Misplaced Pages

User talk:Hans Adler: 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 14:54, 26 October 2010 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 14d) to User talk:Hans Adler/Archive 5.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 18:47, 30 October 2024 edit undoBaranBOT (talk | contribs)Bots, Extended confirmed users16,960 editsm Fix mass message error per WP:AWBREQTag: paws [2.2] 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 250K |maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 5 |counter = 7
|algo = old(14d) |algo = old(7d)
|archive = User talk:Hans Adler/Archive %(counter)d |archive = User talk:Hans Adler/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}} {{archive box|auto=yes|search=yes}}


'''In the near future I may not read my talk page as frequently and reliably as I used to do. For urgent or important matters, it may be better to use email. <s>I am actually completely inactive nowadays. If you leave a message here, don't rely on getting an answer in less than a couple of years.</s>'''
] If I left a message on your talk page, then I will be watching it for a while. So you can simply reply there, and the discussion will be in one place. Similarly, when an experienced editor comments here I will usually respond here. I do not use "talkback" templates, and it rarely if ever makes sense to leave me such templates.


] I do not use "talkback" templates, and it rarely if ever makes sense to leave me such templates.<br/>] I could never see the point of the stickers I sometimes got in elementary school. Please do not embarrass me with "awards" or "barnstars" or the like.<br/>] I do not fancy non-consensual ].
== Mediation Case ==


== Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago ==
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning ''Genesis Creation Myth'' has been filed with the ] (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at ] and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
{{User QAIbox

| title = Awesome
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at ]; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at ]; further information on Misplaced Pages's policy on resolving disagreements is at ].
| image = Cscr-featured.svg

| image_upright = 0.35
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an ] of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (] for details).
| bold = ]

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, ] (])
== ] ==

Thank you very much for your help.] (]) 07:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC

== WP:V ==

Hallo Hans, you commented the other day at the WP:V talk page proposals re science/media sources. The present situation is that a majority of editors seem to be in favour of implementing either proposal 5 or proposal 7, but concerns have been voiced that this will be a big change which perhaps should not be undertaken without wider community input. See ]. Your input would be welcome. --'''<font color="#0000FF">]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">]</font>''' 14:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
:Thanks. On first sight it looks OK, but I am unlikely to get more involved in the discussion at this point. ] ] 15:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
== ] ==

I don't know about what you think, but this article's title should be changed and it is struggling with neutrally presenting the topic. I was reverted in my attempt to fix it, so do you think that there is a good compromise?--<span style="background:burlywood; color:red;font-size:small;;font-family:Arial;">]</span><span style="background:yellowgreen; color:white;font-size:small;;font-family:Arial;"> ]</span> 07:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:What you apparently don't understand is that the entire climate change debate has been manufactured by advertising companies that are paid by ExxonMobil and other large companies that profit from ''delaying'' certain inevitable actions. This is nothing new, since we have had precisely the same mechanisms in connection with other issues previously, most notably smoking and cancer. There are numerous cases of people and front organisations that used to claim that science was divided about whether smoking causes cancer (which it very clearly wasn't), and who now claim that science is divided about whether industry causes global warming. And similarly to the previous cases, there is no ''genuine'' scientific debate about this, just smoke and mirrors for the general public. As an encyclopedia we follow the most high-quality sources for such topics and we have a lot of editors with a scientific background. Therefore the advertising companies that offer "real grassroots campaigns rather than astro-turfing" (by which they obviously mean astro-turfing that is harder to detect) for huge amounts of money are currently learning that it's a bit harder to manipulate Misplaced Pages than it is with the average local newspaper. ] ] 09:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

== October 2010 ==

] Please ] in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on ]. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-agf3 -->
edit is unacceptable. Please revert. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:Thank you for reminding me of the month. You can't be serious. AGF is not a suicide pact. In particular it does not force anyone to assume that an editor who is trying to add Wales to the following template has misunderstood its purpose:
{{Navbox
|name = Countries of Europe
|title = ] of ]
|list1 = <div>
]{{smallsup|1}}{{smallsup|·}}{{smallsup|5}}{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{smallsup|2}}{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{smallsup|1}}{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{·}}
{{nowrap|]}}{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{smallsup|2}}{{·}}
{{nowrap|]}}{{·}}
]{{smallsup|3}}{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{smallsup|1}}{{smallsup|·}}{{smallsup|3}}{{·}}
]{{smallsup|1}}{{·}}
]{{·}}
] {{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{smallsup|1}}{{·}}
]{{smallsup|1}}{{·}}
]{{smallsup|5}}{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{smallsup|4}}{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{smallsup|3}}{{·}}
]{{smallsup|2}}{{smallsup|·}}{{smallsup|5}}{{·}}
]{{smallsup|2}}{{smallsup|·}}{{smallsup|5}}{{·}}
]{{smallsup|3}}{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{smallsup|3}}{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{smallsup|1}}{{·}}
{{nowrap|]}}{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{smallsup|1}}{{smallsup|·}}{{smallsup|5}}{{·}}
]{{smallsup|1}}{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{·}}
]{{smallsup|5}}{{·}}
]{{smallsup|1}}{{·}}
]{{·}}
{{nowrap|]}}{{smallsup|3}}{{·}}
{{nowrap|]}}

<small>
<sup>1</sup>&nbsp;Has ] outside Europe.&nbsp;
<sup>2</sup>&nbsp;Entirely in ] but having socio-political connections with Europe.&nbsp;
<sup>3</sup>&nbsp;Has ] or similar territories outside Europe.
<sup>4</sup>&nbsp;Name disputed by Greece; see ].
<sup>5</sup>&nbsp;Is a ]
</small>
</div>
}} }}
--] (]) 07:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
:There is even a footnote saying "Is a state with limited international recognition". Editors from the UK can be expected to have a basic command of the English language and to be part of the general cultural background on which Misplaced Pages operates. They must know that the constituent countries of the UK have ''no'' international recognition as sovereign states, which this is obviously about.] ] 18:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
==] nomination of ]==

]
::No one is claiming that the constituent countries of the UK are sovereign states on that or any other page in Misplaced Pages. The issue which has arisen several times is that any list or template which wants to restrict itself to countries which are sovereign states needs to be appropriately titled. Those arguments have been made. You are free to disagree with them, but the edit I reference above with its accusations and name calling against other editors is a clear failure to assume good faith and addresses the motivation of other editors rather than dealing with content issues. You should strike those comments and focus on the content issues. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

:::Stop this nonsense. You certainly speak English better than I do, and it's very hard to believe that you or the other editors in question don't understand what the term ''country'' means in this context. As I said, the problem is plausible deniability: It's impossible to ''prove'' that you aren't simply context-deaf. But given the large number of editors with Welsh flags on their user pages who keep pushing Wales into contexts where otherwise only sovereign states appear speaks for itself. A ''general'' statement like the one I made is perfectly proper under the circumstances. The plausible deniability applies individually, but not collectively. ] ] 19:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
::::Whatever your argument as to the content, you should not make accusations against editors as you did today. It is not proper. You are speculating on the motivations of editors rather than dealing with the content. You really need to get your mind around this. I am happy to accept that we may have a disagreement about what country means. What is not acceptable is for you to launch an attack on other editors without cause. You "we can't get them blocked" comment is particularly crass by the way. I really do suggest you strike the comment, its in clear breech of WIkipedia rules. --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::The only rule my comment has broken is the rule that comments about editors' behaviour should only be made on any of a small number of pages that have been created for that purpose. If that works for you as a compromise I would be willing to move my comments to ANI – even though I think they are proper where they are, because they deal directly with the problem that the proposed move is intended to address. ] ] 19:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::If you want to make an ANI case based on your comments feel free. I thought it better to give you a chance to withdraw unjustified attacks rather than reporting the behaviour. Its not an isolated case by the way, looking at one piece of advise below and remembering previous comments --] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 05:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::I have no interest in escalating this further. It was an offer, not something I personally want to do. ] ] 07:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::Sensible, now if you would strike that comment OR make it clear it does not apply to any editor engaged in the discussion then the matter is closed--] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 08:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

::::::::::Perhaps a rephrasing would suffice. ''"The constant disucssion over inclusion/exclusion on those articles, templates is becoming frustrating. We should begin changing titles from country to sovereign state, in order to end the continuing arguments"''. ] (]) 14:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

== Coanda-1910 ==

Hello! I will start by saying sorry if, this feels like pushing you. You promised to give some comments still on the Coanda-1910 sources reliability. Would you have time to do so? Thank you in advance!--] (]) 22:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
:Sorry for being a bit slow with this. This is going to take quite a bit of concentration and I am currently also a bit busy in real life. So I was going to wait a bit to see if Binksternet's promised source materialises any time soon – I think it would be a waste of effort to work through all this only to have to re-evaluate everything in the light of a new source. Currently it looks to me as if we need to find a compromise version that reconciles the different accounts with each other and also mentions the uncertainties. But it's unfortunate that I have only snippets from many of the key sources to go by. ] ] 22:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
== Battleground ==

* ]

I've been following some of your recent comments on climate change, a topic in which I don't think I've seen you editing much before although I think we've seen one another around the place. One of the key things to come out of the recently closed arbitration was the "us-and-them" battleground mentality and behavior that may exacerbate that. In fact a whole heap of quite good editors, some of them excellent editors, were topic banned because their behavior was very polarizing.

So that's why I'm coming and asking you to be very careful about how you refer to other editors, even in a general sense, in this topic area. It's easy to set the stage for more warfare and then we all lose out. It would definitely pay you to look carefully through the arbitrators' comments on the proposed decision page of that case, I think that will help you to pick up the vibe that's coming out of Misplaced Pages on the topic now. --] 00:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

:My comments were the reaction to the obvious cases of astro-turfing that I have seen in a single day. They were all from accounts that haven't edited since September. ] is a good example. Of course this ''may'' be an ordinary user who happened to become interested in CC on the day the CC Arbcom ruling came out. But it seems more likely that in the 2 years between January 2007 and February 2009 someone did a password guessing attack on abandoned accounts and turned them into sleepers. The first edit in February 2009 was innocuous. Then in September 2009 we have a substantial edit in favour of relaxing rules for testing pharmaceuticals, sourced to the Heartland Institute, as well as one edit writing up a minor Republican candidate. Yesterday the same account added the sentence "There are numerous examples of newspapers printing op-eds from groups attacking Wal-Mart whose funding comes primarily from unions." to ], but you had to look at the diff very closely indeed to notice, because the account also split a single relatively short paragraph into three for no apparent reason. This user ''may'' be an innocent fan of the Heartland Institute and Walmart. AGF still applies. But it does not apply collectively when there is a general pattern.
:Nevertheless, thank you for the warning. I will try to take into account that it may be counterproductive if the community is aware of what is going on. After all, there are other ways to deal with the situation. ] ] 07:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

:: I don't know if you're fully aware of what's been going on, so forgive me if you already know this. There is a certain banned editor known as Scibaby who is a prolific sock puppeteer. It isn't the only sock in the climate change topic, but it's the most active. We're well aware of this but the arbitration committee has expressed concern about the dangers of treating every opinionated newcomer as a potential sock. See the arbitration case link I gave above for their official opinion of it. So ] is more important than ever, while of course being aware that jiggery pokery may also be afoot. --] 11:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

:::I guess I am mostly aware of this, although I haven't got a clue how to distinguish Scibaby and other socks. I certainly agree that we must be careful not to ABF all new editors of a certain POV just because there are many socks active in the area. I have watched a blatant case of this unfold with Unomi when he was new, and I have seen several cases related to homeopathy. I have not observed anything remotely as bad in the climate change area, but this may be simply because I didn't watch the area closely. I think I am generally very careful about accusations of sock puppetry against any individual editor. I have made a small number of SPI reports, and in each case it was preceded by many hours of research. The number of SPI reports I did not file because my research cleared an editor to my satisfaction is much higher.
:::As I said, you have made me more aware of the problem that a general awareness of the central problem in the climate change area may be counterproductive because it tends to encourage the kind of polarisation in which sock puppets prosper. I have seen the difference at the homeopathy article, where we managed to get from a pro-/anti-homeopathy polarisation to something much more constructive. Nowadays when new editors turn up and make strongly POV edits, we can deal much more effectively with the situation because the established editors trust each other and know there is no chance of subversion by sock puppets. ] ] 12:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
:::: Thanks. It sounds like your experience in other areas will stand you in good stead. --] 12:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

== ANI thread restored ==

The thread you started at ANI a couple of days ago concerning user Terra Novus rolled off to archives before I could comment. I've restored it from the archive, commented, and informed Terra Novus. I thought it would be right to inform you, as well, since you began it. Best, &nbsp;–&nbsp;<font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 16:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

== No pressure 3RR ==

I'm sure you're aware of the rule, but I just thought I'd remind you that you can be blocked for ].--] (]) 13:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:Thank you. I would not normally have reverted 3 times, but for my personal ethics I don't count the first time because I had every right to assume that when I was first reverted it was in error. Jprw claimed to remove text that was never in the article and gave no real rationale for adding the text they added. This reminds me of the worst kind of edit warring I have seen so far: Reflexive pressing of the "undo" button, based on nothing but edit summaries and editor identity. This kind of editing should never be rewarded, whether it is intentional or not. ] ] 13:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
::I noticed that too when I looked at the edit history, but there ''had'' recently been some "denier" pejoratives added in the reception section, so perhaps it was an incorrect assumption on his part. Whatever, AGF. Wiki's been copping some heat over climate change articles lately, let's try to keep the editing sane on this one.--] (]) 14:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't be editing like this. I don't think your arguments excusing edit warring would cut any mustard in a discretionary sanctions area. Please read the notice I put at the foot of ]. --] 14:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


A tag has been placed on ] indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a ], a ], a ], under discussion at ], or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under ].


If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and removing the speedy deletion tag. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 21:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
For the record, this is the sequence of events in article space, and my analysis:


== Good article reassessment for ] ==
; 2 October
] has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the ]. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ] (]) 18:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
:* Climatedragon adds references to the "skeptical blog WUWT"
==] nomination of ]==
:* Jprw adds "popular science".
]
; 18 October
:* I remove "sceptical popular science", explaining in the edit summary that one person's "sceptical popular science blog" is another's "global warming denial blog"
:* Jprw reverts with an edit summary that suggests they didn't even look at the edit
:* I remove it again
:* Jprw adds it again
:* I remove it again
:* Yeti Hunter adds it again


A tag has been placed on ] indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a ], a ], a ], under discussion at ], or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under ].
My first revert did not feel like a revert. A great deal of research was necessary to even find out where the text came from. My second revert was in the spirit of cooperative editing – Jprw seemed to have reverted because of a misunderstanding of the nature of my edit. Of course it looks differently now. The next three reverts (including one by me) were inappropriate and I apologise for mine. ] ] 15:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and removing the speedy deletion tag. <!-- Template:Db-catempty-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 08:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
: That's edit warring, and taken as a whole it certainly isn't collegial editing by any stretch of the imagination. Anyway, enough lecturing. Please read the arbitration case decision and you may see that it has serious teeth intended to stop exactly this kind of edit war. --] 15:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


== Invitation to participate in a research ==
::I wrote the last sentence for a reason. ] ] 15:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


Hello,
== Discussions regarding Weston Price ==


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 ''''''.
] Please ] other editors. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-npa3 --> --] (]) 23:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
{{further|]}} ] ] 17:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:"Misplaced Pages is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Misplaced Pages discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.. "
:"Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement. Rather, approach the matter intelligently and engage in polite discussion. If another user behaves in an uncivil, uncooperative, or insulting manner, or even tries to harass or intimidate you, this does not give you an excuse to respond in kind. Address only the factual points brought forward, ignoring the inappropriate comments, or disregard that user entirely. You could also remind the user in question of Misplaced Pages's policy of no personal attacks in such a situation. If a conflict continues to bother you, take advantage of Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process. There are always users willing to mediate and arbitrate disputes between others." - WP:BATTLE --] (]) 18:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
I suggest both of you avoid interacting at all. Nothing good ever comes of it. --] 18:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:That is certainly good advice. As you may have noticed, we had only three short episodes of interaction so far: One in March 2008, one in August 2009 and one starting a few days ago at ], when I commented in a thread without having a clue that Ronz was involved. While I generally enjoy getting people with robot-like behaviour, such as telemarketers , off-script, I am doing my best to avoid this particular temptation on Misplaced Pages. It may not be good enough, though. If only I knew a good strategy for ending interaction once someone has started applying their script to me. ] ] 18:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:: I've had this problem and I know how it plays out (which is badly). You're both going to have to try hard to make it work. Avoid the temptation to characterize the other person or his conduct, ''even in a way that you regard as objectively fair or generous''. Forgive and let pass without comment any comment by the other person you find annoying or provoking. Where possible, avoid commenting in discussions on which the other has commented, and when you do so address the subject and not the person. Think generous thoughts about the other person at all times, but don't overdo it, try to see him as a human who finds you as annoying as you find him. Try to live and let live. --] 19:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:::Thanks. ] ] 19:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
:::<nowiki>*</nowiki>sigh*. I had completely forgotten Ronz's ''sensitivity'' about Barrett. Serves me right for not being obsessed with him. ] ] 23:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
] Please do not add unreferenced or ] information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Misplaced Pages about ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-biog2 --> --] (]) 23:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
== FYI ==


Kind Regards,
]] (]) 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


]
== Article Names for English places ==


<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
I am on your side about having English places disambiguated by the county when possible as I have proposed ] to be moved to ] and ] to ] there is ] and ]. There is also a ]. ] (]) 12:06, 26 October 2010 (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_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 -->
:I think you misunderstood my position. It's absurd to disambiguate a locality that is not an independent village with a county rather than the city whose mayor the inhabitants of the locality help to elect. It's particularly absurd in a case such as Beeston, which is geographically quite clearly a part of the settlement Leeds.
:While I was under the impression that there was a guideline that intentionally prescribed this absurdity, and that there was strong support for this guideline, I was prepared to support the move on consistency grounds. But it is now clear to me that that is not the case. ] ] 13:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:47, 30 October 2024

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

In the near future I may not read my talk page as frequently and reliably as I used to do. For urgent or important matters, it may be better to use email. I am actually completely inactive nowadays. If you leave a message here, don't rely on getting an answer in less than a couple of years.

I do not use "talkback" templates, and it rarely if ever makes sense to leave me such templates.
I could never see the point of the stickers I sometimes got in elementary school. Please do not embarrass me with "awards" or "barnstars" or the like.
I do not fancy non-consensual templated "WikiLove".

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Jass

A tag has been placed on Category:Jass indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz 21:20, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Apothecaries' system

Apothecaries' system has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:West Balkans card games

A tag has been placed on Category:West Balkans card games indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz 08:14, 6 March 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,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)