| Revision as of 19:32, 24 April 2013 editZeroOne (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers7,451 edits →"By whom"← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:01, 7 January 2024 edit undoSDZeroBot (talk | contribs)Bots705,526 edits Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion at AfD | ||
| (92 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{bots|deny=DPL bot}} | |||
| All discussions prior to |
All discussions prior to July 2013 ]. | ||
| == Discussion on ] == | |||
| == Thane building collapse article == | |||
| I am contacting you to let you know that there is currently a discussion going on that you might be interested in on ]. I noticed that you were one of the top contributors to the article, so I figured I would let you know. Please don't feel like this invitation means that you have to participate, but feel free to do so if you desire. ] (]) 23:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| Hi there! | |||
| :This discussion was recently closed by me, but has since reopened. Please feel free to participate if you are interested. ]] 17:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles == | |||
| Thanks by the way for all your edits - I had previously did a compare across a number of edits and didn't realize how many great edits you made until I started doing research and looked at the changes line by line. You made a lot of great edits to make the article sharper, clearer, correct and wikified! Thanks! | |||
| I have started a discussion that may interest you at ]. ] (]) 08:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC) | |||
| One question for you: I've been trying to find a source that reports that the parents of the 10 month old girl have been located - and I cannot find one. Everything I find says that the search for the parents was in vain. There was one source, though, that said someone had stepped in to care for the child (I think a hospital worker). Do you have a source that reported that the parents have been located? (I'll watch this page). | |||
| == Nomination of ] for deletion == | |||
| Thanks much! Happy editing!--] (]) 04:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ], to which you have , is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to ] or if it should be ]. | |||
| :Thanks for the thorough cleanup you've been doing as well! Regarding the girl, see ]; I replied there. (And I'm watching that page, so feel free to reply there.) – ] (] | ]) 04:18, 7 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The discussion will take place at ''']''' until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. | |||
| ::Ok, great! I think we're in good shape now. I've been cross-checking this compare - and the net-net looks pretty good! I hope that you think so, too! Thanks!--] (]) 05:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit ]. Delivered by '']'' (]) 01:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)<!-- User:SDZeroBot/AfD notifier/template --> | |||
| == Numerals == | |||
| Good work, at the bombing article.--] (]) 18:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. Stupid OCD tendencies make me cringe every time I see that changed back... :) (I added a hidden comment before, guess I'll put it back if it continues to change.) Such a minor issue, yet it annoys me! – ] (] | ]) 19:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Same here. So thanks for doing the heavy lifting. BTW -- we differ on OR; I'll leave my thoughts on the article tp. Don't take them personally, please. Best.--] (]) 19:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Teamwork Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For your work on ]. ] (]) 22:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :Thanks. It's been nice to work with editors who've done a great job of improving it without any policy-related drama, despite the huge number of edits. 22:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == April 2013 == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for ], as ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. ] 06:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1='Sigh; roommate decides to mess with me by watching what I'm editing on Misplaced Pages and vandalizing it in a manner that he knows would annoy me. I can't even guarantee that would stop by fully unblocking me. Perhaps you could decide to unblock my account, but leave our shared IP address blocked? I am certainly no vandal nor sockpuppeteer, as I hope my contributions would evidence.' | accept=Whilst I found your explanation plausible, discussion with the blocking admin suggests that some suspicion might be warranted. I'm assuming good faith and unblocking your account, since it's feasible that events happened as you described. You should be aware, however, that if similar circumstances arise in the future you are far less likely to be believed - I'd recommend taking some steps to secure yout computer from unwanted access. ] ]‍] 07:17, 23 April 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| : I suppose I can sympathize with you to some extent, since you seem to be sincere, but unfortunately, ]. I'm not a huge supporter of that rule, but it works like that. Sorry. ] ] 04:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *I have not had much interaction with this editor, but did just have highly positive interaction with him where he performed good work for the project (see my note above the block). And, subsequent to me, the same was noted by another established editor (a sysop) -- see his subsequent kudos, above). We have rules. But another is AGF. And ... I recently reviewed an unblock of an editor where the community/unblocker considered other contributions. If he can be released from the corner for time served, I think that may be appropriate. (Plus, fill in here "blocks are not meant to be punitive" and whatever other standard phrases people throw out in these situations, but it is my prior point that leads me to leave this note).--] (]) 06:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. Honestly, I wouldn't begrudge a reviewing admin for leaving this in place; I was tempted to just ride out the block, since it is a pretty dumb situation and I'm not sure how much sympathy I'd have from the other side... – ] (] | ]) 06:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm confident that 2001:db8 is telling the truth here, and request that the block is shortened.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 06:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| For what it's worth, the individual in question has agreed not to drag third parties like Misplaced Pages into stupid "jokes", so I don't believe there's any further danger of vandalism from my IP. (Apparently, earning me a one-week block was a "win.") – ] (] | ]) 07:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Strange edit == | |||
| Hi, I have a question regarding which I find strange: you change a referenced statement, remove the reference, and then add a citation-needed template. Why? ] (]) 07:35, 20 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I was clarifying the exploding bomb per a report that I couldn't find a ref for quickly...I'd meant to go back and stick in a proper ref, but forgot to. Oops. – ] (] | ]) 06:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Edits == | |||
| Hi. Welcome back. Two comments -- a) one doesn't need square brackets around ellipses within a quote (they add nothing, and should not be there); and b) no need for a "footnote needed" tag in a lede, where the footnote appears in the text below that the lede summarizes. Good to have you back.--] (]) 17:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks; I have to thank you for corroborating my editing history. Point noted on the ellipses. I really need to read through the whole MOS at some point since I'm pretty pedantic about it myself... :) And I completely missed that the statement I {{tl|cn}}ed was duplicated and referenced in the body. Oops. (And did the same thing on another article just shortly before, but caught that one! Excessively lazy editing on my part.) – ] (] | ]) 17:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::No worries, my friend. Welcome back.--] (]) 17:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == "By whom" == | |||
| Hello! Since you seem to be a knowledgeable editor, why don't you just in the ] article instead of just tagging it with "{{by whom}}"? I don't want to keep guessing what's the acceptable form since you obviously already know it. ], you know. ;) Cheers, —] (<small>]</small> / <small>]</small>) 21:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It just needed someone listed at all rather than implying everyone; I ended up using "by some", since I didn't feel like trying to summarize the reasons, although that would be better if you feel like editing it further. (E.g, "criticized by some as an overreaction because X, Y, and Z.") You already had the specific refs summarized out (in fact, I re-summarized one before noticing it was already summarized!), other than the FBI interview from RT which wasn't actually relevant. – ] (] | ]) 22:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Alright, thanks! It seems that other editors already improved it a little further too. :) —] (<small>]</small> / <small>]</small>) 19:32, 24 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 01:01, 7 January 2024
All discussions prior to July 2013 have been archived.
Discussion on Talk:Hurricane Sandy
I am contacting you to let you know that there is currently a discussion going on that you might be interested in on Talk:Hurricane Sandy. I noticed that you were one of the top contributors to the article, so I figured I would let you know. Please don't feel like this invitation means that you have to participate, but feel free to do so if you desire. Inks.LWC (talk) 23:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
- This discussion was recently closed by me, but has since reopened. Please feel free to participate if you are interested. I, JethroBT 17:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles
I have started a discussion that may interest you at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#WP:BOLDTITLE and election articles. Anomalocaris (talk) 08:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Binders full of women for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Binders full of women, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.
The discussion will take place at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Binders full of women (4th nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)