Misplaced Pages

User talk:Abecedare: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:40, 5 September 2018 editDiannaa (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators349,483 edits →Nauriya: Here's what I mean when I say I will watch.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:43, 24 December 2024 edit undoLukeEmily (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,526 edits →Happy Holidays: new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 5: Line 5:
''</center> ''</center>
}} }}
{{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}}
{{wikibreak|image=Travel by Stagecoach Near Trenton, New Jersey MET APS2365.jpg|imagesize=120px|align=center|message=Upcoming travel will limit my access to and time on wikipedia. Back on Sep 5th.}}
{{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}}.


{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 150K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 22 |counter = 26
|algo = old(21d) |algo = old(21d)
|archive = User talk:Abecedare/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Abecedare/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}


==Yo Ho Ho==
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] ]


] ] is wishing you ]! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's ] or ], ], ], ], ], ] or even the ], this is a special time of year for almost everyone! <br />


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
<small>Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{]:]}} to your friends' talk pages</small>.
{{clear}}
</div>


Hello,
== Disruptive User ==


The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
Hi, This user ] is inserting his own name in various films Articles , , ... Its really very hectic and time wasting exercise to clean up this mess.. He is clearly ]... Can something be done?? Thanks -- ] (]) 12:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
:{{reply|Adamstraw99}} Left them a message about wikipedia's promotional editing and COI policies. Lets see if they continue after your warning and this. Many persons don't even realize that they are ''not'' supposed to update wikipedia entries to document their life/careers. ] (]) 13:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
:: Thanks for your action --] (]) 13:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
== ] ==


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
I think someone might have to personally explain privately to both 'the new Mrs Sheikh' and Lord Sheikh, individually, that the House of Lords and the ] (the College are a non-governmental department within the Royal Household (ie Buckingham Palace) which <u><b>also</u></b> administers the membership list of the House of Lords) demand and require, per protocol (set out by <i>the Palace</i> in consultation with the Home Office and the House of Lords, and recorded in the likes of ]), that the previous wife (as she still sits as a trustee and a director of Lord Sheikh's personal and family charity, according to the filings released online by ] and by the ]) ceases the use of the title 'Lady' upon the remarriage of a life Peer, and that might cause 'some difficulties' (to put it mildly!) in terms of relationship between Lord Sheikh and his daughter (possibly also a trustee and a director), for one thing! Lord Sheikh and Muradova probably went off to ] to undergo a 'customary Islamic marriage ceremony' in 2015, thinking that it doesn't count back here in England as 'wife' for the purpose of the College and the House authorities. -- ] (]) 13:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
:I haven't looked at the particulars of the subject's marriage(s), which are best discussed, along with supporting ] and awareness of ], by editors on the article talkpage. In the meantime, I'd suggest that you too stop speculating about the motives of the various persons involved and insinuating that the IP editing the page is one of those persons. See ]. ] (]) 13:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


]
:: Peers of the Realm (such as he is, as a life Peer) are entitled to 'enroll' their (family) 'pedigrees' in the College of Arms and they generally also have the likes of the details of their marriages etc recorded and entered separately in the likes of ] ... only those would suffice <u><b>and nothing else</u></b>, what I am <u><b>really</u></b> saying is! (<i>The burden of proof</i> has to be such, because the wife of a Peer, <u><b>provided that the marriage ceremony (wedding) is known</u></b> (and was legally valid in the first place, and the ceremony validly held), is automatically entitled to the style of (to call herself and requires herself to be called) 'Lady'.) -- ] (]) 15:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
::: 87.102, discussion of what sources would be acceptable is pre-mature until someone actually digs up some potential sources for the marriage(s). I am not particularly interested in the topic, so I haven't searched for sources myself. In any case, all this is best discussed at ], where interested editors are more likely to see it. ] (]) 15:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
:::: That would be too libellous (I suspect you might in fact be based in India rather than here in England, but who knows and also that's 'by-the-by'!)... look, here in England, copies of the latest (or reasonably modern) editions of Debretts are generally available at the ] and 'all good' University libraries and reference libraries. This is what <u><b>we</b></u> (generally) go by (rely on), for things like that. (And any future discussion should bear this (discussion) in mind.) -- ] (]) 16:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
== ] ==
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins&oldid=27650221 -->


== Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research ==
Please take a look at the recent edits to ] page. Thanks. – ] (]) 08:38, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


Hello,
:{{reply|Jakichandan|Raju Babu}} The current version can perhaps be improved/split to make the distinction between the "Susta rural municipality" and the (disputed) "Susta village" territory clearer, but overall it looks to be a marked improvement over the previous versions (eg, ). The remaining issues can be discussed at ] and, if needed, more editors from the ] and ]-wikiproject can be invited to help. ] (]) 14:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
:{{reply|Abecedare}} I was wondering if the Nepalese government uses the term "Susta rural Municipality" to refer to the same disputed territory or "Susta Village" and the "Susta rural municipality" is different? Moreover, the currently cited sources apparently don't give the exact detail of who currently controls the disputed territory.—] (]) 15:04, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
::(after ec) Yes, it is confusing! Let me start this discussion on the article talkpage where more editors interested in the topic can see it, and perhaps we can figure it out. I have watchlisted the article and will chime in after I have read the sources properly, and if I have something useful to add. ] (]) 15:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
:Will it be okay to move this discussion from here to ] via copy paste or should a new discussion be started there? Thanks. —] (]) 15:07, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
::{{reply|Jakichandan}} See ]. Since the above conversation between us is short enough, IMO it is easier to just repeat the pertinent bits on the article talkpage, instead of copying the whole. Cheers. ] (]) 15:15, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
:I have repeated on the article talk page. Thanks.—] (]) 16:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ].
*{{reply|Jakichandan}} To address your "{{tq|I was wondering if the Nepalese government uses the term "Susta rural Municipality" to refer to the same disputed territory or "Susta Village" }}"
:Possibly, although since the area and population of the municipality is larger than those of the disputed region, it may only ''contain'' the latter. But I'll need to read the source(s) in detail before I can comment with any certainty. ] (]) 16:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
{{OSM Location map
|coord = {{coord|27|21|27.1|N|83|52|4.56|E}}
|zoom = 12
|mark-coord ={{coord|27|21|27.1|N|83|52|4.56|E}}
|mark-title=Susta
|mark1 =Red pog.svg
|mark-size = 10
|caption = Susta village on the eastern side of river
}}
*{{reply|Jakichandan|Abecedare}} According to the former administrative structure susta village (east of Gandak river) was part of ] village development committee (ward no. 4), after restructuring of the administrative divisions (after 10 March 2017) Susta village is part of '''Susta rural municipality''' of ]. '''Susta village''' has approximately 5000 acres of area only but '''Susta Rural Municipality''' has 91.24 sqkm area. The Susta village is surrounded by India from north, east and south, Gandak river flows from west whenever, Susta Rural Municipality (mainland) is situated other side of river connected with Nepal.---]] 17:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
:Check it on google map, showing susta as a part of Nepal {{Google maps|url= https://www.google.com/maps/place/Susta,+%E0%A4%A8%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B2/@27.3552864,83.8660721,14z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x3994144825698da7:0x26770cda8e596e04 |title=Susta |accessdate=17 August 2018}}---]] 18:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


Take the survey ''''''.
::{{reply|Raju Babu}} Thanks for the additional notes. I'll take a look and comment at ], perhaps over the weekend. ] (]) 19:13, 17 August 2018 (UTC)


Kind Regards,
== RevDel for CopyVios ==


]
needed ], appreciate if you can help to take care of it. thanks. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 18:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
: Done. Thanks for catching and reporting it. ] (]) 19:02, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
::Some more revdels needed from the same user ] --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 16:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
::: Done. Thanks again. ] (]) 19:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
== Barred symbols ==
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Current_Admins_(reminders)&oldid=27744339 -->
Just a quick query/suggestion regarding "]," which seems to imply that such a block is according to policy. Were you alluding to ]? A few argued that it was applicable but a significant portion of the support was seemingly due to users thinking it was the right thing to do with little mention of policy. I think the word "change" is the issue. Strike that word and the implicit assertion that such a block is according to policy goes away. I could, however, be reading more into it than is there. Best regards, <small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 00:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
:{{reply|Godsy}} As you suspect, you are reading more into it than was there. I simply meant that any general discussion about whether wikipedia's P&G should further codify what content, userboxes, images etc are/aren't allowable on userpages belongs at VPP.
:FWIW, I believe ]'s block was entirely proper and flows directly from what ] and ] (see esp. ]). ] (]) 00:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
::Sure, ] could be argued as well. I think the block should have been based on, likely justly, the editors talk page and article contributions. I just do not think that the bare application of ] to one's userpage warrants a block as some other users seemed to believe, especially when e.g. userboxes like ] exist and are in use. <small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 01:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</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|2024|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.
::: Yes, it is possible that an editor may add the ] image for innocent reasons, in which case a block would be unjustified. But I don't think that hypothetical is of much value in this ''particular'' instance.
::: ''Historical aside'': Back sometime in 2006-2008 there was a big wikipedia-wide debate on whether (IIRC) the ]'s welcome template should continue to include the ]. The project members, of course, used the symbol entirely without any allusion to ] but that wouldn't have always been obvious to a new editors not familiar with the symbols use in India/Hinduism. Somewhere on wikipedia that debate must still be archived, and will provide all the pro-and-con arguments about such image use. Cheers. ] (]) 01:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::::If you have a few hours, read through ] and ]; and that was ''far'' from the only place the debate was happening. Happy reading! :) ] (]) 01:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
*Since I was pinged: Yes, I’m more vocal in my belief that we should block on sight for stuff like this (and I’m willing to be the guy who makes the blocks when needed), but our pretty consistent practice for the last few years at least has been that we block people who openly display Nazi propaganda images and Nazi iconography on their userpage. NPOV (which is the principle that is usually being appealed to indirectly when these blocks come up) does not mean we have to treat the Nazi like we treat other editors: the principle mandates that we treat him in a way that is consistent with the ideals and objectives of our project and movement as well as the policies of our local community. Displaying an image like he displayed with the clear intent that he had was in itself an act of violence (emotional and mental) against a significant part of the editorial population that Nazis and white nationalists think would be better off murdered and dead. That action is inherently incompatible with everything Misplaced Pages stands for: it is a form of harassment against Jewish editors, editors of colour, Roma editors, LGBT editors, and anyone else that evil ideology has in the past or currently wishes dead. Such an act is disruptive because it impacts the ability of Misplaced Pages to function as a collaborative project, and admins have long had the discretion to block for disruptive edits not formally codified in policy but which are a detriment to the project. ] (]) 03:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::{{reply to|TonyBallioni}} Perhaps that has been the practice as of late. Other than that, I largely disagree for various reasons. However, I am not willing to defend the placement of abhorrent symbols or ideology userboxes on userpages unless the need arises. The day an editor making unquestionably constructive edits (i.e. clearly leaving their ideologies out of their editing) wants to put such things on their userpage, should it ever arrive, is the day we can cross that bridge. That clearly was not the case in this instance; as I made clear at AN/I: my problem was with the block reason, not necessarily the block. Best regards, <small>—&nbsp;]<sup>&nbsp;(]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-2.0ex;">])</sub></small> 07:56, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
:::I think the point is such a day will never come as that is an inherently disruptive action. ] (]) 08:48, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
::::This conversation reminds me of ] which I recently noticed, there used to be only one tranclusion to the user's page, now none (]). I also just tagged ] for notwebhost... Something more interesting and likely fine is ]. —]] – 09:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2024 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>] (]) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
== A cup of coffee for you! ==


</div>
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
</div>
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 -->
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For closing that darn ANI thread. ] (]) 17:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
|}
: The closing was easy. ''Reading'' it was hard. Coffee needed and appreciated. :) ] (]) 17:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
:: Toward the end ''Participating'' in it got very coffee-requiring. LOL ] (]) 19:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


== Season's Greetings ==
==Son of Kolachi==


{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FFF7E6;"
{{user|Son of Kolachi}} started out his Wiki editing with edit warring on ], and even after coming back from a arbitration enforcement block, he still edit warred on that article that it was protected by EdJohnston and now only extended confirmed users can edit it.
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Season's Greetings'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | <blockquote>When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it." </blockquote>


(Text on page 17 illustrated in the ] in ]'s ''Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers'', illustrated by ], London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.)
He is still edit warring as he edit warred on ] by reverting two times without starting or participating on talk page before 2 reverts, and now that page is protected by EdJohnston and only extended confirmed users can edit it.


]] 04:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Son of Kolachi seems to be a sock of Mfarazbaig.
|}

*With both exclusively working on "photo" on ], Mfarazbaig added enough images on ]. Son of Kolachi is edit warring to restore images.
*Both updated ] with same reference style, and have special interest in ].

These similarities comes after the SPI. While I note that "unrelated" result takes things into a different level, this sock farm is made up of paid editors and socks often come as "unrelated" while completely matching the behavior. It is more clear in this case that Mfarazbaig is behind this account.

Last year, when Mfarazbaig was socking as IPs, (see Bearen Hunter's note on blocking this IP range) the IPs geolocated to the same area as they do with the IP, {{ip|39.57.170.104}}, which was abused by Son of Kolachi on this article before he started using his account to continue the edit war.

In the case of Son of Kolachi, the case is clear that this is not a new user at all, he is too focused with edit warring on subjects where he is defending rather poor edits and indeed disrupting this subject by turning less controversial articles into extended confirmed protected articles and he apparently knows he should not do this. ] (]) 07:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

:{{reply|Lorstaking}} If you think ] should have been blocked instead of the ] and ] articles being edit-protected you should discuss that with the concerned admin, ], although my guess is that Ed chose page-protection because the problem at those pages is not limited to one user. The rest of Son of Kolachi's recent edits should be handle-able through the regular BRD process.
: As for potential socking, that is best discussed at ]. I have learned to be not-surprised at the extent of sock/meat-puppetry in this area and therefore can ''imagine'' it happening in this case too; however, given CU's "unrelated" finding at ], behavioral evidence would need to be particularly strong. ] (]) 15:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

:{{ping|Bbb23}} {{ping|Ivanvector}} You guys investigated this and the result came "Unrelated". I don't even know this guy and had no interaction with Lorstaking. Yet they tend to level an accusation against me. I don't know what to make of this. ] (]) 17:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

::Hi Abecedare, thanks for handling this. Bbb23 and I have both already declined admin action with this set of evidence: Bbb23 ran CU on Son of Kolachi against Liborbital (the sockmaster of whom Mfarazbaig is a confirmed sock) and found the accounts unrelated, and Lorstaking's behavioural analysis (the same one they've offered here) was and is unconvincing. Ed also evidently saw that the disruption is not limited to one user and saw fit to protect the page instead, which was a wise response. {{ul|Lorstaking}} is just here adminshopping, in the same pattern as I noted () in the NadirAli topic ban thread: that Lorstaking's allies in the India-Pakistan topic war agitate through whichever venues have not already rejected them, seeking sanctions against their editorial opponents in order to "win" content disputes.

::This request is harassment and it's clearly intended to be harassment. If I see any more of these repeat investigations and/or adminshopping from this group of editors, I'm going to block them. I'm done warning them. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 21:42, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Ivanvector}} Read ] for understanding when blocks are made. Read ] for understanding that you are not allowed to block editors you feud with. Violation of either can lead to desysoping. My above request was intended to get rid of disruption and there are multiple concerns raised here. You are replying this 30 hours old thread after following a ping made by a disruptive account for continuing your ] and it speaks against you only. Overriding an admin call where you are ] is in fact worse. Your clear assumption of bad faith only makes the problem worse. You are not allowed to protect any editor from being reported even if you weren't WP:INVOLVED. Bbb23 didnt declined the report but left it open for behavioral analysis. Who told you that Mfarazbaig is a confirmed sock of Liborbital? He is unrelated to Liborbital. Which "NadirAli topic ban thread" are you recalling? There has been no such thread. Given the factual errors in your brief comment, I don't have to explain things any further but acknowledge that you can easily err. I strongly recommend you to familiarize yourself with the policies and work in a collegial environment. Alternatively, you can stay out if your presence has been completely unhelpful like here. ] (]) 03:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
:::: What's the point of all this war of words and threats? If there is a specific issue, that can be dealt with at the right time and venue. Else, lets just spend the time improving some article or, you know, otherwise enjoying the weekend! ] (]) 04:43, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

== WP:IUC at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally&action=history ==

Can you check here why some are restoring uncivil comments?

"If you just want to bitch about WP, go write a fucking blog and leave the rest of us alone to actually do the work of writing an encyclopedia"

Civility restriction: Users are required to follow proper decorum during discussions and edits. Users may be sanctioned (including blocks) if they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:17, 27 August 2018‎ (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
:Thanks 109.225 for reporting that 9-day old edit. But while ] may sometimes make us appear naive, it doesn't make us stupid. ] (]) 00:55, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

My question is, is it breaking WP:IUC or not? since copying that comment in the talk page got it autocensored so you had to modify it when you quote it there. now if there is an autocensor on a comment, if that is not a rulebreak comment then what is?

Can you tell me what part of that sentence has to do with changing the article?


On another note, I suppose it does not break the Palestine vs Israel arbitration, since faith goldy did attend in Israel and was pro Israel, so them calling supporters of Israel neo Nazis is not NPOV then either or?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iJqp0sNVCU <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:52, 29 August 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:And my question, which I'm going to look at more, is how many blocks these two IP ranges have had since at least 2012. ] ] 07:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

::Evidently one, now blocked, range. ] ] 11:38, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


== Abusive edit summaries == == Happy Holidays! ==


<div style="border: 3px solid #01902a; background-color:#fff; text-align:left; padding:2px;"><div style="border: 2px solid red; background-color:#fff; text-align:left; padding:6px;" class="plainlinks">]
Hi, can you please have a look at the edit summaries of this page history -->> , I Think the edit summary dated '''08:09, 24 August 2018'''‎ is very abusive and disturbing and should not be visible on wiki... thanks --] (]) 08:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
:{{tpw|safe=yes}} I revdeleted one edit and its summary. If there are more, please report to ANI for faster response. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 10:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


] (]) is wishing you a ] ]! This greeting (and season) promotes ] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
==Nauriya==


''Spread the cheer by adding {{tls|Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''
I was waiting for your to return per your notice above. It seems that I am not really going to edit enough for some days and that's why I thought of leaving the message here.
</div></div> ] (]) 08:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Happy Holidays ==
Last time Nauriya wasn't provided a systematic block and you had said you will intervene in future if there is any more "socking/copyvio/proxying".


<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">]
The log shows that he has violated copyrights 2 times on 23 August 2018. I would remind that the overall record was found to be horrible when investigated last time, i.e. "deletion of 52 out of 118 uploaded images deleted for being copyvio". ] (]) 16:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)


Evidently the problem is more bigger than what I have noted above. Meatpuppetry most likely occurred after the warning. I tagged his most recent article as copyvio and seeing more recent issues. Given the past two indef blocks for this problem have clearly failed to resolve this disastrous issue, I believe an ANI thread would be worth it. ] (]) 05:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


] (]) is wishing you ]! This greeting (and season) promotes ] and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! <br />
:If I remember correctly, {{ping|Ivanvector}} did warn you against this behavior. ] (]) 08:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
::{{rtp}} I revdeleted the copyvio contribs on the linked page, which {{ul|Nauriya}} had already removed. Regarding the August incidents, courtesy ping {{ul|Diannaa}}. Lorstaking, if you think this is part of a pattern of inappropriate editing then do consider making a report at ANI. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 10:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
:::He's had several warnings. I will add him to my list of people to monitor. — ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 11:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


''Spread the cheer by adding {{tls|Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.''
*{{tpw}} Noting that this user Autopatrolled and PC reviewer rights, may be Admins should take a relook if allowing these rights to such a users with a history of CopyVios is still justified. FYI ]. --''<span style="text-shadow:0px 0px .3em LightSkyBlue;">]]</span>'' 11:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
</div>] (]) 14:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
**Removal of rights is not necessary as I will be checking all his edits every single day for the foreseeable future. — ]&nbsp;<span style="color:red">🍁</span>&nbsp;(]) 11:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:43, 24 December 2024

Welcome to my talk page.
Please sign your messages by appending ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26


This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.


Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Misplaced Pages research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Misplaced Pages. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings

When he took up his hat to go, he gave one long look round the library. Then he turned ... (and Saxon took advantage of this to wag his way in and join the party), and said, "It's a rare privilege, the free entry of a book chamber like this. I'm hoping ... that you are not insensible of it."

(Text on page 17 illustrated in the frontispiece in Juliana Horatia Ewing's Mary's Meadow and Other Tales of Fields and Flowers, illustrated by Mary Wheelhouse, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1915.)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Ekdalian (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Ekdalian (talk) 08:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Happy Holidays


LukeEmily (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

LukeEmily (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2024 (UTC)