reflinks has gone. I am not sure if the new replacement tool collects them before converting or whether you have to use this tool on each one individually. I have been thinking about what you were saying about the Timeline and now agree with you about having some of it in the article. I will note this on the Talk page. ~ ] (]) 09:43, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::] I took your /My template and wrapped it in {{tl\|notice}} and put it in the talk page header . Note: there's no ] to transclusion. Many templates are based on other templates, which are sometimes build on other templates and/or ] (more complex hardcoded functions like the core citation function).~] <small>(])</small> 18:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::That was a brainwave, but I wonder if editors will pay any attention to it, excuse my cynicism. Could you put the text equivalent of flashing lights round it?! Would it be an idea to put it on the ISIS Talk page as well, or is that already overcrowded? Also, I notice the footnote reminder templates(?) at the head of the "References" sections have disappeared. Would it be in order to restore them, perhaps with a reference to those instructions? Anything to make editors take notice and stop leaving bare URLs. ~ ] (]) 19:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::::Could you work on a shorter version? There may be an objection to a custom template. Perhaps there's already one available.~] <small>(])</small> 20:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::::]: Do you mean a shorter version of the footnote instructions template? I could cut it down by five lines. ~ ] (]) 08:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

	===Help page issues===
	] yes, but since your ] "template" is "live" and being used in several places it's prob best to start a new one. Templates are based on transclusion, so any edit made the the template will change it's use everywhere it is transcluded. It would be better to use ] instead of ] when placing on a userpage. I would suggest copying the wikitext into your sandbox or a new userpage like "/citations" or something perhaps more descriptive but not too "prescriptive" and we can work on it together. I haven't slept in 48 hours. I'm quite tired however I have a lot on my mind. I joined ] a few months back because I enjoy rewriting help pages. Surprisingly, my usual minor edits to commonly used template docs, and a small number of minor edits to a few guidelines, essays, and even two policy edits (regarding slurs against persons with disabilities) have not been reverted. You would think that with all the scrutiny on me, and all the people that should be watching, these pages that I would have at least have gotten a comment. I guess I'm doing something right for a change? :-] ~] <small>(]) </small> 10:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
	:I could change the name of the template after removing the five lines I mentioned, but I can't see how to make it descriptive rather than prescriptive when they are instructions on how to compose a footnote. I will adjust the wording and let you have a copy. I am glad you are working on the help pages; they drive me to distraction they are so bad, vague, missing essential steps in how to perform a function, confusing, etc. I always end up on the Help Desk, and I do mean always. The WP Help needs to be completely rewritten, IMO! ~ ] (]) 10:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

	== Re: Concerning your question on ar. wiki ==

	Hello, i saw your question on ar. wiki concerning the two armed men. These two are not members of the ISIS, as mentioned in the description, but rather members of the national resistance to the american forces in Iraq, that pre-dates the appearance of ISIS. For the future, you can always speak English to any user in ar. wiki, in case you don't know Arabic. Google translate is really horrible when it comes to translating full sentencs, some would have better luck understanding English than understanding the google trans. form of Arabic :) Anyway, almost every one in ar. wiki knows English, so you can gurantee you'll always be answerd. Best regards--] (]) 06:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
	:] Thanks for the answer! Ar.wiki is hard to figure out. There doesn't seem to a AN/I type noticeboard there or much discussion in the Tea Room. I find it very difficult to cut and paste arabic, esp. with it wanting to be right to left. The image is being used at ] with the caption "Pair of armed anti-American insurgents from northern Iraq". It's a good photo. Quite striking. ~] <small>(])</small> 07:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

	== Removing not striking ==

	I suggested removing not striking . -- ] (]) 16:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

	@] there's no pleasing you, is there? I can't remove my comments unless Gregkaye first removes his own. I've redacted the part that he objected to. I wish I hadn't written anything about the closing and just steered clear. I'm asking you as an uninvolved admin to place a temporary (+2 month) user ] on ]. I will also leave him alone as well, but will may refer to his edits or ideas if the discussion requires it. ~] <small>(])</small> 17:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
	::I was explicit in what I suggested. But is is of no consequence now because of . -- ] (]) 17:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
	:@] I would appreciate discussion prior to action, either way, being taken. ] ] 17:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
	== Other people's talk page edits ==

	Please don't amend my edits as you did ] ] 17:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
	:I've had enough of your ]ing! I'm asking any uninvolved admin to put a FORMAL <s>temporary</s> ] on ].~] <small>(])</small> 17:40, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
	::And which also served to make the section disappear. ] ] 18:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

			] '''Did you know'''
			*''']''' (]) – Since 30 December 2021
			*''']''' (]) – Since 26 December 2021
			*''']''' (]) – Since 6 December 2021
			*''']''' (]) – Since 3 December 2021
			{{Col-end}}
	----		----
			<span style="font-size:22px;">'''On The Main Page'''</span>
	Technophant, given the exchanges between yourself and Gregkaye today, you must have made either to be provocative, or because your judgement is too poor to realise that it would be provocative.
			----

			'''Did you know...'''
	Now with my administrators hat on. Enough! I am going to revert the edit. You are to stop editing anything to do with pages under the ISIL sanctions or ] for 24 hours. You are not to discuss Gregkaye's behaviour in any other Wikipeida forum. You need time contemplate your actions, at the moment you are heading for a block or a ban. -- ] (]) 18:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
			*... that the ] demonstration aircraft used by ''']''' is also used in military operations of the ]? ''(24 December)''

			\|-
	If you come back in 24 hours and continue where you will leave off now, I will take further administrative actions. -- ] (]) 18:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
			\|colspan=2 style="padding:5px; font-size:12px;"\|

			Discuss & propose changes to ''The WikiEagle'' at ''']''' page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the ''']'''.<br/>
	::To clarify one sentence: " you are not to discuss Gregkaye's behaviour in any other Wikipeida forum". -- ] (]) 20:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
			Newsletter contributor: {{Noping\|ZLEA}}

			\|}
	] - are you addressing me or Gregkaye? Putting restrictions on me makes no sense. I haven't disrupted the Project or any any attacked, provoked, or retaliated. ~] <small>(])</small> 18:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
			] (]) 16:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
	:You! See my comments above about . At the best of times it is not a good idea to ] comments by those where good faith may be lacking. To do it in the middle of a dispute that has dragged in two administrators is a clear breach of either good faith or common sense. -- ] (]) 18:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
			<!-- Message sent by User:ZLEA@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Aviation/WikiEagle/Subscribe&oldid=1063162664 -->

	::I merely re-sized the image that was the topic of the debate. This in now way violates the spirit or letter of the law. Telling me to stop editing under Syrian Civil War sanctions hours after announcing the creation of ] is not acting in good faith, esp. since I in no way disrupted the project pages or project members. I'm going on sabitical and not going to not have internet access for several days to a week. Let's hope that cooler heads prevail when I return. My faith in Wikimedia's control over admin misconduct is once again shattered. ~] <small>(])</small> 19:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

	As you says that you are away long sabbatical/few days to a week, the topic ban and ban on discussing Gregkaye's behaviour in any Misplaced Pages forum, is no longer serving the useful purpose of defusing tension so I am lifting it. -- ] (]) 22:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

	==Requests for Comment/User:PBS==
	{{anchor\|RFC/U\|Request for Comment/User:PBS}}

	{{user3\|PBS}}

	Background: Last week I took Gregkaye to AN/I for disruptive editing (or more accurately ]. Gregkaye has been hounding me about it every since. Today I request I made to admin ] and end with the above bi-lateral sanctions ("You are to stop editing anything to do with pages under the ISIL sanctions or ] for 24 hours. You are not to discuss Gregkaye's behaviour in any other Wikipeida forum.") and connect the dots in between you will see a real disconnect in proportion and logic. PBS has been hostile to me from the start for reasons unknown. What I do know is that this admin is not fair or reasonable in the administrative actions taken.

	I only asked for an IBAN against Gregkaye, and considering the circumstance it is a completely reasonable request. I did not contact PBS, Gregkaye did (]). I'm one of top contributors to ] related topics and in good standing with other project members and just yesterday announced the launch of ] which I can't even edit for pete's sake.

	Remedy: PBS has a ] in being an "uninvolved admin" regarding the ] and related topics. He has acted in the capacity and taken actions that have generated resentments with the top contributors to the article, see RFC/U on talk page re his uni-lateral actions against group consensus re Move Request's and archive for disputes on Archive algo. PBS's action reflect a deep disgust for persons who he views as neutral or supportive of ISIL, a "get out of jail free card" to anti-ISIL editors who are openly trying to sway neutrality and being disruptive.

	Also, formal ] between myself and Gregkaye should be taken to AN/I and discussed there. I needed to leave hours ago so this is my last edit for several days to perhaps over a week.

	Also, I would like there to be an informal ] between myself and PBS. He's only caused me grief.... :-(
	===Section for certifiers===

	'''Certifier:''' ~] <small>(])</small> 19:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

	===Other remarks===
	:This is not certified.] (]) 21:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
	::Corrected "Certified" to "Certifier" above. ]s above remark is obtuse.~] <small>(])</small> 22:52, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::Do you not understand the word obtuse?] (]) 23:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
	::::] I looked it up in the dictionary and apparently I didn't. I meant to say that your remark was terse. I obviously mistook the term certifier and certified. While it isn't certified because there isn't another certifier, it doesn't mean it CAN'T be. There just needs to be another user who certifies it then it should BECOME certified. ~] <small>(])</small> 23:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
	:You don't meet the criteria of a certifier yourself.] (]) 23:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
	::], again another brusque answer. Why not? ~] <small>(])</small> 20:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::Lose the thesaurus, it doesn't make you sound smart. It does make you sound arrogant. The reason you do not meet the criteria as a certifier is there is no evidence provided that you tried and failed to resolve this dispute. That's a requirement at minimum. Another mistake you made btw is that you attempted to bring sanctions thru this RFCU. This is a voluntary process. The only way you can get an IBAN here is if PBS agrees to it. Hopefully when someone notices this was intended to be an RFCU and it wasn't certified in 48 hrs they will delete it, which would be appropriate.] (]) 21:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

	== Blocked again ==

	<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for . If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx\|" code. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. </div><!-- Template:uw-block -->—](]) 02:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

	{{unblock reviewed\|reason=Now that I'm back from my Wikibreak I'm rather surprised to find this block notice. No evasion of topic ban was performed or intended. Topic was Syrian Civil War/ISIL and the draft project page is my creation and I'm in no way limited or blocked from this area. This is not sock puppetry. I just didn't have time to log out. No policy or guideline broken. ~] <small>(])</small> 07:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)\|decline=The page at ] is clearly a conflict-related page so it was covered by your ban. Since there is no defect in the reason for ]'s block you should now be moving toward the steps of ]. That's the part where you should explain how you will act differently in the future. The four numbered points below by PBS appear to be correct. If you actually see no problem with of a conflict-related page at 20:57 November 9 with an IP while <u></u>, imposed at 18:17 on November 9 by ], and you believe you are here due to biased actions by admins then I'm not sure how we get started on an unblock negotiation. My suggestion would be that you review the sequence of events carefully and see if you can come up with a more persuasive unblock request, one that is more believable given the diffs that we can all see. Thanks, ] (]) 17:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC) }}

	===Unblock redux===
	{{unblock reviewed\|reason=First of all the 24 hour "cooldown" topic ban was unfairly placed on both myself and ]. Gregkaye was clearly hounding me and my request for assistance on ]'s talk page were all appropriate. Second, the edit summary I hastily left (simply changing a hard redirect to a soft redirect) was meant to say "trying to help, techno". I had purposfully logged out to prevent accidental editing. My planned (but unwanted) trip to a medical facility was going to be a long one and I wanted this new proposed WikiProject (announced ]) to adopted and furthered by other interested Wikipedians. I wasn't purposefully evading the ill-conceived topic ban however I can see how it could have been taken that way. I honestly didn't even think of it as such as it is a trivial edit that changed nothing of importance. The 24 hour topic ban was lifted a few hours after it was imposed. An indefinite (infinite) BLOCK in response to a ''']''' transgression is way overblown. It doesn't serve any purpose except to increase KWW's dopamine levels. A 5 day block has already been imposed and I think I can safely resume editing without causing disruption.~] <small>(])</small> 21:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)<br>

	Update:
	Most importantly '''the topic ban was lifted by PBS prior to the IP comment!''' See . I thought this was the case, however when I was trying to compare the UTC timestamps to the CST timestamps the system was giving me it didn't seem that this was the case (even though I remember it to be). Again, bogus block, abuse of admin tools and a brand new reason to resume the RFC/U I threatened KWW with the last time he got shitty with me (see my ]).~] <small>(])</small> 22:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)\|decline= Your unblock request doesn't explain . ] (]) 02:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)}}

	:Just to be clear, the reason for the block is not a topic ban violation, it's for logging out and pretending not to be Technophant. It's indefinite because it is clear to me that Technophant has no intention of abiding by any restrictions that are placed upon him or editing within the confines laid out in ]. The fact that we are back here dealing with precisely the same issues as he was blocked for the last time is evidence of his inability to behave appropriately.—](]) 00:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

	{{unblock\|reason=]&]. I can't explain either. I live in the ]. There's over 200 units with some of those units having up to 6 adults living in them sharing a single shared Time Warner Cable internet connection. Perhaps one of the hundreds of users of this "shared machine" was as frustrated as I am about being blocked from editing.

	I often get '''very''' frustrated with it. I just did a Speedtest.net, results 1.4Mbits/s download and '''0.095Mb/sec upload with 10% packet loss'''. In case you can't interpret these results I'l;l do it for you {{emdash}} I have a horrible internet connection not good enough for streaming, Skype, or even ].

	This poor internet connection likely explains some of the odd behavior I've been having such as edit conflicting myself screwed up ~~ signatures.</small>

	If being poor is against PAG then I'm guilty. If I were serious about Socking I would use internet cafes and VPN Tunnels{{endash}}however I'm both A)poor and B)essentially home-bound. The IP in question is a named "sockpuppet of Technophant" so if I really was intending to evade my redickulous 24hour topic ban why da fuck would i use an ip that is already identified as my own? I may be a lot of things, however stupid isn't one of them. ~] <small>(])</small> 11:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)}}

	===Unblock comments===

	*{{ping\|KWW}} I've grown tired of your abuse of admin tools and status. Please AGF. ~] <small>(])</small> 07:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

	*KWW childish abuse? Before PBS was the problem admin. You socked. You got caught. The Irony is PBS reversed their topic ban. Two hours before the IP sock showed up to help you. Your improper RFCU that you tried to pass off to another unwilling user brought attention to you and the sock puppetry was discovered. Above you yourself suggest that said topic ban would prevent you from editing that wikiproject and then here at your unblock request you take a different stance. Why would any reasonable admin unblock you when you want take ownership for your own activity and you haven't done anything to address your behavior? You deny wrong doing but all evidence suggests otherwise. What I would propose to you is that you agree to a topic ban on ISIL related topics, you admit your wrong doing, and you ensure them that you will not not do that again in exchange for removal of this indef block.] (]) 21:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

	*Above technophant offers that the edit that got his ban happened an hour after being unblocked. here is that edit. Here is the unblock. Do correct me if I'm wrong someone but it does seem that this happened more than an hour before they were unblocked.] (]) 22:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

	{{ping\|Technophant}}It's not clear to me but it seems that you are suggesting impropriety of some sort on the part of at least one of the admins here. I would like to ask if that is what you are suggesting? If so that is that is a very serious allegation and if you like, I or someone else can take this to ANI or the appropriate location of your choosing for you.] (]) 23:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
	:] - From one disabled Wikipedian to another, I'm having an hard time seeing your fascination with my plight. I know these are strong accusations and they are not ones made without careful consideration. I've had almost a week to "cool off" re my bogus 24 hour TBAN. I was shocked after logging in after my hospital stay to see that I was blocked! I wish I hadn't logged in last night and just went to sleep...~] <small>(])</small> 00:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
	::I have no fascination with your plight. You don't seem to understand your plight. I'm trying to help you with that. You really aren't helping yourself with some of your actions here. As far as your accusations against some of the ADMINS, they are very serious, and if you wish them to be reviewed in the appropriate venue that is with in your right. Since you are blocked I or another person here can help you. By help you I mean that we can take your complaint there for you.] (]) 01:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::] - Thank your for your offer. Q: have you ever been blocked before? It's majorly disruptive. I have a very important role here at enwiki and being limited to only my talk page is very very very very very (very) wrong. Whether I made the comment 1 hour before or after I was unblocked; what difference does it make at this point?! I'm confused about it myself. I did not intend to edit against TBAN, in the rush to get ready to be admitted to the hospital I simply didn't bother to log in and that isn't against the rules as far as I know. KWW has lost his humanity and should surrender his sysop flag (or just agree to a informal IBAN). I've been told that he is a "very respected admin" but I fail to see what (if anything) is respectable in his behaviour. :-/ ~] <small>(])</small> 12:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

	{{od}}
	I find it incredible that an otherwise intelligent editor here can believe they can get away with such deception. The edit summaries are plain:
	{{collapse top\|title=useless drivel}}
	* 20:57, November 9, 2014: '''Lie 1'''. IP tries to pretend to be someone helping techno:
	:* ()

	* 02:37, November 10, 2014: Kww then blocks Technophant and notifies them:
	:* ()

	* 03:19, November 10, 2014: Kww blocks IP:
	:* ()

	* 06:55, November 15, 2014: '''Lie 2'''. IP (whom we know is Technophant) then lies and removes an ipsock tag:
	:* ()

	* 09:01, November 15, 2014: ] calls it "deceptive" (see above under point 2):
	:* ()

	* 21:55, November 15, 2014: '''Lie 3'''. Technophant admits the IP was him and claims a comma was missing from the edit summary:
	:* ():

	No matter how you cut it, deception occurred THREE TIMES, with the IP edits just like the last incident of deliberately logging out to make a questionable edit. We have a pattern here. Even if there had been no topic ban and evasion to edit it using an IP, logging out deliberately to make IP edits (in the same area) is not usually allowed. You should use your account.

	Also, none of Technophant's comments above (see also contribution history for deleted comments above) indicate anything more than blaming others for his problems. Any improvement only occurs when under threat of a block or ban, and such behavior cannot be tolerated. There is nothing to indicate that this user is capable of self-policing their behavior, since they see no need to do so because "it's everyone else's fault"....
	{{collapse bottom}}

			== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
	The block should be maintained and talk page access blocked. Let's stop the disruption here and get back to editing. They can appeal the block in a year. -- ] (]) 23:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
	:I feel the need to interject there Brangifer. It is possible that this IP is for a longterm stay hotel that has 200 units and that 30 students from 8-18 use it. It is possible that an individual other than Technophant removed that and that the person who removed it has no clue whom technophant is. It's possible and reasonable.] (]) 23:51, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
	:: It is neither "possible or reasonable". What are the chances that someone else, purely by chance, is staying at the same hotel, editing from the same IP, and following along with this whole drama? Let's just apply ] here, shave/slice away such a nonsensical idea, and admit the most likely person doing it was Technophant, especially since he actually admits it! Since he admits it, why are you playing devil's advocate? It's a bit late to do that. -- ] (]) 00:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::] You are now banned from editing my userpage so suck on this - you're wrong. Read my new unblock reason. It is so sad and humiliating to admit the sad truth behind the "Great Technophant" is just a sad/sick old man with genius IQ and an over-abundance of good faith. I'm dedicated to the idea of trying to have my work on Misplaced Pages be my sole lasting legacy that I leave the world.~] <small>(])</small> 12:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::I disagree. Unless they admitted that they made that specific edit I don't think theres a way to know. If they did I hope they would just admit it. While it seems these 30 or so students do not edit wikipedia it's not clear how many of them read wikipedia. Any one of those could have responded to the alert that the IP would have received. ] (]) 00:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
	:::: ], I'm beginning to wonder if we are talking about different edits. What is the diff for the one you're referring to? -- ] (]) 02:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	:::::If so I do apologise but I thought you were talking to this. Unless Technophant has admitted to that edit then it's plausible that it was done by an uninvolved party that doesn't know what is going on. They have admitted this edit was there's and I have missed in which case I apologise again.] (]) 02:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
			<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div>
	:::::: I can see what you mean, ''if'' I really stretch. Since Technophant had admitted previous edits with that IP were his, and since all the edits, including and since July 24, 2014, are consistent with his interests and activities here, I see no reason to think otherwise, but it's not totally impossible.
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
	:::::: It would be odd for an uninvolved IP editor there to access the talk page, but make no other edits. There are lots of things IP users often don't know: (1) their own IP number; (2) that someone else has edited Misplaced Pages with their IP; (3) that they even have a talk page here; (4) much less its location here. It takes lots of prior knowledge to do all that. It's far more plausible to believe that Technophant made in an effort to deceive, something we know him to do, considering that two previous edits at Misplaced Pages by that IP were probably him, and all subsequent edits as well. Once an editor like him has proven that we should not AGF in their defensive comments, everything unravels and we discover lots more evidence of devious behavior. I've seen this happen many times with other editors who engage in sockpuppetry. That's why I hate sockpuppetry. It destroys the open and trustful atmosphere here.
			Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y\|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data\|2022\|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
	:::::::Do not get me wrong. It's just as plausible that they did make that edit. And if they did I wish they would simply admit to it.However that's not ultimately important. This deceptive edit is the same as the one that got them indeffed in the first place. To get unblocked I do think they will have to convince the admins they are of no risk for further disruption. That's really going to take some convincing on their part because of their previous actions. From my non-admin POV I do think that they would have to agree to a indef syrian civil war topic ban (broadly interpreted) since this subject is what seems to me to have lead to this. They would need to demonstrate they understand that their socking is unacceptable to the wikipedia community, and since they show the competence of a new user I think they show an effort to learn and conform to wikipedia policy such as going to the teahouse or adopt-a-user. This of course is my non-admin POV. But the block here is not a punishment. An indef block is not permanent. It could theoretically last 5 minutes or even 10 years. Simply put it's as long as it needs to be.] (]) 04:06, 16 November 2014 (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.
	Technophant you really need to read some of the stuff being said down here. You stand up their saying that you made the edit that got you banned here more than an hour after you were unblocked, however the diffs I provide show that you made the edit more than an hour before you were unblocked. I honestly do not feel that you have any chance of being unblocked if you keep evading the responsibility for your actions. ] (]) 00:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

			If you wish to participate in the 2022 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>] (]) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
	: Exactly! We cannot AGF in Technophant. -- ] (]) 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

			</div>
	::] I asked in an edit summary for an IBAN from this professional physical therapist/deadly character assassin. Seriously dude, you're a THERAPIST! You supposedly heal ppl, however the only thing I've seen you do here is use your expertise in human anatomy and psychology to harm. You are also a member of a professional certifying organization, ergo you need to declare your COI regarding articles such as acupuncture and chiropractic. I wouldn't at all be surprised to find out that you have professional and/or financial connections with one of the many PT professional bodies and have a vested interest in promoting your personal POV while punishing other POV's (paid editor). Please do not EVER interact with User:Technophant again or any of his affiliated pages (broadly construed). Pushing past this firm and non-negotiable boundry WILL lead to sanctions.~] <small>(])</small> 12:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
			</div>
			<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1124425182 -->

			== Topic ban appeal ==
	==Considering Resignation==
	{{anchor\|considering retirement}}
	The Misplaced Pages of old, as immortalized in the ] created by {{u\|Jimmy Wales}} and a few other free spirits, has been crushed, gone, replaced by a ] where only the well-connected few succeed. ] is gone. Ignore all rules (except the five pillars) has been replaced by a confusing word-salad of cryptic acronyms (instruction creep). ] has been replaced by ] articles that pass for encyclopedic. And the most revolutionary, and ] part, of Misplaced Pages being "free content that anyone can edit" only applies to those who use IP edits and aren't afraid of being reverted mercilessly because they don't conform to the dominant ] point of view.

			I have as unsuccessful. There was also a consensus that you may not appeal this topic ban again for two years from this date. ] (]) 02:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
	In addition all editors, and especially admins, should conform to Wikimedia's Foundation polices including ] and ]. Everybody who volunteers time editing Wikimedia projects are legally considered to be "volunteer employees" and are entitled to all of the protections any volunteer employee in the state of California is entitled to. Deliberate intimidation, stalking, unwelcome following and failure to treat other people with respect should be ground for '''immediate termination'''. Reporting procedures should be clearly posted and easy to complete. Contact Chief Talent and Culture Officer ] for more information. I used to really really enjoy editing enwiki. Maybe someday the Board will once again take the reigns and get this project back on track.

			:{{ping\|ScottishFinnishRadish}} I wish the users at AN put more effort and time into their decisions. There may be more than this, but the “straw that broke the camel’s back” was a edit that slightly reformatted a reference link, a revision that produced the same text output as the original but didn’t need to be reverted but did by Doc James. How do I search for only my edits for a topic or page? ] (]) 02:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
	== Proposed deletion of Daily Sabah ==
			::Hi, I hope you don't mind a word from me, but there really was no other way that appeal at AN was going to go, no matter how long it stayed open or how much time people put into it. And the "straw that broke the camel's back" edit, if there is one, is not really relevant. Your topic ban is based on your general approach to alternative medicine topics, which does not appear to be in line with the Misplaced Pages approach. That approach is to base content on what the consensus of mainstream medical science says, and not on our own disagreements with that, alternative analysis of evidence, our own opinions, or claims of personal experience and expertise. If mainstream medical science turns out to be wrong on a specific issue, Misplaced Pages will echo that only after the medical consensus has changed. In short, your approach to writing about medical topics and Misplaced Pages's approach are not compatible, so you really will need to find different topics to write about here. I do think it would be best for you to stay away from medical topics, and I wish you well with your health issues. ] (]) 06:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
	]

			== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
	The article ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	:'''This newspaper is the subject of ] which has more material and doesn't exhibit some of the promotional tone in this page. If there's anything unique here it should be merged.'''

			<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
	While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be ].
			<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
			<div class="ivmbox-text">
			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.
	You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].

			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>] (]) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
	Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> ] (]) 05:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

			</div>
	:{{ping\|SBaker43}} A lot of good this notice does when I can't do anything to fix it. (see KWW's "sockblock" above) ~] <small>(])</small> 11:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
			</div>
			<!-- 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/03&oldid=1187132125 -->

Latest revision as of 00:33, 28 November 2023

I am semi-active, response time may be days to weeks.

MfD nomination of Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force, 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/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Syria/Syrian Civil War task force 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. PC78 (talk) 17:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I was too late on to vote, however I marked it as inactive and I'm fine with deletion. Technophant (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Response about Clampi on the Cleanup project page

Hey Technophant, have you seen my response? Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 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) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

NSFW

Just a quick note, as I saw your edit on the Death of Darren Rainey page: There is no NSFW on Misplaced Pages; it is uncensored and for educational purposes. See Misplaced Pages:NOTCENSORED

Happy editing! Kirby777 (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 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) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The WikiEagle - January 2022

The WikiEagle

The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter

Volume I — Issue 1

Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle

Announcements

After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue.
Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion.
The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7.
The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed.
The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125.
The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.

Members

New Members

KingAviationKid (Joined on 17 December)
PatrickChiao (Joined on 22 December)
Wp9097 (Joined on 16 December)

Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921.

Closed Discussions

Featured Article assessment

Jim Lovell (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021

Good Article assessment

HAL Tejas (discussion) – Closed as not promoted on 30 December 2021
William Hodgson (RAF officer) (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021
Supermarine Sea King (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 22 December 2021
Raymond Hesselyn (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 4 December 2021

Deletion

Timeline of Berlin Brandenburg Airport's construction (discussion) – Closed as delete and redirect on 30 December 2021
Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (discussion) – Closed as keep on 25 December 2021

Requested moves

Akbarpur (Ambedkar Nagar) Airstrip → Akbarpur Airstrip (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021
1983 Avensa Douglas DC-9 crash → Avensa Flight 007 (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 035 (discussion) – Withdrawn on 28 December 2021

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from DMY.

Aviation pages by quality
Quality
Quality	Total
FA	142
FL	15
A	56
GA	505
B	4,573
C	11,878
Start	15,082
Stub	18,754
List	2,539
Category	11,638
Disambig	653
File	2,713
Portal	629
Project	89
Redirect	1,518
Template	2,489
NA	66
Assessed	73,339
Unassessed	1
Total	73,340
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 251,879	Ω = 4.91

New/Ongoing Discussions

Featured Article review

D. B. Cooper (discussion) – Since 14 December 2021

A-class Article assessment

Granville Gee Bee Model A (discussion) – Since 21 April 2020
List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War (discussion) – Since 22 February 2010

Good Article assessment

Romanian Air Corps (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021
Jean Batten (discussion) – Since 2 October 2021

Merger proposals

List of astronauts by name → List of astronauts by year of selection (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021
List of cosmonauts → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021
List of space travelers by name → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021
Holidays Czech Airlines → Czech Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 June 2021
Bendix Aviation → Bendix Corporation (discussion) – Since 30 May 2021
Airport Movement Area Safety System → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 29 May 2021
ASDE-X → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 28 May 2021

Splitting proposals

Family Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 November 2021
2021 Kabul airport attack (discussion) – Since 24 September 2021
List of military aircraft of the United States (discussion) – Since 16 August 2021
Braniff International Airways (discussion) – Since 8 September 2019

Deletion

List of maiden voyages (discussion) – Since 29 December 2021

Requested moves

Hot-air balloon → Hot air balloon (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021
Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 → Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 150 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 708 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 892 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 892 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
TWA Flight 800 → TWA Flight 800 (1996) (discussion) – Since 27 December 2021
Dynamic Airways Flight 405 → Dynamic International Airways Flight 405 (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021
CommutAir Flight 4281 → CommutAir Flight 4821 (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021
Thai Airways → Thai Airways International (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021
Thai Airways fleet → Thai Airways International fleet (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021
List of Thai Airways destinations → List of Thai Airways International destinations (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021

Did you know

Ravish Malhotra (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021
Alexander Tahy (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021
Veronica Volkersz (discussion) – Since 6 December 2021
Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (discussion) – Since 3 December 2021

On The Main Page

Did you know...

... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Topic ban appeal

I have closed your topic ban appeal as unsuccessful. There was also a consensus that you may not appeal this topic ban again for two years from this date. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I wish the users at AN put more effort and time into their decisions. There may be more than this, but the “straw that broke the camel’s back” was a edit that slightly reformatted a reference link, a revision that produced the same text output as the original but didn’t need to be reverted but did by Doc James. How do I search for only my edits for a topic or page? Technophant (talk) 02:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you don't mind a word from me, but there really was no other way that appeal at AN was going to go, no matter how long it stayed open or how much time people put into it. And the "straw that broke the camel's back" edit, if there is one, is not really relevant. Your topic ban is based on your general approach to alternative medicine topics, which does not appear to be in line with the Misplaced Pages approach. That approach is to base content on what the consensus of mainstream medical science says, and not on our own disagreements with that, alternative analysis of evidence, our own opinions, or claims of personal experience and expertise. If mainstream medical science turns out to be wrong on a specific issue, Misplaced Pages will echo that only after the medical consensus has changed. In short, your approach to writing about medical topics and Misplaced Pages's approach are not compatible, so you really will need to find different topics to write about here. I do think it would be best for you to stay away from medical topics, and I wish you well with your health issues. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:20, 21 September 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.

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) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)