| Revision as of 21:33, 6 December 2006 editWknight94 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users89,452 edits →[]: You're asking him to de-escalate a situation that you just escalated? That's some odd "leader"ship tactics.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:09, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,133,055 edits →ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery | ||
| (940 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| # ] | # ] | ||
| # ] | # ] | ||
| # ] | # ] | ||
| # ] | # ] | ||
| # ] | # ] | ||
| # |
# ] | ||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # ] | |||
| # <!--]--> | |||
| |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | |}<!--Template:Archivebox--> | ||
| Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. | Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. | ||
| ---- | |||
| Please note that these days I am only occasionally active on Misplaced Pages, and may not see or respond to messages left here in a timely manner. | |||
| == Thanks... == | |||
| '''''' | |||
| for the notice. ] 12:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder == | |||
| :Yeah, thanks Josiah. I appreciate it! <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 21:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ]This is a reminder that established ] provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.{{pb}}Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at ]. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the ].{{pb}}Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — ] 00:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==The D-word== | |||
| ==Orphaned non-free image File:Year of the Pig cover.jpg== | |||
| ] Thanks for uploading ''']'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a ]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see ]). | |||
| Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --] (]) 19:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Josiah, I first want to say how impressed I am with your cool-headed, open-minded contributions to the maelstrom over on ]. You are setting an excellent example in that discussion and you should be commended for it. | |||
| Pursuant to that discussion, I was reading through ] just now and saw this gem, which apparently you recently restored to the page: | |||
| <blockquote>When there is no risk of confusion, do not disambiguate, or add a link to a disambiguation page.</blockquote> | |||
| I am intrigued by this, since it seems to represent the basic standard of disambiguation, and thus strikes at the core of the TV-NC discussion. My novice impression is that the this guideline implies its own inverse: "When there is ''any'' risk of confusion, disambiguate." That, however, seems to go against the standard policy of "Disambiguate ''only when necessary''." | |||
| I'm curious what you think about this, as you obviously have a great deal of experience with it. Please feel free to reply here; I'll keep it on my watchlist. --] ‹ <big>]|]</big> › 16:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == WIkiProject ''Doctor Who'' Newsletter: July 2024 == | |||
| :Hi, Toby. My interpretation of the disambiguation policy is that disambiguation should do just what it says on the tin: resolve ambiguity. To that end, if there are two articles that could have the same title, some form of disambiguation is necessary. By contrast, if there's only one article that could have a given title, then no disambiguation is necessary. I think this is the way out of the contradiction you're seeing. | |||
| {| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color:#CAF1FF; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );" | |||
| :The "confusion" that disambiguation hopes to avoid is confusion between articles that might otherwise share a name, not the potential confusion of readers about an article's ''subject''. For the purposes of disambiguation, it doesn't matter whether a reader coming upon a link to ] can tell that that's an episode of ''Lost''. (Ideally, of course, they would come upon such a link only in a context that would make that apparent.) What matters for disambiguation is whether any other article could possibly have the title ]; since, to my knowledge, there is no such other article, the general guideline would be ''not'' to disambiguate this title. | |||
| | {{center|1=<span style="font-size: 110%;"><big>'''The Space-Time Telegraph'''</big><br />'''Volume II, Issue I — July 2024<br />'''Brought to you by the editors of ]</span>}} | |||
| :Does this address your concern? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="float:right; width: 75px; height: 60px;"></div> | |||
| ::Yes, though it's not really a ''concern'' as much as a curiosity. It seems very apparent to me that this: | |||
| <div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; left: -12px;">]</div> | |||
| ::<blockquote>The "confusion" that disambiguation hopes to avoid is confusion between articles that might otherwise share a name, not the potential confusion of readers about an article's ''subject''.</blockquote> | |||
| <div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">]</div> | |||
| ::is the interpretation of the disambiguation principle that is universally understood on Misplaced Pages. I merely found it interesting that it's not stated explicitly on ], and wondered if that was an intentional omission or just simply something no one has found necessary to clarify. Obviously, it could very quickly come down to debating ], and I don't see much value in taking it anywhere close to that. :) | |||
| <hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" /> | |||
| Okay–ooh. New <s>teeth</s> newsletter. That's weird... | |||
| <big>'''Hello!'''</big> | |||
| ::Not trying to stir anything up here (there's more than enough of that on TV-NC)... just making sure I'm clear about the original intent of the policy. --] ‹ <big>]|]</big> › 21:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Welcome to the first regenerated issue of The Space-Time Telegraph, the official newsletter of ]. We hope it finds you well in your safe travels across the Whoniverse! This newsletter was founded in 2008 and seemed to get lost in the time vortex quite quickly. Thanks to the Doctor dragging Sutekh through the time vortex and bringing life by bringing death to death (''yeah... I'm a little confused too''), it seems to have regenerated. The writing staff hopes to bring you future editions quarterly. | |||
| :::My guess would be that it's just that nobody's found it necessary to clarify that so far. That said, perhaps there's an argument for doing so now. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 21:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :For this first edition, we have created an updated version of ] that includes any active editors who previously had their usernames included in ]. If you do not wish to receive future editions, please remove your name from the mailing list. If you no longer wish to participate in the project, please also remove your name from the participants list. | |||
| == Wissahickon Creek == | |||
| :I think that's enough about the newsletter for now. Let's dive into interesting things happening within the ''Doctor Who'' side of Misplaced Pages. Geronimooooo..... | |||
| ...was actually ]. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 03:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Probably everything in ] should be added to it. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| It would be, except that ] and others are now deleting all userpages of permanently blocked editors, so soon enough all the evidence will disappear. Apparently 4 people agreed to this in some obscure discussion on an MfD last month, so now it's policy forevermore. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh, and I forgot to mention, Gurch alone has deleted 20,000 User pages so far. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well, if they're using ], they're using it incorrectly, since it explicitly says "Userpages for indefinitely blocked users ('''except sockpuppets and banned users''') that have no practical purpose should be deleted after a short while". And there's no discussion I'm aware of WP:AN or WP:AN/I, but there probably should be. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{columns-start|num=2}} | |||
| == Roger Needham vandal == | |||
| <big>'''Big Spike in Productivity'''</big> | |||
| I just scanned through the user creation log for the time when the previously blocked accounts were created. You will wish to block the last one from that time - {{userlinks|Fresh Squid with Peanuts}}. Matches the Chinese restaurant theme too nicely to be a coincidence. ] 10:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :During 2024, the project has scored 8 GAs, 2 FLs and a GT, up from last year's 4 GAs and a GT. Several additional things are in the pipeline, with a bunch of things currently having been nominated with some mix of ], ], and ] having their names attached to them. Allow me to look into the nominees. | |||
| # Series 14: As of July 18th, every single episode has been sent to GAN, with "]", "]", and "]" having made it to GA. | |||
| # 2023 Specials: Early in the year, as part of trying to not lose the WikiCup, Ollie sent "]" <small>(still salty about the move)</small> to GAN. It was reviewed by ] <small>(fly high)</small> of hers, but failed. She then fixed it up and sent it back where it passed. Later "]" was expanded and sent to GA, followed shortly by "]". WBY received help by ], a pretty fresh user. This other companion chose not to be listed as co-nom. A page was created for "]" and quickly got GA status. | |||
| # '']'' was also sent to GAN by ]. It passed to join Rhain's other First Doctor content, being the fourth season three article to get the green check. | |||
| # Peter Capaldi: The ] and newly created ] of Capaldi were both sent to FLC and passed. Capaldi's main page was sent to GA, though due to some minor incompetence on the part of the nominator it was failed. | |||
| {{column}} | |||
| <big>'''Proposals to the WikiProject'''</big> | |||
| == may you please unblock me == | |||
| :A recent proposal at ] suggested potential improvements and suggestions for the main page of the project, as well as discussions about the project overall. The proposals are as follows: | |||
| # The Task Forces section should be removed due to inactivity in the Torchwood Task Force, and a lack of significant interest in creating further Task Forces. | |||
| # The freenode channel no longer works and should be removed due to most discussion taking place on site. | |||
| # Due to the low quality of '']'' and '']'' despite being sample articles, these articles should either be removed as samples or improved. Additionally, the "sample device" has a very small application field, and should be removed from the sample articles section. | |||
| # An updates infobox should be included, similarly to those used by ]. | |||
| # '']''{{'}}s ''Doctor Who'' sections should be included in the references section due to their benefits for the project sourcing wise. | |||
| # The Deletion Discussion archive should be removed, or have work invested in updating it, due to its lack of updates. | |||
| If you feel you have any thoughts or suggestions on these matters, or on any other matters pertaining to the project and its main page, feel free to chime in the ongoing discussion. | |||
| Please unblock me!! To tell you the truth, I was a wonderful contributor to articles in Misplaced Pages "Yu-Gi-OH and Pokemon". The story began when a user named Mitsumasa began creating and upload Pokemon images and articles. | |||
| {{columns-end}} | |||
| After about 5 months after the start of the articles the PCP began merging the articles (A Man in Black, Ryulong, Interrobamf) i tried talking to them, and the PCP but they did'nt listen. I even tried to leave a committ on their usertalk pages but A Man in Black is the only one that responds to my committ. I gave up until recently students at my school "The Learning Community School" began bullying me, they knew that I was a contributor at the site "Misplaced Pages", so they told my teacher that they logged in some accounts and began vandalizing the articles that I personattly was currently having problems with you. My teacher Mrs. Lisa Mercato talked to the students Jene', Jessica, Aaron and restricted them from using the school computer. | |||
| <big>'''Discussions of Note'''</big> | |||
| I'm very sorry. May you please unblock me and my IP address 72.177.68.38. May you please just make it that I can create a new account. It is a total misunderstanding. If you want to talk to my teacher, please email her at lmercato@yahoo.com. The block is casuing the school not to edit Misplaced Pages. | |||
| A move discussion is ] on whether or not ] should be moved to ]. The discussion also involves conversation on a few other adjacent articles. If you have an opinion on the matter please read over the discussion or leave comments. | |||
| Thank you, and God Bless <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 14:19, November 10, 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small> | |||
| <big>'''Contributors'''</big> | |||
| ==Battlestar Galactica episode names== | |||
| <!--If you contribute to this newsletter, add three tilde's (~~~) here to sign your name--> | |||
| I noticed you redirected the Resurrection Ship article to the episode by the same name and put the ship's article in another. I think all BSG episodes should be named as so; "EPISODE NAME (Battlestar Galactica)" like most of the ''Star Trek'' episodes have "EPISODE NAME ("SHOW ABV" Episode)" in their names. It might make them easier to sort out and identify and keep them consistent with each other. Just my suggestion. ] 05:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] ] | |||
| *] (]) | |||
| *<b>] ] ]</b> | |||
| {{center|If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the ] or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above.}} | |||
| :Well I see your argument - however in the case of the Trek pages - titling them as they are helps disambiguate what series the episode came from, TNG for Next Gen, TOS for The Original Series, etc. That might be a point to consider when deciding on their proper formatting. ] 05:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{center | |||
| | <small>If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our ].</small> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| }} | |||
| You said: "Hi, Yamla. You recently removed this image from the '']'' article, saying that it lacked the required detailed fair use rationale. The image page ''does'' have a four-point rationale on its page — what more would be required in order to keep the image? (I'd like to learn.)" | |||
| :The rationale is only for ], not ]. If a picture of this companion contributes meaningfully to the article on ], a rationale for use there must be added. It is not at all clear that it was contributing meaningfully to that article and the article is already quite long. --] 18:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::You said: "The rationale says that she is a main character in the programme, and there's a short paragraph at ] about her. I don't really feel strongly that this ''particular'' image should be included, especially since the character has yet to appear in the series, but I ''do'' feel that it's important that an image of ''a'' companion appear in the article. It had previously included the image ], which does have a specific rationale for ''Doctor Who'' — would that be more acceptable? I agree that the article has become very long, but I don't think that removing that image was necessarily the best way to start cutting. There are far more extraneous bits." | |||
| :::To be clear, the reason I cut the image is because it was missing a rationale for that particular article. Making the article shorter was just a side-effect. The image definitely does have a rationale, but for an entirely different article. It's clearly valuable in that other article but not so clearly valuable in the article on Doctor Who. With an appropriate rationale, I agree it would be appropriate to have an image of a companion. Ideally, it should be a companion significant enough to merit at least a full paragraph discussion in ]. Which specific companion is probably less relevant. --] 18:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == House episodes == | |||
| Thank you for telling me about the policy on episode names! I wasn't aware of it before. I will keep it in mind for articles in the future. ]<font color = "green">]</font>] <sup>]</sup> 22:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Tainted poll?== | |||
| Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives ]. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at ] to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —] (]) 02:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks for the laugh... == | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid {{{border|gray}}}; background-color: {{{color|#fdffe7}}};" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | ] | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Good Humor''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For a particularly hilarious song parody related to the debate on ]. ]] 05:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |} | ||
| : It would be funnier if it weren't done at the expense of other editors. --] 05:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: It's pointed at the situation, not the individual editors. Naming a participant in a debate does not equal making fun of them. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: If you single out and name specific people, it's pointed at them. You asked me before to point out if you did anything that was uncivil or unhelpful. I count "ridiculing other editors in the middle of a debate," as unhelpful. It contributes to an "us and them" mentality, discourages consensus building, and it encourages incivility on the part of other editors, towards the people that have been targeted. I know that you may see it as a "one time" occurrence, but what if it gets repeated? What if other people start the same "ridiculing" behavior, saying, "Well, Josiah made fun of that person, I can make fun of them too?" Please re-read ] and ask yourself whether that song helped the situation, or hurt it. --] 06:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I intended to ridicule myself as much as anyone — hence the "run away" lines, which fit so well from the original song. If we can't see the absurdity in arguing so passionately over such a trivial matter, we desperately need to ]. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 07:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I don't think it would have been too bad to mention names, if you didn't mention only one name. Next time include me. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 03:07, November 21, 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})</small> | |||
| ::::::OK. I will. :^) —] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] (]) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Awsome song. -- ] 07:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:TheDoctorWho@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=1235432351 --> | |||
| *I found that very funny, like the Hotel Misplaced Pages song. (]) 15:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == WIkiProject ''Doctor Who'': September 2024 Newsletter == | |||
| ==Mischaracterization== | |||
| For the record, no, I wasn't referring to you. If I have a problem with you, I'll tell you, I promise. :) I absolutely do not think that you added the song as a way of "filling up" the page. However, there are plenty of other posts in there from other editors, which I ''do'' think have been designed specifically to confuse and obfuscate. Which is another reason that I'd like a clean poll. --] 19:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color:#CAF1FF; border: 2px solid #bddff2; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );" | |||
| == Edit war == | |||
| | {{center|1=<span style="font-size: 110%;"><big>'''The Space-Time Telegraph'''</big><br />'''Volume II, Issue II — September 2024<br />'''Brought to you by the editors of ]</span>}} | |||
| I'm not in violation of 3RR. If you look at the edit history you'll see that yesterday I made three reverts before stopping, and then made one revert today. Although, looking at the edit history, it appears ] ''has'' broken 3RR. ] 06:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; left: -12px;">]</div> | |||
| == Si Spencer == | |||
| <div style="position: absolute; top: -20px; right: -12px;">]</div> | |||
| <hr style="border-bottom: 1px solid rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 );" /> | |||
| {{center| | |||
| You like Doctor Who? What's his name then? | |||
| <big>'''Welcome'''</big> | |||
| Actually as you went there you can check out whether he is a "Torchwood person", did he write an episode or did he pull out as he isn't on the list. ] 10:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello and welcome to the second issue of the new newsletter! Following the success of the first newsletter we are back to write more stuff.}} | |||
| ==Explain!== | |||
| {{columns-start|num=2}} | |||
| I don't understand! I insired several new interlinks in the page '']'', and even so I was accused to vandalism! WHY?! ] 13:24 19 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <big>'''Articles for deletion'''</big> | |||
| ==Sockpuppetry== | |||
| <br>Several articles have been nominated for deletion, such as ], and several articles have been deleted, or merged or redirected, especially those relating to books, due to lack of ] and ]. Editors can always help either by participating in the deletion discussions (which are noted on the project page), adding to such articles, or bringing attention to other such articles through AfD or the WikiProject talk page, to aid in clean-up. | |||
| Josiah, I understand your concern, and wish I could get a clear answer. I've been making multiple backchannel requests for a checkuser, but haven't had any response yet. A simple ] check isn't really an option, since I don't know for sure who the alternate account is. :/ Also, though yes, the account has been around for a long time, the scope of articles edited is very narrow (for months it was almost exclusively in the ] articles), the user still hasn't gone to the trouble of creating a userpage, the general demeanor is negative and confrontational, and the recent use of the account has been almost exclusively for moving articles, hundreds and hundreds of them. Also, he basically admits it himself, here: . --] 07:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :He did have a user page, but I guess he requested it to be . -- ] 07:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <big>'''Notice of Draft Articles'''</big> | |||
| ::Yaksha's comment on Woohookitty's talk page does seem to confirm that he's operating more than one account, but as long as he (or she) isn't using multiple accounts in the discussion, that's OK per ]. If Yaksha has another account that's solely editing articles about ] or something, that's fine. If Yaksha is also participating in the ] discussion under another name, that's not. But I really don't see any evidence of that, and I don't think it helps our discussion to make accusations like that without solid evidence. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 07:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <br>A new ''Doctor Who'' spin-off was announced at the 2024 San Diego Comic-Con, called '']'', and will feature old and new ] characters working for ] as they battle the ]. The main space article currently redirects to Whoniverse, but collaboration is ]. As filming on this miniseries has recently begun, its relocation to the mains space will presumably take place soon per the recommendations laid out at ]. | |||
| <br>There is also a ]. While this article won't be moved until the episode airs, any new contributions are welcome. | |||
| ::: Aside from a checkuser result (which is not within my control, since I've sent out three requests so far, but without reply), what would you regard as evidence? --] 07:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <big>'''Doctor Who News'''</big> | |||
| ::::Ideally, it ''would'' be a checkuser result. Failing that, some specific diffs pointing towards similar wording or typographical/grammatical quirks indicating the same human being behind the ID. And frankly, it would be useful if you had some indication of whose sockpuppet you think Yaksha ''is''. The vague suspicions ] don't seem to add up to much, in my judgment. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 07:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <br>A small number of editors have recently raised questions regarding the reliability of . This website is particularly used for information regarding viewing figures and the ] of most episodes as well as some news information. If there is a better source for any information supported by this website, it should be replaced in good faith. | |||
| <br>A full consensus on whether or not to remove the information that can't be supported by a different source has not yet been reached. Any editor who has opinions on this matter should contribute to the discussion on the ]. | |||
| BTW, since you went to the trouble of asking me to try and "reduce acrimony", would you please ask the same of Yaksha? Seeing this constant stream of moved articles, is not doing anything to help calm the situation. --] 08:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{column}} | |||
| :Why would you care if he's moving episode articles that don't involve Lost or have a situation where someone wants an exception? No one is asking for an exception for those articles. -- ] 09:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <big>'''Continued Progress Towards Good/Featured Content'''</big> | |||
| :: Well, for one reason, that "cautions" should be applied fairly. Josiah has asked me to modify my behavior to "reduce acrimony." To be fair, he should also ask the others who have done stress-inducing actions, such as those engaging in personal attacks, incivility, and non-consensus moves, to also modify ''their'' behavior. If Josiah wishes to be perceived as acting in a fair and unbiased manner, he needs to be issuing these kinds of cautions evenly, and not just to the people that he personally disagrees with. --] 18:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <br> There has been lots of progress made towards recognized articles in the last two months, related to such diverse categories as series, specials, lists and episodes A ] has also been added to the WikiProject, to list any possible goals we can aim towards. | |||
| :::No one is doing "non-consensus moves" to my knowledge. Moves that are in line with consensus ''are'' being done however. —] (]) 19:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <big>'''Proposals Regarding the State of Fictional Elements Articles in the WikiProject'''</big> | |||
| ::::I have asked editors who have been incivil to modify their tone in the past, and will continue to do so. Since I happen to believe that a consensus ''was'' established in support of the guideline, I don't see why Yaksha's moves are being considered "stress-inducing". —] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Several proposals have been laid out regarding fictional elements in the WikiProject, which includes fictional characters, locations, and more. Due to a concerning quality state regarding the large majority of them, several methods of tackling them in order to improve these articles' quality for the future have been proposed. The primary three proposals are as follows: | |||
| :1. A priority list should be made to determine what articles are most pressing and in need of improvement in the WikiProject overall. Focus would be put onto important subjects and articles in a state of dubious notability that would make them viable for deletion processes such as AfD. | |||
| :2. A group of articles is selected for improvement, which are ones deemed most relevant to the WikiProject for the future. Any lesser important subjects can be sidelined and worked on as editors see fit. | |||
| :3. A long term goal is made to improve all elements. This will come at the caveat of taking significantly longer and requiring more heavy participation than the above two proposals, but would guarantee a slow and steady way to solve the issue. | |||
| ::::: Perhaps it would be helpful to try and look at it from a different point of view? Just as a mental exercise, to try and understand? Suppose, for example, you were in discussion in another part of Misplaced Pages, about some article-moves. Just for the sake of discussion, let's say that it was about whether or not all articles about two-word mammal names (like "Arctic wolf") should be hyphenated or not. Let's say that your stand was that they shouldn't be hyphenated, and that all existing articles should be left alone. There's an acrimonious discussion on a guideline page, then someone starts a poll, and the poll is rapidly changed over the next few days, such that people who are giving their opinions, are complaining that the poll is a mess, and other people are saying that they don't even want to participate because the discussion has gotten too confusing. With all the twisting, a "majority" on the poll shows up as "we like hyphens", which is interpreted to mean that all two-word articles should be hyphenated. You complain that the poll/discussion were improper, but you're attacked personally, and are told that the consensus is already made and that you're just whining. Further, some of the people claiming "consensus" start moving hundreds of articles, while you're still protesting that there wasn't really a consensus. Wouldn't you see the moving of those articles as somewhat stress-inducing? --] 02:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If any editors are interested in chiming into the conversation and sharing their piece on how this should be handled, or if any editors wish to help with this proposal and improve fictional elements articles, then feel free to share thoughts at the discussion's section on ]. | |||
| ::::::Perhaps I would. Of course, I see your analogy as flawed (for example, in the real case every person who complained during the poll has since stated their opinion clearly and unambiguously). There are other flaws as well, but I don't want to get diverted into arguing a hypothetical case. | |||
| {{columns-end}} | |||
| <big>'''Contributors'''</big> | |||
| ::::::Elonka, I acknowledge that some contributors' treatment of you has not been the best example of Wikipedian civility. However, that does not change the fact that ''subsequent'' to the poll, editors have had multiple opportunities to express their opinions, and many (including, I believe, ''everyone'' who voted in the poll) has done so. As I've tried to say before, Misplaced Pages guidelines are not established by polling, but by conversation; the conversation ''after'' the poll showed a clear consensus. Four other administrators agree. | |||
| <!--If you contribute to this newsletter, add three tilde's (~~~) here to sign your name--> | |||
| *] ] | |||
| *] (]) | |||
| *<b>] ] ]</b> | |||
| * ] (]) | |||
| <small>"I'm not appalled by it" - ''The New New York Times''</small> | |||
| ::::::It's equally clear that there is ''no'' consensus to hold a new poll, and I don't feel it's necessary to push for one. However, since you are still unhappy with the situation, I ''do'' think it might be appropriate to hold some form of mediation or to proceed to ArbCom. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 06:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{center|If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter or have any feedback, leave a message on the ] or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above.}} | |||
| ::::::: Well, as I've said, I don't put much stock in the old poll, and I don't believe that we've had as full participation in the discussion as we might have, if we would have had a more structured environment for participating. Multiple people have commented to me that they'd like to participate, but they're daunted by format. When I've told them, "Just start a new section and offer your opinion," they have found this intimidating, and I've heard more than one person say that the environment in there is very uncivil, and they have no wish to be personally attacked. In any case, I have contacted a couple people with mediation experience to see if they'd like to come in and help, on an informal basis. Perhaps that may help break the logjam. If not, I agree, it may be time to proceed to more formal mediation (if we can even get everyone to agree to mediation?), or ArbCom. --] 10:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{center | |||
| | <small>If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our ].</small> | |||
| == ] == | |||
| }} | |||
| |} | |||
| I was trying to prune ] and came across ]. What in the world happened here?! I'm guessing Centrx actually had the office remove edits because of some terrible edit summaries. Sound about right? Otherwise, it looks silly - there's only a few edits in the system for the whole 2006 calendar year. —] (]) 03:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Disregard. I see what happened. The one edit in the delete history leads to the place where Centrx moved the article with the bad edit summaries. I wonder why he moved the page before deleting it. —] (]) 03:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == RE: warning vandals == | |||
| <s>I understand the general procedures regarding warning/blocking vandalism, and that IPs generally must be warned recently for the block to be appropriate. However, this IP is registered to Road Runner, a US-based cable internet provider, and per the edit history appears to be a single person (similar editing history, including 2 exact-same vandalisms separated by 12 days). Under such circumstances, I believe it's common-sense to assume they've already seen the final warning, and merely leaving another final4 makes us look impotent. Especially when the last final4 was for exactly the same vandalism that he/she has just repeated.</s> --] ] 01:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Striking out a line above - was mistaken about final warning timing. --] ] 01:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh, scratch the whole thing. I must need a nap - last final was for spamming (and from myself no less), so user hasn't received a final for vandalism. Suppose the actions taken were proper afterall. Carry on! --] ] 01:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| It was ]. At first it was just the ] article with a different name put in. After a "nonsense" tag, he removed the tag and rewrote the article slightly keeping the Brad Pitt picture for a few edits and then eventually changing it to something else. I put a "bio" tag on it which he removed two or three more times. <font color="Green">]</font> <sup><font color="Blue">]</font></sup> 23:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mediation== | |||
| Then may I respectfully request that you consider changing the wording to what I have suggested? Or if you disagree, move it to a separate section. --] 03:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : I appreciate your desire to follow the rules. And I also appreciate that you took the time to pull together the Mediation request. However, I wish that you would have taken a bit more time with it, and perhaps checked wording. I was working on a Medcab request, myself, which is what had been recommended to me, and then the next thing I saw, you said we should use formal mediation, and then a few minutes later we have a complete mediation request, with wording that I'm not particularly happy with, and a dozen people signing on within minutes. Can we please try to take a bit more time with these things? This kind of rapid-fire reaction stuff is part of the reason we got into this mess in the first place, when the poll was being rapidly changed in mid-stream. :/ I'm not trying to bust your chops about this, since I really do appreciate the work that you did. But please, as I've been saying all along, can we get agreement on things before making major steps? --] 03:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: FYI, I went ahead and moved the issue on a recent edit (as I was adding names). I assume that I'm allowed to add names to the list? --] 04:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Do we need mediation on how to set up the mediation? —] (]) 04:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I smell arbcom. -- ] 04:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I guess I started a bonfire hmm wait is there anything bigger then a bonfire? A towering inferno perhaps?! --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ]</span></small> 07:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : HAHAH that was playing on my iPod as I read it! Awesome! --<small><span style="-moz-border-radius: 5px; border: solid 2px #F98A2F; background-color: #FFF; color=#5994C5">] | ] | ]</span></small> 07:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Med. == | |||
| No, I do not have a problem with it. However I am woeful to agree at present as I do not know who will mediate, which slightly worries me. <small><font face="Tahoma">'''thanks'''/] ] ]</font></small> 17:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Mediation (another section) == | |||
| Will, I think that we should all stop editing ] — continuing the edit war over how to describe Radiant's involvement will decrease the request's chances of acceptance. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree. I esp. don't think Radiant's name should be removed when ''he'' put it there. The chaos there can't possibly be how that's supposed to work, is it?! —] (]) 18:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's more or less my perspective as well. I agree that Radiant's name should be left there, but I'm concerned that reverting Elonka's changes will further diminish the chances of the RfM being accepted. If we can get all participants to agree to mediation and get the case accepted, we can work out our differences in the mediation process. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sounds good. But if Radiant's name is removed again, I think the page should be protected. It's been removed twice - once after ''he'' added it. —] (]) 18:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I think that if the participants have to resort to page protection on the RfM, there's a good chance that the mediation isn't going to work. I've asked Elonka to stop editing the page, and I've asked several MedCom members to take a look at the RfM to see if it can be salvaged. Let's hope for the best. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::It's such a God awful mess now that it should probably just be re-started - with only one person editing the damn thing. Absurd. —] (]) 18:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Are we allowed to do that? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::No clue. But apparently there are too many people involved to let anyone do anything. I say you should get in there, get it the way you want and tell everyone (including me) to stay the hell out. At least until a mediator shows up. —] (]) 19:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I'm just concerned that if ''I'' go in there and start reverting changes, it'll just escalate the matter further. I bollixed this up, didn't I? —] <small>(] • ])</small> 19:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't know how picky they're going to be. —] (]) 19:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <-- | |||
| :There has been a request to unprotect this page, I have declined the editors request asking them to contact mediators first. If you would like it unprotected drop a note on my talk page. ] 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == From MedCom == | |||
| The best advice I can give, considering the situation is to try and not get involved in the edit war. If there is an edit war on the mediation request itself, I am doubtful that mediation can continue. The best course of action would be to not get any more heavily involved. -<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>]<sup></span>]]</sup> <em style="font-size:10px;">19:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)</em> | |||
| :I don't personally see mediation as having failed. While I do see disagreement with what's going on, I don't see any bad-faith edits that would prevent mediation from being properly resolved. As it stands, I am going to get a page protection placed on the mediation request page itself, and allow participants to discuss what excactly mediation itself will be about on the talk page. -<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">^</span>]<sup></span>]]</sup> <em style="font-size:10px;">20:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)</em> | |||
| ] (]) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
| Hello! I see that you've gotten some advice from other members of the Mediation Committee, but I'll go ahead and chip in my two cents here, though after reading your note I've only briefly glanced over the situation and haven't examined it in detail yet. In general, an edit war (always bad) should not be taking place on a request for mediation: each party should get the chance to explain their positions and views, and state what their view of the conflict is. There's no "official" list of topics to mediate page; instead, once (and if) a mediator takes the case, then s/he should carefully examine all sides of the issue, look at what each person says needs to be examined, and metaphorically speaking, chart the course from there. In the meantime, remember that an edit war on a mediation page accomplishes nothing, and that open communication, instead, should be pursued. Thanks, and let me know if you have any other questions. ] <small>(])</small> 01:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:TheDoctorWho@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Newsletter/Mailing_list&oldid=1245969953 --> | |||
| == Invitation to participate in a research == | |||
| :The "list of issues" on the mediation page isn't "official", per se; it's there simply for the convenience of both the parties and the mediator and to facilitate the process. From my brief glance at the page, I really don't see a reason why there should be edit warring over this: if there is conflict over whether or not a person (Radiant!, from my cursory glances) is involved, then everyone should simply state their views on the conflict and make a note of that on the page for the mediator, and s/he will attempt to mediate the issue. If someone is listed as a party, then that party always has the right to not participate, and after listening to the comments of everyone else involved, the mediator and the involved parties should decide whether or not to proceed - if the person is a crucial part of the conflict and plays a key role in the issues being mediated, then the mediation would not proceed. As for the page being protected - if the edit warring stops and productive conversation ensues, protection shouldn't be necessary, though I would strongly advised against involved parties unprotecting the page. Thanks! ] <small>(])</small> 02:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, | |||
| == Just an FYI == | |||
| 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 ''''''. | |||
| ] - IP has been blocked 31 hours :) ] 11:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| You do not have to be an Administrator to participate. | |||
| :No problem :) (and ''some people'' is right!) ] 18:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] . | |||
| == Thatcher's comment == | |||
| Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns. | |||
| No objection to adding a link. As far as I'm concerned, everyone involved in the discussion should read it. --] 22:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Kind Regards, | |||
| ==Dalek FAR== | |||
| I don't really like the idea myself, but I don't see any real harm in it - it's just trading one type of cite for another, and if it'll stop the griping, why not? Yell if you need help; I'm at work at the moment and don't really have the time, but I'll chip in later if needed. --] (] • ]) 05:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| == What the hell? == | |||
| <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
| I'm sorry, Josiah, but how do you expect people to respond when she says stuff like that? What she's saying is false, misleading, manipulative and disruptive. And yet you get mad at ''me''? Is it alright to do what she's doing, simply because she's saying it with a smile? Have you even seen her recent comments about me? I've been spat on and I respond with "I'm not going to play your game" and ''I'm'' the uncivil one? -- ] 08:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- 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 == | |||
| :Responded at ]. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 09:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, | |||
| == Elonka's post to ] == | |||
| 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 ]. | |||
| In line with what you said at ], you might want to weigh in at ], Elonka's latest attempt to find an admin to take her side. <span style="color: #F06A0F">–</span><small><span style="border: 1px solid #F06A0F">]]</span></small> 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Did you read her about "editors" going through "multiple iterations"? Even though she that only one guy made one edit and then that one guy if he was alone in the decision, she ''still'' repeated the original claim at ANI. Between such blatant lies and her using her own family tree as a reference (which previously resulted in Jimbo himself tons of info from one of her articles), I'm dangerously close to filing an RFC. Sorry, I know I had planned to stay away from this firestorm - and I still don't plan on cooperating at the RFM if it continues to be such a sham - but I can't in good conscience let these things slide much longer. —] (]) 12:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: WK, may I point out that the article that Jimbo edited, was ''not'' one of mine? I'm in complete agreement that it was very poorly sourced, and that "personal interviews" are not appropriate as references. Please don't go blaming me for the actions of some other editor. --] 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'll withdraw a ''small'' part of that: you did not edit the article that Jimbo edited. But you ''did'' add your site as a reference to all eight of the articles which I listed on your talk page (at a minimum), all of which now need to be re-evaluated because of the original research concerns. —] (]) 22:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Take the survey ''''''. | |||
| ==NPA== | |||
| Josiah, some of your recent posts imply a certain level of frustration. May I gently suggest that it's probably not helpful to generate personal comments at other editors in an edit summary, nor to refer to other editors as being "obtuse" or "outrageous"? . I won't bother subst-ing {{tl|civil0}} or {{tl|npa}}, but please, it might be best to review policies, take a step back, take a deep breath, and perhaps have a cup of ]? I'd truly like to see all stress-inducing actions stop (from page moves to name-calling), so that we can proceed with the mediation, in as polite and civil a manner as possible. I'd really very much like to avoid ArbCom, or any other actions which might cause the mediation to be rejected. --] 21:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Kind Regards, | |||
| * Third-party observations left at ]. --<font size="-2"><strong>]<sup>]</sup></strong></font> 03:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :::Thank you, Leflyman. I refer any readers to the discussion on Elonka's talk page. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) </bdi> | |||
| ==Elisabeth Sladen== | |||
| <!-- 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 --> | |||
| I'm just tired of fighting it out with the FU nazis. They're going to argue that the screenshot is in violation of fair use because it doesn't illustrate the breakfast programme and that the article doesn't discuss the content of the show (Sladen notwithstanding). Been through this with Tracy Ann Oberman before. If you want to pick up that gauntlet, be my guest. --] (] • ]) 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | ||
| <div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
| That "standard" you mentioned is in dispute right now and has been in the mediation process for some time now. One big part of the dispute is which exceptions are to be allowed, and a specific exception mentioned on the mediation page is the case where the majority of the episodes would require a disambig page. This show, and many if not most of the shows on the hit list, was proposed fopr a move WHILE THE SPECIFIC POLICY IS IN MEDIATION and BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE MEDIATION. This is a clear violation of ] and renders the proposal to be a bad faith nomination. The people proposing moves for show after show after show need to cease and desist until the matter is settled.] 08:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
| ::Replied at ]. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
| :The guideline isn't in dispute - there was a dispute tag up for a time, but it wasn't added by consensus and has since been removed. There are a small number of individuals who disagree with it, but that's not reason to ignore the guideline. Also, it is not in mediation - mediation has been proposed, but not accepted. I consider the matter settled and mediation unnecessary, although I'm open to compromise proposals. --] 14:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| 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. | |||
| ==Runaway Bride image== | |||
| Hi there, have put an image up on the Runaway Bride, a promo shot, perhaps you could have a look to make sure its ok for copyright as you seem to be pretty goos at these things. Ta muchly, .] | |||
| 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>] (]) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Josiah, I just posted a notice to the NC page, about the ] thread. Since ^demon has issued a formal statement from MEDCOM , stating that there is not consensus, and that page moves are being disruptive to the mediation process, will you please join me in declaring a complete moratorium on all moves, by either side? I think it is the best way to help de-escalate the situation at this time. I know that you have the respect of many people in the "move immediately" crowd, and anything that you could do to help de-fuse the situation would have a great deal of influence. | |||
| </div> | |||
| I truly want to try and find a way that we can work through this dispute in a civil manner. If you and I, as two of the evident informal "leaders" in this dispute, can agree to act with integrity and mutual respect, I think it'll go a long way towards influencing the other individuals in the discussion. Will you please join me? --] 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| :You're asking him to de-escalate a situation that ''you'' just escalated? That's some odd "leader"ship tactics. —] (]) 21:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- 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/01&oldid=1258243333 --> | |||
Latest revision as of 00:09, 19 November 2024
 Archives |
|---|
Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.
Please note that these days I am only occasionally active on Misplaced Pages, and may not see or respond to messages left here in a timely manner.
Click here to add a new topic.
Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder
This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.
Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.
Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Year of the Pig cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Year of the Pig cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
WIkiProject Doctor Who Newsletter: July 2024
| The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue I — July 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who 
Okay–ooh. New Hello!
Big Spike in Productivity
Proposals to the WikiProject
If you feel you have any thoughts or suggestions on these matters, or on any other matters pertaining to the project and its main page, feel free to chime in the ongoing discussion. Discussions of Note A move discussion is currently underway on whether or not Doctor Who series 14 should be moved to Doctor Who season 1 (2024). The discussion also involves conversation on a few other adjacent articles. If you have an opinion on the matter please read over the discussion or leave comments. Contributors If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list. |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
WIkiProject Doctor Who: September 2024 Newsletter
| The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue II — September 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who
You like Doctor Who? What's his name then? Welcome
Articles for deletion
Notice of Draft Articles
Doctor Who News
Continued Progress Towards Good/Featured Content
Proposals Regarding the State of Fictional Elements Articles in the WikiProject
Contributors
"I'm not appalled by it" - The New New York Times If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter or have any feedback, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list. |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
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,
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,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 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) 00:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)