Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
You just beat me to the closing, I almost EC'd you :) BTW, when you close Afds you should generally note that it is a non-admin closure. I used to just write "The result was Keep. (WP:NAC)" or something. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Please remove our permission to edit the Wikipedia pages. We are a school and it appears that students have been vandalizing your work. The leadership here recognizes the significant effort it takes to keep Wikipedia useful for everyone and would like to apologize for the inconveniences certain students have caused.
Said students will be disciplined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.199.95.150 (talk) 01:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Tell your admin at your school to include wikipedia's IP address on the school's routing and/or sonicwall/firewall filtering devices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdfjkghs (talk • contribs) 21:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi there. Thanks for contributing to the project by closing those NAC AfD. You should however be aware of that discussion should be open for seven days before they are eligible to be closed. When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English football transfers 2009–10 it had only been open for a little more than six days. But the result of the discussion was a clear keep, so I doubt there will be any problems with that closure. Cheers, Mentoz86 (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Hi.
I hope I am not bothering you but I wanted to have a chat about edit 578024244 in Template:Uw-error2 and similar templates. Every time I saw the orange icon, it struck me as how odd it is and how I do not associate any meaning with it. I was looking around and decided that the meaning of a level 2 warning is better associated with or or .
What do you say?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey there,
I recently reverted an edit by a user that vandalized the Wikipedia Article Water supply and sanitation in Yemen. I am just wondering why you wrote a warning for the user as shown here when I reverted their edit. Shouldn't I warn the user because I was the one who reverted the edit? I'm not sure on this, just asking. I'm a little new to Wikipedia.
Thanks! Newyorkadam (talk) 19:00, 11 November 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam
So what is the issue with these? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:31, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
...and not do that "torches and pitchforks support" thing any more? I know you mean it jokingly/ironically/whatever, but it's far too easily misunderstood, and torches and pitchforks are too real (well, metaphorically real) for it to be very funny. Just a thought. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it improper they way they are being cited? I'm just confused since the notice does actually mention and link to the wiki article in question (Streisand Effect). I just don't understand why it keeps being changed.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.8.158.225 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very kindly for watching my back! Cheers! Geoff Who, me? 18:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The move will be reviewed again. What policy describes the order of the two? 172.250.31.151 (talk) 21:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
As you can see on that IP's talk page, he is a major nuisance with regard to the Eye color article and its talk page and has noted hatred for me; apparently thinks (or thought) that I'm Asian as well. Flyer22 (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
The movie "Matrix" was a stolen film that was held up in a federal court. Facts are fact. They, the Wachowski brothers did not create this movie. People should know the truth and/or high light how they went through a legal situation due to the true source of the movie. I am not the only one who thinks some of the information is distorted. This is not just about the movie but even with some other topics like history and etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.12.100.74 (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
This IP address is connected to a school and thus immature children are likely - as they have evidently already done - to vandalize pages. I ask you since you have reverted some of the fraudulent pages.
If there is some way of adding IP's voluntarily by users to an editing blacklist, I'd very much appreciate if you linked me to such a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.193.180 (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Please remember to let AfDs run the full seven days before closing pbp 03:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I have received a message from you regarding edit warring on RCSI-Bahrain page. This page is extremely biased and distorted and causing controversial information made by BBC and The Independent harm the image of the degree us students work so hard to obtain. I would like to request that the page be reviewed, and political information be removed from affiliation with the university. Who can help me do so? The user in charge of the page himself declines to remove anything, which is because he is biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.237.199.154 (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
The arbitration case request that you were a party to has been declined by the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 05:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you had added the {{blocked user)} template to the page of an editor who was subsequently unblocked, only days later. I wanted to ask if you really feel it is necessary for you to use this template. Shouldn't it be left to admins? Thanks - theWOLFchild 04:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
if someone removes a G13 speedy delete tag please do not restore it. These can be challenged like a prod. Hopefully the challenger will do on to improve the article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
YOLO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.169.132 (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for all the help dealing with vandalism tonight. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed that you have added the {{blocked user}} template to an editor's page. Please don't - that's for people who will remain blocked with no chance to appeal, and should only be done by the blocking admin. I'll ask that if you've done it anywhere else besides here that you undo them yourself. Cheers ES&L 14:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redeemer Seminary A deletion discussion should normally be allowed to run for seven days. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How an AfD discussion is closed; and Clear keep outcomes after a full listing period (stated in the instructions to each XfD, this is usually seven days), Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closures. --Bejnar (talk) 11:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to add my voice to the others regarding concern for non-admin closures of AfD discussions before the full seven days (~168 hours) have passed. For example, I noticed that you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of breweries, wineries, and distilleries in Utah (2nd nomination) at "00:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)" -- this discussion was opened at "22:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)". It had almost another full day (really a little over 22 hours) to run. We will all have differences of opinion on what is a "clean, obvious keep" but this discussion did have one delete !vote in addition to the nominator (see stats). I've noticed several other similar early non-admin closures by you recently. Although I'm happy that you're trying to be efficient in reducing the number of deletion discussions, please do this more carefully -- including linking to the deletion discussions in the articles' talk pages (not done here, but it's not obvious why). Thanks. - tucoxn\talk 01:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for voting positive to keep my article about Henrik Purienne You seem to be experienced in the field of the arts and photography? I´ve written another one about the other editor of Mirage Magazine, Frank Rocholl, that has a large background in typography and editorial design. I´ve added a publications listing and a few links that verifies the guys expertise. Hopefully it proofs his relevance besides Mirage Magazine. These titles are all standard literature for graphic designers, especially the Los Logos Series. Would be a great help if you have any suggestions to prevent deletion of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverhaze01 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
FYI regarding that AfD. Two of the KEEP votes were posted by the same account and all of them from SPAs or near-SPAs. I submitted an SPI, but the check-user was inconclusive. CorporateM (Talk) 00:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | ||
I see you on recent changes sometimes when I get off Huggle and go back to the old-fashioned way of fighting vandalism. So I thought I'd give you a barnstar for your work. You're welcome, of course. K6ka (talk | contribs) 03:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC) |
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
Nice job Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC) |
What would you think if I nominated you for adminship?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I didn't make a change to the article, I undid a change somebody else made. Looks like its been changed back and forth a few times, you may want to address this on the talk page for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8:8C00:C7F:65CE:3FFD:3BE0:852A (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Your 'Welcome' message to IP address 82.15.15.5, summarised as "Welcome, remove mistaken warnings"
This user has a history of vandalism including blanking without reason or edit summary, introducing 'wrong' details and gaming the system against me, hence is on my watchlist. The most recent 'edits' here, check + and - are puerile vandalism, bordering on profanity and racism, and resulted in - quite mistankenly - a level 1 (uw-vandalism1) entirely due to your actions, I surmise, whereas it should have been level4 or block (I am assured by an admin that previous warnings are tallied-up, however). This is what you're championing by "remove mistaken warnings"...'they' will continue to get away with it.
'They' have blanked-out all the warnings from 2013 and including the IP address template in early 2014. The edits are mostly on political and celebrity pages and are usually no more than gossip and interference - disruptive editing. The (previous recent) level-4 warnings were therefore correct (uw-vandalism4).
'They' have recently stated "This is my page and I'll delete whatever I want. Idiots." here and "Piss off faggots" 16 minutes after your Welcome message here
In view of the former statement, and considering the past history of broadly-similar editing within a narrow topic-field(s), this can be considered as good evidence for a non-shared IP address. There is no evidence of positive contributions to the encyclopedia in general
I note you are up for adminship and the comment about 'handling newcomers' a few days ago. It seems therefore that you may have overcompensated in the direction of AGF in this instance. I hope this is of benefit to you.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
As much as I do support neutrality I however do not see how that article was remotely neutral? It is laughable how an article can compare anti-Islamic sentiment to anti-Semitism of the early 20th century. There is no comparing between the two as Islam itself is anti-Semitic and authoritarian for centuries. Look at the Middle East for instance as you cannot have a synagogue or any other religious institution without it being demolished or forced out of the country. Islamic theocracy is the modern day Nazism with or without neutral points of view. Sorry to edit without permission but somebody has to put an end to this fallacy of political correctness that has Europe in the state it is in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.80.92.84 (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current main page. |
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.