Contents
- 1 Welcome
- 2 Talkback
- 3 Article for Deletion versus Merge
- 4 Requests for adminship listed at Redirects for discussion
- 5 Your unprotection request
- 6 re
- 7 Rollback granted
- 8 The recent removal of templates you conducted
- 9 User page
- 10 Crywolf
- 11 My RfA
- 12 change 'मेहदी ख्वाजा पीरी TO मेहदी ख्वाजा पीरी
- 13 WP:AN discussion
- 14 How many men?
- 15 RfDs based on WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTFAQ
- 16 RfD nominations
- 17 Your revision on my talk page
- 18 Tobias
- 19 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 20 China National Highway 228 listed at Redirects for discussion
- 21 Talkback
- 22 TC
- 23 Removing tags on Restrictions on geographic data in China
- 24 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 25 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
- 26 ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Welcome
|
Talkback
Message added 21:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
— Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Article for Deletion versus Merge
You recently posted a Article for Deletion (AfD) request for several pages such as Ruitapu, however in the AfD you suggest merging not deleting. The AfD system is not intended for merger discussions. Instead you should follow the directions at Wikipedia:Merging, Help:Merging and Help:Merging_and_moving_pages to merge the pages. In short, the proces is something similar to:
- Start a new discussion on the target articles talk page.
- Tag the origin article with {{Merge from|<source page>|discuss=Talk:<merger discussion talk page section>|date=December 2013}}
- Tag the destination article with {{Merge to|<destination page>|discuss=<merger discussion talk page section>|date=December 2013}}
- Add a comment to the articles' main contributors talk pages
- Wait for comments.
- After a week or so has passed, follow through or abandon the merger as per the comments.
If you think the merge might be controversial (the ones you posted are not controversial) then use Wikipedia:Proposed mergers -- Rincewind42 (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Requests for adminship listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Requests for adminship. Since you had some involvement with the Requests for adminship redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 6an6sh6 03:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Your unprotection request
Re [1]. Can you explain a bit more why you think these should be unprotected? Are you saying that the protection is actually redundant? Or do you think that anyone at all should be permitted to create these edit notices? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
re
Assuming I already answered your first part of message in the Weriet TP (simply "there was not so many duck evidence" at the time), I agree with you 100% about the inter-project CU. I also agree that "a lot of users thinks that SPI is only RFCU, however everyone are welcome to send some evidences" but, as pointed by someone in the ANI thread, many times SPI investigations fail to achieve enough interest by the community, and in this case only the visibility of ANI allowed several different editors (I count 4) to share their cues/evidence and to put a serious case. As said in ANI by one admin with a previous strong innocence-propensity point of view, "there's almost no other way to explain Werieth's coincidential behavior to Beta with the new evidence given". About the "why just now?", note there is also a movement afoot accusing several mods to have covered the sock, but I tend to be skeptic towards any conspiracy theory, here and elsewhere (while it could be right to investigate also in this direction).
However, how do you explain your further evidence (Betacommand copying a Werieth code in his wikimedia-page a few hours before Werieth announcing "retirement")? I think this "link" between the two accounts that you discovered is a very interisting one, really. Especially considering the context, it's hard to find a rational explaination keeping the assumption the two acconts were unrelated. --Cavarrone 13:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
- GZWDer I agree with you but sadly I'm kinda skeptic about a positive solution. If you take a look at the discussion here, it appears highly unlikely an interwiki-CU will be conceded (feel free to post a message there). And I'm also skeptic Beta will ever admit anything (while the idea to contact him is a good idea, anyway). --Cavarrone 07:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the link, I had not noticed that request in November. However, outside the bizarre vote by Technical that votation has no sense, the proper venue to discuss the request is an arbitration request here and I doubt that in the current circumstances he would had any chance of success. In the remote case he was innocent, I'd like something like him posting a request favoring a voluntary CU between en.wiki and mediawiki, so skipping the privacy concerns. Not a SPI expert, so I don't know if that would be enough to make the CU bureaucratically possible (especially as this User:Billinghurst seems to have already took his final decision), but it could surely help: at this point of discussion, given the evidence, it is more Beta who have to prove his innocence than the opposite. --Cavarrone 10:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Rollback granted
You might also consider requesting global rollback on meta, sounds like you could use it. Best — MusikAnimal talk 07:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The recent removal of templates you conducted
I saw what you did in commenting out certain templates on annother editor's page due to their status. You may also want to consider unsubscribing them from the various newsletters they get on their talk page as it appears they are never coming back. Hasteur (talk) 15:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
User page
Why would you "clean up" a user page? I - as a reader - would like to see background of an author without having to dig in the history. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Crywolf
I would like to contest the deletion. --Thahouseusers2015 (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
My RfA
Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Neutral so you get a reasonable two cookies, just cooling off. |
change 'मेहदी ख्वाजा पीरी TO मेहदी ख्वाजा पीरी
mahdi khaje piri we made a page for this person in Hindi language but in the name of article we had mistake we made a page 'मेहदी ख्वाजा पीरी BUT the correct one is मेहदी ख्वाजा पीरी it means only one ' is the problem any way please repair this page https://hi.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%87%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%A6%E0%A5%80_%E0%A4%96%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%9C%E0%A4%BE_%E0%A4%AA%E0%A5%80%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%80
and edith 'मेहदी ख्वाजा पीरी TO मेहदी ख्वाजा पीरी
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elhaaam (talk • contribs) 14:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Elhaaam (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:AN discussion
You may be interested in this discussion. —SpacemanSpiff 05:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
How many men?
Hi GZWDer. I came to the "How many men?" page to act on a WP:G1 speedy deletion tag. However I determined it was not nonsense and declined the speedy. The redirect apparently lost it's meaning when text was removed from the target page in September 2012. I have now restored and rewritten the content and included a reliable reference. (Apparently lack of RS was the original reason for removal.) Does this change your submission to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7#How many men?? — CactusWriter (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
RfDs based on WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:NOTFAQ
You may wish to hold off on nominating further articles with the rationale you've used recently, pending the result of the RfC located at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#RfC: Should we add a footnote to WP:NOTHOWTO/WP:NOTFAQ stating that it does not apply to redirects?. ~ RobTalk 00:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
RfD nominations
When nominating related redirects for RfD, please ensure to group them under one section heading for the ease of other users, e.g., if more than one redirect you have nominated has a similar rationale. That way, we do not need to copy-paste the same thing over and over again. Thank you for your understanding. --- TheChampionMan1234 04:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Your revision on my talk page
Yes, I was 90% sure that was a J. sock. Thanks! Jeh (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Tobias
I'm not familiar with the history on wikidata, but can you take a look at this? I came across it as I'd protected Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) and now after that protection expired I saw two accounts that appear to match this. Too early for diff comparison on en.wiki but maybe you can take a look. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 17:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
China National Highway 228 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect China National Highway 228. Since you had some involvement with the China National Highway 228 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 18:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC). You can at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Errors in your nomination. North America1000 18:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
TC
I've applied two temporary soft blocks on the IP range used by Tobias Conradi, as per your request. However, it seems he keeps trolling on iawiki. Since you have requested his global ban, I think you may have more information about this LTA. Could you keep an eye on it? Please, report any problem. Thanks. RadiX∞ 04:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Removing tags on Restrictions on geographic data in China
Hi ! Some times ago you had added original research, ref improve and unreliable sources tags (within multiple issues) to the Restrictions on geographic data in China article. It seems that these issues have been fixed, in their great majority at least. I suggest we remove the tags. OK with you ?--Farialima (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)