Misplaced Pages

User talk:Kww: 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 19:05, 7 September 2014 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits Middle 8 is continuing to edit against consensus: cmt← Previous edit Latest revision as of 00:12, 19 November 2024 edit undoMediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,139,118 edits ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message: new sectionTag: MassMessage delivery 
(836 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 17: Line 17:
# ] # ]
# ] # ]
# ]


== DVMt/Neuraxis ==


== BENN JORDAN ==
After I added on May 20, 2014 DVMt deleted the on May 21, 2014 I added to the fringe theories. The motivation for from the fringe theories was because I added the template to the . This shows DVMt has a battleground mentality. DVMt accused me of adding but I only added one. There was to delete the templates.


This person is not notable, and certainly doesn't need 14 seperate wiki articles on each of his works, none of which are notable or sourced, nor is he. He appears to be a hack bedroom producer that simply uploads his content to illegal file sharing sites. I've nomined him for speedy deletion. Please also assist removing the other 12+ pages he has made himself, apparently.
] restored the I originally added and added a {{tl|third-party-inline}} .


== Nelly Furtado ==
DVMt deleted a that was added to the page back in and deleted the template User:Adam Cuerden . This shows DVMt was blindly deleting the {{tl|Unbalanced}} that was in the article for a . ] (]) 14:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


Nelly Furtado has a portuguese passport, she said it in an interview to The Independent in 6 March 2004 (she was interview by Aoife O'Riordain), but The Independent has erased that interview probably because it was done more than 10 years ago (the interview was located here: http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news_and_advice/story.jsp?story=498282). What you call a fansite is a forum where the interview was "copy pasted". I don't know why you guys are trying so hard to hide the fact that Nelly has portuguese citizenship, but that's a fact. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
DVMt claims "The specific context of removing the templates at the fringe page is that they were problematic as seen at this discussion here ." The {{tl|Bias source}} template I . I created a new and different template. There was no discussion for removing "two templates" at the fringe page. The discussion is about only one template but DVMt . ] (]) 16:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


But I found that source! The Independent (UK) 6 March 2004, Nelly Furtado interview by Aoife O'Riordain. Title of the interview: «My Life in Travel: Nelly Furtado.» ] (]) 15:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a <code>{{]}}</code> in the newly created sandbox. It looks like a cut and paste from the . There is a discussion at ]. Even sandboxes should not have copyright violations. See ]. Now the copyright violation was added to the . What should be done about this? ] (]) 20:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:No, ], the material in ] sandbox does not qualify as a copyright violation. It could be made a ''little'' clearer as to what parts are quotes and what parts are DVMt's analysis of that material, but the attribution is reasonably clear and the usage of the material is to provide commentary on it.&mdash;](]) 20:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


There was an interview in a portuguese magazine in 11 November 2006 (Revista Única), where the journalist ask: "Do you feel more canadian or portuguese?" And Nelly say: "I have a Canadian and a Portuguese passport, but I feel more Portuguese because of my roots." Check http://nellyfurtado-ninhas.blogspot.pt/2008/02/revista-nica-portugal-2006.html and you will find a photo from the pages and the title "I feel more portuguese". That sentence is mencioned all over the net (google "Nelly furtado" and "passaporte português"). Misplaced Pages should be a place for facts, but that's not the case. Shame on you.] (]) 16:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Kshilts previously deleted and other text from the chiropractic lede is using a . ] (]) 19:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
::Hum possibly. Not sure if we should wait for further edits to clarify? ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


Well, it seems I found AGAIN that Nelly Furtado is Portuguese. In the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCqT2PIsDzo (@01:55 - an interview to a brazilian program), Nelly say: "Sou canadiana, mas portuguesa também. A minha alma e o meu coração são portugueses". Let me translate it for you: "I'm canadian, but also portuguese. My heart and my soul are portuguese." That's a primary source, don't you think? Will you change the article to Portuguese-Canadian or do you want me to do it? ] (]) 19:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
== Edit warring over ] ==
:I will need to evaluate the YouTube video later, ]: I cannot access YouTube from work.&mdash;](]) 19:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
::No problem. Take a look at this video too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYGKj3WPhQk. It's an interview to a mexican program. Nelly say @02:30: «Yo me siento hispanica y latina también, porqué yo soy portuguesa». In english: «I feel hispanic and latin also, because I am portuguese». I will continue to look for more videos, but I think we have the evidence we need in these two (Nelly say she is portuguese in 2 different languages). ] (]) 19:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
:::Another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB38fLBZc8I (portuguese program). @02:38 Nelly say: «Descobri a música mais moderna de Portugal. Música que vinha de Lisboa: Pedro Abrunhosa, Santos e Pecadores, Madredeus... Coisas que me faziam sentir orgulhosa de ser portuguesa. Fiquei ainda mais orgulhosa de ser portuguesa.» In english: «I discovered the portuguese modern music. Music from Lisbon: Pedro Abrunhosa, Santos e Pecadores, Madredeus... Things that made me feel proud of being Portuguese. I felt even more proud of being portuguese». ] (]) 19:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
::::You don't need to see the other videos. See this one in english: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ezIHQ0pkTE. @01:25, Nelly is asked: «You are not spanish, right?». And then, the answer: «No. I'm actually PORTUGUESE-CANADIAN....» Not a fansite, not a blog: the truth from her own mouth. ] (]) 20:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::I'll have to see a video that isn't a copyright violation, ]. None of those are authorised copies.&mdash;](]) 22:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::I don't know if I can find one video that isn't a copyright violation. But I will try. At least, now you know the facts: she is portuguese and she said it dozens of times in newspappers, magazines and TV shows. It's really sad to see «is a Canadian singer» in the Wiki page after hearing Nelly say repeatedly she's portuguese-canadian... ] (]) 22:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


== Arb case request ==
See . The edit summary suggest he thinks the fake article littered with mass OR and mass MEDRS violations is an improvement over the well developed chiropractic article. ] (]) 17:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the ] and the ] may be of use.
Now ] is making . ] (]) 19:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


Thanks, ]&nbsp;]] 16:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)<!-- Template:Arbcom notice -->
:The first link you provided, it's still under discussion at: https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:DVMt/sandbox
:Therefore, it would be violating to remove it until the dispute has been discussed. Why are you reporting such a claim?


== ] ==
:You just got '''banned''' for the so called ''pointy comments on your talk page''. Here is the message from administrator John


You were one of editors of the article. I invite you to an RFC discussion. --] (]) 19:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
:<blockquote><p>Hi there Quackguru. I have blocked your account for one week for ]. Your edits to ] are either ] or ]. When you come back I want you to take a lot more care, consider avoiding areas where you have very strong views, and (especially) remember that editing here is a collaborative process (meaning we have to work together) and a privilege (which can be withdrawn). If you wish to appeal against this block you may do so by posting <nowiki>{{unblock|your reason here}}</nowiki>, but you should review ] first. Best wishes and good luck. --] (]) 19:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)</p></blockquote>.


== Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening ==
:You even dared to remove it from yout Talk Page, until the very administrator John restored it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:QuackGuru&diff=next&oldid=610687333
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ] <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;">] ]</sup> 18:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
:However the case ends, do know that you've definitely had a positive impact on Misplaced Pages overall. ] (] / ]) 06:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


== List of best-selling music artists ==
:Do not remove it again, okay? ] (]) 19:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


*{{la|List of best-selling music artists}}
::Also he refused to , a proposal which I made on his Talk Page before his ban even. He just deleted it. He clearly is here not to collaborate. ] (]) 20:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


Please can you unprotect that page. You protected it about 3 months ago; there's no indications that it still needs protection now. Thanks. ] (]) 20:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I originally reverted a that only made . I added . I'm saving this . ] is deleting sourced text without any consensus and without any good reason. I don't see any discussion on the talk page to delete the text. What should be done about this? ] (]) 16:50, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:Actually, that page has been protected for years, and can't seem to survive unprotected. What you see in the log is me moving it back to semi-protected after a brief period of full protection. So, sorry, won't be doing that any time soon.&mdash;](]) 21:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


==You've got mail!==
:Mentioned in the edit summary: "''Revert this if I'm wrong, but hasn't there been 7 editors who have approved of this edit (], ], ], ], Jytdog, ]). https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Consensus#mediaviewer/File:Consensus_Flowchart.svg''"
{{you've got mail|subject=|ts=11:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)}}
:So far, there have been 7 different editors who had no complaints about the edit (correct if I am wrong). Please see the ''consensus flowchart'' linked in the edit summary. Why did you revert something approved by so many editors? Have you learnt anything from your most recent ban? ] (]) 17:01, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
] <small>(] • ])</small> 11:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
::I will examine the list to see if any legitimate editors have supported removal of the text, ].&mdash;](]) 17:03, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:Also for {{u|John}} and {{u|Tiptoety}} good to know. ] (]) 17:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::], please show where 7 editors approved of your edit. Please also show where was the discussion on the talk page for consensus to delete the text. You haven't shown you got consensus to delete the text and you still have not given any reason to delete the text. I added for the text at TCM. I added in-text attribution which fixed any concerns about the text. In-text attribution was also done at acupuncture as a compromise. ] (]) 17:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::] is still claiming . This is getting out of hand. ] (]) 17:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::: and . It seems you keep continuing the same behaviour right after your most recent ban. ] (]) 17:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::::], your list of seven editors is obviously false, as it includes editors that do not exist and editors that have not commented on the issue. Examine your list, correct it and correct the count, or stop using it. The next claim of "seven supporters" that you make without providing an actual list of seven supporters will result in you being blocked.&mdash;](]) 17:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::I am pertaining to . Since the revert over the edit of , you can easily see from the ''Revision history'' that how many users have kept editing the article remaining . This includes that ip-address editor and me as well. If you liked to leave myself and that ip-address (okay for me) out of calculations, there are still many editors who were just fine with the edit. And as I stated in my edit summary: "''Revert this if I'm wrong,...''". So what's the problem here?
:::::Please show me the diffs where QuackGuru has tried to resolve this with other users? ] (]) 17:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::The problem is that you are attempting to deceive people by conflating "seven people edited the article" with "seven people agreed with the removal of this material". Again, count the people that have ''actively stated support for the change'' and replace your claim of seven with the result, ].&mdash;](]) 17:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I am not attempting to deceive anyone, that's ridiculous. User QuackGuru has been the one making accusations against me. Again, like the demonstrates, the last version remained unchanged and got edited by several other contributors before QuackGuru reverted it. And as I made it pefectly clear in my edit summary: "'''Revert this if I'm wrong'''...", or like I already stated here: "'''So far, there have been 7 different editors who had no complaints about the edit (correct if I am wrong)'''...". If one disagrees, can he/she at least correct me? I am open to correct my statements if I am wrong, naturally. ] (]) 18:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::You claimed you have but it seems you to delete the text in the first place. ] (]) 18:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::I've been attempting to correct you, ], using the time-honoured technique of making someone examine an issue until they see where they have gone wrong. It's one of the ways that I use to distinguish good-faith editors from others. Do you truly not see how, for example, an editor like Bumm13 that focuses on making corrections to transliterations and linking is not expressing an opinion on your change? That 204.174.12.10's opinion on shark-fin soup is not a comment about your change? That McSly's reversion ''is'' a negative opinion on the change? That QuackGuru's edits ''are'' a negative opinion of your change? In short, the only other editor that made any statement in favour of the change was Herbxue? Hardly the seven to one consensus you are using to justify your edits.&mdash;](]) 18:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Thanks for your comment Kww. I start to understand that we have been looking this from totally different perspectives, but I do get your point now. This is what I am concerned about:
::::::::::<blockquote><p>Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Misplaced Pages. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time. (])</p></blockquote>
::::::::::I understand now that you are pointing out to '''different motives''' behind the edits of each user that I were pertaining to. In my understanding, though, WP:CON only speaks about ''implicit and invisible process'' of consensus; the motive of edit does not matter as long as the edit is not disputed. This is what I see to be '''Bexgro''''s case.
::::::::::Well, this is my understanding on WP:CON, but I don't really see why QuackGuru couldn't try discussing the issue first at the article Talk Page? I even stated very clearly in my edit summary: "...'''Revert this if I'm wrong'''...", and that already happened by Jim1138. I am not seeking for any trouble and in my opinion, everything is okay at the article already. ] (]) 18:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::Your understanding of consensus is wrong. Certainly, there is a concept of silent consensus: an edit that lasts for months on an actively edited article can be presumed to have some level of consensus. Not a very strong one if no one has been actively supporting it, but yes, it's there. An edit that has been around for a couple of days while a couple of editors actively removed it cannot be said to have any level of consensus at all. &mdash;](]) 19:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)


==Selena Gomez's "associated act"==
== Sorry for the snarky edit summary ==


:It's for long-term relationships with multiple collaborations. See ] for an expansion, ].&mdash;](]) 15:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I appreciate your pulling me up for edit summary. I think I read your comment more harshly than it was intended. Thanks for explaining. --] (]) 00:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


==] arbitration evidence phase closing soon==
== ] ==


As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 13 July. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, ] <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;">] ]</sup> 17:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
As you are literate in coding, your assistance would be helpful. Currently, when AfCs are XfDd, like in the link above, the template assumes it is a talk page. It shouldn't, as AfCs are articles in talkspace. Therefore, would you be so kind as to edit ] and create an if statement so that it recognises AfCs and thus behaves as though it is an article? (It would need to ask if the first 37 characters equal "Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/", I know there is an expression for that but I don't know what that is.)<span style="background:#FF0;font-family:Rockwell Extra Bold">]]]</span> 18:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
:Kww, I'm really sorry that much of the input at arbitration has favored you losing the mop. Hoping that doesn't happen. Not sure what you'll do if you become desysopped, but I wish you all the best for the future, and definitely don't think you've been as bad of an admin as some users seem to suggest. ] (] / ]) 05:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
::Though, thanks for your past five years of your administrative efforts. ''']]''' 02:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
:::I'd like to thank you as well for your service as an admin. You definitely have been an overall net positive to the project. Cheers, ] (] / ]) 14:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


== Please be more careful == == Arbitration proposed decision ==


Hi Kww, in the open ] arbitration case, a ] which relates to you.&nbsp; Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' (] / ] / ]) 03:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The reputation that is most effected when a false accession is made is your own. In saying early in the discussion about DVmt, that "It is impossible to review your edit history without noting your chronic edit-warring over chiropractic topics as well as the multiple times you have used sockpuppets in efforts to further your goals", you made a claim of sock puppetry that you later retracted. This site makes such false accession far too easy; even so, anyone who does so is clearly marked in the community at large by doing so. And one must always be more careful in accusing ones that we disagree with, or find distasteful, wouldn't you agree? Best wishes to you here, but I hope never to see another such serious accusation turn out to be mistaken. (No RSVP necessary, but if so, please reply ''here''. I will mark and watch.) Cheers. Le Prof ] (]) 00:22, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
==MfD nomination of ]==
] ], a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; font-variant:caps;">] (])</span> 03:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


== Anonpediann ==
==See comment regarding your stridency==
I likely, case by case, will come to the very same conclusions that you do, but I will not, a priori, dis-allow anyone from bringing a citation-based sentence of text into the Misplaced Pages, perceived pseudoscience or no. Stridency such as yours, while to some extent keeping science focused on the most likely explanations, has also led to huge failures and crises in modern science (e.g., the sidelining of the late ] for most of his early career; though declining major society awards to the end of his days for the prejudicial slights he experienced early, at least his story ended well, as he was vindicated, and esteemed). Opposite that, other major research laboratories have come-and-gone that were on the wrong tack for years (clinging to failed hypotheses, long past the point where the preponderance of science had said "let go", because all data coming the way of the PI was prejudged based on worker perceptions of what the PI was willing to hear). These historical observations, as much as the one given from the birth of modern physics, are the basis for my comment regarding religiosity among the most fervent of science types. The direction such attitudes point may indeed be different from those of its opponents, and the aims largely correct. But it is still philosophically the same mares nest, and when it falls, it falls hard. One sees it in the history of science, in biology, in chemistry (my field), in drug discovery, etc. etc. Please, approach everything in an evidence-based fashion, and not prejudicially. Even if only one of the myriads of seemingly nonsensical alternative treatments proves true, we would lose (and lose ourselves) if we resort to anything less than empiricism to find the one and dismiss the others. See comment regarding your stridency, at . Le Prof ] (]) 00:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi Kww, I think you're aware of Anonpediann although I thought I'd bring him up anyway. He's got a retired sticker on his talk page, yet he's going through talk pages and removing comments like . I'm surmising that he is removing them because he believes they are his (I note that User:Justasaddream ), but this is obviously disruptive if other people have responded to them. Thoughts? I'm a little confused by this scenario. I think that maybe he was signing comments as Justasaddream even though that account didn't exist? I found a proper name change request from Urjustaghost --> Anonpediann so that one is clear to me. I'm still warming up to my newly "earned" admin tools. ] (]) 15:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
== ] ==
:Rewarn, revert, and block if it repeats.&mdash;](]) 16:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


== Time for a vacation? ==
Can you take a look at ] ? This edit summary confuses me, and the edits are piling up. I'm not sure how to review this. Thanks, ]<sup>]]</sup> 23:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
:I can't make head nor tails of that one either, ]. Do you know whether the edit is accurate? That's the important part, not the ramblings of an anonymous editor.&mdash;](]) 00:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
::Yes... but games keep getting added, and I'm not sure whether to approve those (the editors might be at E3) or not. ]<sup>]]</sup> 00:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Pretty simple rule in my book, ]: if they didn't provide a good enough source for you to verify it, they didn't provide a good enough source for you to approve it.&mdash;](]) 00:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
::::Ok, thanks for the advice. ]<sup>]]</sup> 00:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
== ] ==


When was the last time you were on Bonaire? ]<sup>]]</sup> 00:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Greetings! As a confirmed user, this doesn't affect me, but I'm curious: I don't see the persistent vandalism or edit-warring that used to be a requirement for page protection. Did I miss something? &mdash;]<b>&#47;</b>] 00:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
:Pretty blatant BLP violations in the history, of the kind that experience has taught me is a meme. No reason to suffer through it.&mdash;](]) 00:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC) :This spring. Believe me, I'd love to be able to just move back home.&mdash;](]) 00:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
::Okay, perhaps I didn't look back far enough. Carry on. :) &mdash;]<b>&#47;</b>] 01:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC) ::I just got back to the US - was on Bonaire for 10 mos. Wish I had known you were there!! ]<sup>]]</sup> 01:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


== ] closed ==
== Reply ==
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:


# {{user|Kww}}'s ] permissions are revoked. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful ]<p>
You've got a reply on ] <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
# {{user|Kww}}'s ] permission is revoked. He may only regain them as follows: If he is desysopped as a result of this case, and is later successful at regaining the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire. If he is not desysopped as a result of this case, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.<p>
# The community is encouraged to establish a policy or guideline for the use of ], and a process by which existing and proposed edit filters may be judged against these.<p>


For the Arbitration Committee, ] <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;">] ]</sup> 14:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
== Owner of archive.today ==


: Discuss this at: ''']'''
I would like to inform you that a pattern that I have noticed could serve as a strong hint regarding the ownership of archive.today by ]. I’m telling you this here instead of mentioning it in a more general location because I’m not sure what the best place to mention it would be.


In <span class="plainlinks"></span> where he claimed to be the owner of archive.is, Rotlink ended a sentence with the “:(” emoticon not preceded by a period, the next sentence starting with a capital letter: “ nor in Tubmlr control panel :( Hopefully, I found this conversation ”.


{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
A message posted 4 weeks ago on the archive.today blog shows exactly the same pattern: the very same emoticon, not preceded by a period, right at the end of a sentence and preceding a sentence starting with a capital letter: “It is not easy, PhantomJS allows to spoof User-Agent only for the request of the main page, not for the images and AJAX requests :( So you may get something weird instead ”.
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}}

|rowspan="2" |
It is very improbable that this is a coincidence. It may seem very ridiculous, which is why I have called it a hint rather than a proof or evidence. Yet, in truth, there is no doubt that they are the same person: the probability that two persons, when one of them has claimed to be the other, have this very same writing pattern, which appears four other times on the blog (but the occurrence I mentioned is the only one where a sentence can be found after the emoticon), is very low. You can search for “:(” on to find the examples I am talking about.
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar'''

I’m not sure whether this is sufficiently important for a new discussion to be started about it, but I think it should be brought up if any discussion about archive.today arises or is still going on. ―&nbsp;] (]) 05:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

== Create an OpenCart article ==

Hello,

I would like to create an OpenCart article. I have the draft written, although wikipedia would not let me post without an administrators permission.

I would appreciate it if you unlock the article so I can post it for the ever expanding community. The article does not contain advertising and it is pure 100% information. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:What has changed since the , ]?&mdash;](]) 02:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


I have collected much more information on the topic based on research on what other E-commerce solutions feature as information. Still I do not understand why you and others are preventing and deleting any article on OpenCart. I saw the article has been deleted 2-3 times before. This is a free e-commerce system, actually the world's 3rd most popular. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 15:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== PC2 ==

Thanks for all the productive discussion on PC2, and best of luck for the next round. - Dank (]) 22:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

== List of awards and nominations received by Beyoncé ==

The number of awards won by the artist was more than 174 ''before'' the addition of Destiny's Child awards were added months ago. Secondly, many of the awards by the individual artist listed includes awards won by Destiny's Child. The number of awards is no where near inflated and both of us are just as capable of providing sources to each award. I will edit the page once again ''including awards won by Destiny's Child'' regardless of whether I will be blocked from editing the page. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 01:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== FAC Media check ==

Kww,

I am looking to take the ] and ] articles to FA at some point within the next month, and was wondering: could you perform media checks for images and such when nominated? Given your frequent work at Demi (and other Disney-related articles), I can see why personal commentary on prose and such probably wouldn't be appropriate during an FAC for her, but would that make you ineligible for media-checking? If you can't do such checks, please refer me to someone who can.

Thank you in advance. '''''] (] • ])''''' 22:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

==David Guetta discography==

There is an anonymous IP who keeps removing singles from tables at ] without giving any explanation in edit summaries, some of recent removals are these, , . I tried to warn him/her on the user's talk twice , , but he/she deletes the warnings and goes back to the article and keeps removing content. The request for semi-protection was . Maybe you could take a look.--] (]) 00:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
:Addressed it with a filter. Let me know if you see him hop IPs.&mdash;](]) 00:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
::OK thanks, I will.--] (]) 00:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

== ] ==
Your recent bot approvals ] has been denied. Please see the ] for details. {{#if: |When the bot flag is set it will show up in .|}}
I am aware I have invoked ] in closing this, but as there is not a clear consensus to run a bot to remove all the links (from the BFRA and RfC discussions), I feel the close is appropriate. Please let me know if you feel differently. --]]<small>]</small> 10:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

== List of awards and nominations received by Justin Timberlake ==

Hello. Why are you deleting the sections of ]? Well, i understand that there are not links but it dosen't mean that we should delete the section. If you don't know then there's ] which you can put when the article hasn't sources. --] (]) 20:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

== Awards ==

There is a huge amount of unsourced entries on the ] page. I think you should take a look. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== A quick question ==

I'm not looking for any action, just an opinion. Do you think the highlighting done on this ] is a help or a hindrance? It's being presented as lifting the contributions of others above the din of the two conflicting editors. I have my own opinion about what to do next but I'm looking for a little outside insight and you are one of the admins I remember being above reproach. ] (]) 14:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

== List of awards and nominations received by Lil' Kim ==

There is still a lot of false and unsourced information on this page. An example being the BMI and ASCAAP awards. How did one receive awards for the same songs in the same years, when an artist can only be associated with one organisation at a time? A lot of the sourced awards link to the same Australian google book that doesn't have anything to do with the claimed awards. I will try and find reliable sources for the claims and help in any way you would like me to. Just a warning, I have had previous run ins with this particular editor, from experience he will likely revert your edits. ] (]) 19:09, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
:Please be very specific, ]. If you can demonstrate specific line items that he inserted with sources that didn't corroborate them, I'll either put him on final warning or block him right now.&mdash;](]) 20:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
::One example, in the ASCAAP Pop Awards section. The source provided honours 50 Cent for his contribution to Magic Stick. It does not award, mention or even credit Lil Kim. Citation 9 awards Scott Scorch as song writer of the year. There is no reference to Lil' Kim in the source provided. There are a lot more examples of this and there is a large portion of awards that have no source at all. ] (]) 22:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
:::Those come under the class of what I could consider to be good-faith confusion. I've removed them, and hopefully that will be the end of it. I see this in articles all the time, where people try to give singers and actors credit for awards that belong to writers and producers. Do you have any cases where it's clearly a bad-faith edit, ]? Please don't feel like I'm dismissing your concerns: I'm not. I just can't take action if there's a good-faith explanation for the problem.&mdash;](]) 22:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
:::: Ok, I will look into this further. An example of the editor inserting lies is the ASCAAP Pop Music Awards. He claims the Lady Marmalade won Song of the Year, when in fact Dido won that year, as backed up by this source. http://www.ascap.com/eventsawards/awards/popawards/2002/song.aspx. Also, the ASCAAP Pop Honourees Award was awarded to Kenny Nolan for his work on Lady Marmalade. I have deleted these off of the page. ] (]) 23:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
::::: Wow. The amount of false information on this page is outstanding. I'm removing all of the false and inaccurate claims, chances are they are going to be reverted by the editor. It's impossible to give any other reasons besides false in the edit summaries. I've searched the sources provided and done individual research and they still come back false. It's a shame.] (]) 00:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::: I am trying to give the editor time to insert necessary citations using the {{Citation needed}} tag. Hopefully he can find sources to back up these claims. ] (]) 00:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Another example of a completely made up received award. The sources only state that Christina won for Best International Female. Nothing at all to do with the song.
]
{{awards table}}
|- |-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For defending the ], even at personal cost. ] ] 15:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
| style="text-align:center;"|2002
|}<!--Template:The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar-->
| style="text-align:center;"|"]" <small>(with ], ] & ])</small>
*Kevin, I am sorry to see this. Setting aside all the disputes and disagreements you and I have had, I'm sorry. ] (]) 17:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
| style="text-align:center;"| Popular Duo/Group Video <ref>http://www.still-christina.com/german/awads.htm</ref> <ref>http://calendar.bellinghamherald.com/dallas_tx/events/show/369975524-winstons-presents-one-night-with-mya-with-love-ep-release-party</ref>
*I too am very sad to see this. --] (]) 18:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
|{{won}}
*So am I. You will be missed. ] (] / ]) 19:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
|}
*Missed, SNUGGUMS? Kww hasn't left, has he? But I'm very sorry to see the result of the case. Kww, even though I've sometimes felt your style was a bit like that of a steamroller, I admire your work. Few people have done as much as you for the site, and I will certainly support any time you want to go for a new RFA. ] &#124; ] 19:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC).
Made up award title and award, She co-hosted the event. She didn't receive an award.
:*He stated in he's not going to be very active anymore, {{u|Bishonen}}. ] (] / ]) 21:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Children Uniting Nations
:*I doubt I will be very active from this point on. I've always been frustrated by Arbcom's ability to miss the point of every case set before it, and this case was no different. I view this as an extension of our Eric Corbett problem: once an editor is popular enough, the blowback from a block is hazardous. It was somewhat entertaining watching Arbcom try to distinguish the BLP violations TRM was blocked over from other BLP violations, try to rewrite ] and ] to justify their position, fail to do so, and ''still'' find that blocking TRM was so unjustifiable that I required a desysop. An edit filter that allowed an IP to talk about his edits rather than simply blocking him was some nefarious scheme of mine to avoid scrutiny? A failed experiment, certainly, but hardly a nefarious scheme. An edit filter that prevented the addition of ''completely unsourced tables'' to awards articles was so problematic as to warrant a desysop? Not in any universe that takes ] seriously.&mdash;](]) 21:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
{{awards table}}
::*You definitely shouldn't have lost your mop, I'll say that now. Very few other editors I know of are quite as attentive to sourcing. ] (] / ]) 21:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
|-
::: I second that. <span style="font face="Papyrus" size="4" font-weight:bold">]</span> 15:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
| style="text-align:center;"|2007
::::I'm very sorry about this. You've done a lot for the project, and the bravery I've seen in standing up to malign folk should earn you plaudits, not this. I've long since given up on ArbCom as something necessary for the project I hope you stay. I understand if you do not. In any event you have my great respect and gratitude.--] (]) 15:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
| style="text-align:center;"|Lil' Kim
:::::I also think it's disappointing that you were desysopped and I think it's a shame that you're scaling back your time here. I can't think of a more productive, effective and efficient admin in the music articles than you, Kww; it won't be easy for others to fill in for the work that you've done. ] 13:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
| style="text-align:center;"|Crystal Dove Award: Inspiring Our Children to Dream <ref>http://www.rapbasement.com/lil-kim/lil-kim-hosts-award-show-for-l-a-foster-children-hits-stage-with-dmx.html</ref>
::::::I am shocked and dismayed by this news. Although I am not involved in this dispute, I wish to echo the sentiments of ] and others. I have come to consider you the MAIN MAN when it comes to music articles and have learned much from observing your edits and project activities. One thing that I remember learning from you particularly is that Bubbling Under charts are ''not'' true extensions of their parent charts, as songs cannot fall back through the BU positions after the song has been on the parent chart.—] (]) 22:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
|{{won}}
:I too am very sorry to see that this has happened. I am not as active on Misplaced Pages anymore, so this comes as a huge surprise, as I could not foresee anything like this happening. I say this because our previous experience has shown you to be extremely diligent and effective, with you being able to route out problematic editors of any kind. You will be sorely missed. ]<sub>&nbsp;]•]</sub> 03:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
|}
{{reflist|close=1}}
] (]) 01:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


==STARKILLERS==
:: Those are just a couple of the TENS of blatant false lies and information. For example the lie I'm currently deleting is from The Source Awards. Where it is claimed that Lil Kim won for best female rap collaboration in 2004. This source, from billboard, shows the award going to Remy Ma. http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/66144/2004-source-hip-hop-music-awards-winners. There are so many false claims that i have probably skipped past some without realising. This article needs to be looked over from start to finish, and the editor who has inserted these lies needs to be banned from altering this page. ] (]) 01:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
::: I've done enough I can for one night. I would recommend looking over the sources for the ASCAP Awards. The chances of all my edits being reverted by the editor are high. ] (]) 02:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I've made several edits to the music wiki page of ] only to have been reverted by a rookie editor. I seek your assistance. This article is full of wiki:puff including talks
== List of awards and nominations received by Nicki Minaj ==
of funding from (fictional) gangsters, unsubstatiated claims of chartings, an un-notable podcast internet radio show, etc. Its clearly authored by the dj himself as in the
ASSOCIATED ACTS section, when you check to edit it, it states 'please don't add associated acts here as starkers is a freelance producer'.


It is a ridiculous promo piece.
if you could take a closer look on what is sourced and unsourced on this article to avoid an article "war" it would be appreciated, as I have looked though and found data that may be false being reverted without citations, thanks.&mdash;](]) 06:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


Please check it out and revert the page back to my edits.
== Sockpuppet ==


thanks <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 03:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The . Same behaviour as before. In the past there was . ] (]) 23:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


== ARCA notice ==
:What evidence would you like to present of your accusations? It appears to me you would provide some if you had it. I'm beginning to suspect you just want to justify your disruptive edits, which I see have gotten you blocked many times in the past. ] (]) 23:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
::I arrived here because ] happened to be at the top of my watchlist where I saw ] with edit summary "reverting disruptive edit. Don't bite the newbies" from an account that is under two days old. ] (]) 23:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
:::at the top of the talk pages it says, "Please be welcoming of newcomers". When you click on it, it says https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers
So I'm not allowed to say don't bite me because I'm a newbie? Why is everyone being so combative?] (]) 02:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
::::and I arrived at this page because I was looking at quackguru's editing history and noticed his post here. I also noticed he has been blocked and banned numerous times for disruptive editing, edit warring, and even warned not to edit war at all. He has been told, and I think by you, that the three revert rule he warned me about didn't apply to him. He's not allowed to revert even less than three times based on his editing history. ] (]) 02:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
:::::And ? You are continuing to make . ] (]) 03:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the ] may be of use.
], you are being your own worst enemy again. I'm aware. I'm watching. I'm contemplating what, if anything, to do. Making my orange bar flash every few minutes will not make me go faster.&mdash;](]) 03:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbitration CA notice --> ''']''' (] / ] / ]) 22:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
== Proposal ==
:This is completely unrelated to anything you've done (if you've even done anything; I don't know) before or after the decision was announced. Basically, several people were confused by remedy #2, so I've filed a request to get Arbcom to clarify what they meant. ] (]) 02:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


== Notice ==
You might be interested in giving input ]. '''''] (] • ])''''' 04:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. <span style="font-size:10pt;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;"><big>☺</big>&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 03:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
*Courtesy notification since you have been mentioned on AN. <small>Well, technically you're mentioned on Technophant's talk page which is partially transcluded on AN (long story), but the end result is similar enough that I feel it warrants the usual notification.</small>. <span style="font-size:10pt;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;"><big>☺</big>&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 03:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


== Standard Offer unblock request for ] ==
== Disruptive user ==


{{user5|Technophant}}
Can you please give Favre1fan93 a final warning for re-adding archive.is links after they have been removed? Oh and just a heads up ] ] (]) 19:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to ] you may have an interest in this request. Sent by ] via -- ] (]) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:PBS@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:PBS/MessageList&oldid=676698900 -->


==Mate==
Can you have a word with STATicVapor ? They persist to editwar archive.is links back into articles. ] (]) 18:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
If you give up, perhaps we all need to. Thought of losing an admin devoted to verifiable content saddens me. Best wished. Hope all that was needed was a break, not retirement. Cheers. ] (]) 20:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


== ] == == The Rambling Man ==


If you don't want to cause drama and strife, please do not post on The Rambling Man's talk page again. I can't put it simpler than that. ] ] ] 07:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. If you believe this to be a copyvio, then why do we have full lists of films like ]?? I strongly suggest you take a look in ]. The films were put in chronological order anyway. I can see that some articles only pick the top 10 though. Can you at least restore the list to my user space? If I simply have a list of films and remove mention of the source then it's hardly copyrightable. That Indian newspaper doesn't own the rights to the film titles. I thought it a valuable list of notable Indian films which I personally found useful, given that most lists are Anglo centric and that it would be useful for the Indian project to find articles to develop.♦ ] 09:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
:If he doesn't want to to respond, ], he shouldn't . I don't know how much simpler than that I can put it.&mdash;](]) 10:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
:I don't ''believe'' it to be a copyright violation, it ''is'' a copyright violation and, as such, cannot be restored. If you reproduce the list without crediting the source, that still violates the copyright (and I have a hard time believing that you don't know that). The AFI list has an OTRS ticket (2007041310002766) releasing its contents. As for any other such lists that you encounter, delete them on sight.&mdash;](]) 13:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
::I was going to go to TRM's page and advise him of the same, but he has scrubbed the message off his talk page, which I ] he wants to forget it about it. Seriously, all that happens when the two of you bang heads is trouble; walk away from it. ] ] ] 10:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
:::I pretty much have walked away: in the conflict between the content-creator cult and those of us that value reliable sourcing, the content-creator cult has won. I remain flabbergasted that an admin that intentionally violated ], ], ], and ] had such widespread support, but a dissent-free Arbcom decision made it pretty clear that I'm no longer welcome. I only monitor my talk page for the occasional ping that I receive to take care of any issues that I may have left open.&mdash;](]) 16:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


== Arbitration clarification request archived ==
Pretty crazy. I could draw up a list of the 100 films in any random order which happened to be cited in that list on this talk page and that wouldn't make it a copyvio if I added more titles to it from the Indian group input. It would simply be a list of films,The newspaper does NOT own the rights to the titles of films and the idea that they would have the power to the titles of the films is ludicrous. Where would this silliness stop? Not permitted to mention Scorsese's favourite films because he owns the copyright to it? ♦ ] 13:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
:It's the objective inclusion criteria that guides the law. When the compilation criteria is based on an opinion, a value is placed on the opinion, and thus copyright law protects that value. If you were to build a list, say, of "Indian films that placed on three or more lists of Greatest Films", that would have an ''objective'' inclusion criterion and would not be protected. There are ways to get fairly close to where ] want to be.&mdash;](]) 14:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


The ], which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived to the ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' (] / ] / ]) 03:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Can you send me the list by email then and I'll revise it with different entries and put in my own user space so it isn't a vio.♦ ] 21:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


== Miley Cyrus == ==RE: Counting to 100==
I know that, but look at other discography pages. They all have numbers greater than 100 for songs who peaked in "Bubbling Under Hot 100."
] (]) 14:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


== Kim Kardashian RfC ==
Hey, just a heads up on the reverts between you and SergiSmiler, the credits on her Bangerz album does list her as a writer to some of the songs. Would that not qualify her as a songwriter? <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #09F,-4px -4px 15px #9F0;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F90,-4px -4px 15px #F09;">]</span></small> 13:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
:Once again, I link to ]. Miley Cyrus does not practice '']''.&mdash;](]) 13:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
::Sorry I never saw your edit summary about the singer-songwriter article. I only saw the last revert thinking it was the first, so nevermind. :) <small><span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #09F,-4px -4px 15px #9F0;">]</span> • <span style="text-shadow:4px 4px 15px #F90,-4px -4px 15px #F09;">]</span></small> 13:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


You previously gave an opinion about the filmography section at ]. Please see ], where a request for comments has been started. ] (]) 20:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
== Heads up ==


Has anyone taken the edit requesting of her surname not being used more than once after her occupations as a model and TV personality respectively? It sounds messed up and out of place. The tape made her famous after all.
See ] ] (]) 19:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
:I worked with him on getting a neutral phrasing in place. There was a little bit of surprise in the timing, but over all, I think it's probably a good idea to either reaffirm or deny the existing RFC consensus.&mdash;](]) 20:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
::Can you please have a word with him, he is edit warring again on ]. ] (]) 20:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


I know that you retired from adminship, but let someone take the opposite to Kourtney Khloe and Kylie's surnames being repeated after said occupations because using she is repetitive.
== Let It Go ==


Thats all,
Hi Kevin, I know that you are fairly experienced in terms of music articles, chart info, and radio release dates, so maybe you could look at ] regarding the radio and maxi single release of this song and give your input? –''''']''''' (] / ]) 17:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
*'''Comment''': Here is the problem in a nutshell the problem is, Forbidden and several other users are arguing with ] and not ] and criticizing Chase and me for point out that they have been making weak points as to why the infobox should not reflect the Menzel's version has been released as a single. ] (]) 19:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


] (]) 16:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
== ] ==


== Notice: Proposed change to WP:INVOLVED ==
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 22:09, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


Discussion is at ] --] (])
== User page ==


== Hello ==
Actually, the only page a blocked user can edit is their talk page (unless that access is specifically removed...). Sandbox, user page and all sub-pages are out of bounds. I can't find a reference for this - it must be laid down somewhere, surely. That's how it works, anyway. ] (]) 09:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


I'm not sure if you remember me (you're probably more familiar with another username, which you can see on my ]), but I'm sorry to hear that you lost your administrative privileges. I only just now found out while keeping up, though I'm not participating, with a ] regarding possible tool misuse by an administrator. (Do a CTRL + F for your name "Kww." You're mentioned three times.)
== ] ==


Both you and {{U|Apparition11}} frequently tried to help me when I was in my "stubborn era," and as you can see from my , I never really "soaked" all the advice in, so I was out for a while. ] (]) 21:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Can you please explain why yoou think that Boostedmx5 is a sockpuppet? The user is asking to be unblocked. ] ] 10:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
:Looking through the history of ], which was beset by sockpuppets, I came to the conclusion that Boostedmx5, The Voice of Reason 9999, Honestabe7777, and Joeearnest were all the same editor. I'd get a checkuser run before unblocking any of them, ].&mdash;](]) 13:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
::Thank you. Please, when you block a user for sockpuppetry, leave some reasonable indication as to who the other accounts are. ] ] 13:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


== Hi == == Help with disruptive IP ==


Hi Kevin. I'm having a problem with an IP at the article ]. They continue to restore their controversial edit to the article, without responding to content of their changes at the RfC (''I'' opened ''for'' them), calling WP:BRD an "irrelevant doctrine" and refusing to leave the article in the condition it was in before their bold edit was made, like BRD states, instead . Could you please help restore some order to the article? It appears it is the same who disrupted the article in November of last year when they forced ] in an attempt to introduce similarly synthesized material into the article using the same sources. ] (]) 17:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I was hoping you might be able to give me some insight as to what message by GoFormer was about? I followed the link and haven't seen my username anywhere, so I'm a little confused. ''']''' (]) 20:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
:Its a known sock master who persists in harassing me. ] (]) 20:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC) :No admin tools left here, ].&mdash;](]) 09:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
::Thanks for quick reply, Kww. ''']''' (]) 20:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


== Templates ==
== Creating articles that are creation protected with loopholes ==


Hi Kww, I'm sorry to see you won't be around any more – for various reasons, Misplaced Pages has lost quite a number of longstanding excellent editors like yourself over the last 12 months, and that can't be good for the project. Anyway, just a quick question if you are still reading your talk page: are there other editors who will be maintaining the Singlechart and Albumchart templates in your absence? Best wishes for the future. ] (]) 21:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
That was probably a confusing subject, but I have a question relating to it. An editor has recently created an article for an actress named ] (she was on The Walking Dead). Note the lowercase "l". This editor has bypassed a creation-protected page at ] and created the article. I don't exactly know what to flag it as to mark it for deletion (it only contains sources to AMC's website and her parents' blog) so I come to you. ''']''' ]</span> 20:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
:I keep track of pings and messages. Not as quickly as I used to (depends on how bored I am). No one in specific has taken over the templates I used to maintain, but there are a number of editors that do OK with them.&mdash;](]) 00:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
::Ah thanks, I'll direct my query there then - the German chart website has changed its layout and consequently screwed up all the links that pointed there. Thanks. ] (]) 01:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


== Help ==
== Deletion of Madison Lintz page ==


Hi Kww! I just wanted to ask you for help because in the page "]", at the composition section, backing the genres, there are a lot of sources which reliability is not clear at all. Could you help me to clean up this sources i'm talking you about? Thanks. ] (]) 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC) ] (]) 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, so I saw that you recently deleted the page ] because based on ] speedy deletion criterion. I've been working on it recently and am assured that the last revision of the article has fixed the problems that led to the article's deletion last time around. I'd like to see the article reinstated because of this, thanks for your time.--] (]) 22:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
: {{tps}} When it gets rightly deleted once, don't ever immediately re-create it in articlespace. User ] or a ]. If and only if it meets Misplaced Pages's requirements, you then approach a wisened admin to review and possibly move into articlespace for you. Doing anything else (like recreating under a slightly different name) can lead to a block for disruption. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 00:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


== ] == == Tony Penikett ==


Can you watch it with the page? ] undid its revision, though I undid it back. 'Composition' section says hip hop elements that is not the same thing. ] (]) 00:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Could you unlock the article had been protected so I can add some details not for vandalism, is for own good? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:When you edit this page to reply to me, please read the message that comes up.&mdash;](]) 21:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


== ] arbitration case opened ==
== Block evasion ==


''You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at ].'' You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' (] / ] / ]) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I provided the evidence here of a . Neuraxis calls me . This appears to be again per ]. Both Neuraxis and CorticoSpinal called me Quack and both share the same POV according to the evidence. Neuraxis was . Both accounts also have similar names.
<!-- Message sent by User:L235@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested_contributors/Notification_list&oldid=688007321 -->
:https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/99.235.143.175
:.
:https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/99.229.74.64
:.
:Both IPs originate from Ontario, Canada and both IPs were used for IP socking.


== ] retitled ] ==
I read you explained that: It's policy: ]. Where a sock account is used to violate his block, it is normal procedure to . This is not my rule, it is Misplaced Pages's consensus.
''You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at ].'' You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ] <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;">] ]</sup> 13:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


== ] ==
Here is the issue: The suspected sock made a and restored a page that was merged into Chiropractic education. The page was a redirect for 4 years.


Hi. Would you be amenable for me removing the protection on this talk page you added back in March? Another IP (unrelated to this one) wants to discuss something, and it's pretty rare that we lock talk pages indefinitely to anyone. <small>PS: I know you don't have the tools anymore, but that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on this.</small> ] ] ] 10:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking about reporting this or discussing this on the talk page but your comment on my talk page suggested you want to review things like this that may require admins to review. ] (]) 03:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
:I don't understand why anyone chooses to discuss it any more, ], but if you want to put up with it, feel free to put up with it.&mdash;](]) 22:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
:Yes, ], I strongly suggest that you fly these things by me. Can you give the page that was restored? I'm queasy about claiming we know enough about DVMt to say that we absolutely know that he was CorticoSpinal, so I want to be certain you have a good case made before anyone starts taking actions based on believing that he is. I'll review the CorticoSpinal connection more thoroughly, and see how comfortable I feel about the case.&mdash;](]) 03:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
::Neuraxis made changes to the . You can review the edit to see that there was consensus for a merge and the page was redirected. In 2013 is when the . I don't understand why he in one if his edits. ] (]) 03:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
:::There have been too many subsequent edits by valid editors for ] to be applied any more, even if we could prove that CorticoSpinal was Neuraxis. That doesn't mean that you can't try redirecting it now that Neuraxis is blocked. It seems like he was the only editor fighting the redirect. If it gets put back, don't edit war over it.&mdash;](]) 04:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
::::Okay. Side note: Your talk page is moving way to the right. I'll try to fix it. ] (]) 04:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


== ] ==
== SPI ==


Hi Kww
I was going to add to the current SPI report.


Your section on the evidence page has been moved to the evidence talk page as it does not meet the requirements for inclusion as evidence. This has been undertaken as a clerk action and should not be reverted.
See and see . Both accounts removed the word "deaths" from the lede. This is the in the lede. ] (]) 04:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
::Too old for checkuser to be of any use and pretty clearly a throwaway sock. I went ahead and blocked.&mdash;](]) 04:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


For the Arbitration Comittee. ] (])(]) 12:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I would like to add the following to the SPI report:


== User LikeDude23 5SOS page vandalism ==
The added the word "" on June 4, 2014 and later on two separate occasions Middle 8 added the word "characterized" to the lede. The wording "" is neutral rather than the word "characterized".


Hi,
I think this is evidence that can be submitted to SPI. ] (]) 18:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
:Too weak to submit, especially since Middle8 appears to be competent with English and the IP clearly is not.&mdash;](]) 20:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


User LikeDude23 keeps vandalising the 5 Seconds of Summer page, by constantly changing the genres of the band to pop and classing them as a boyband. Their acts have been extremely annoying and as you protected the page, I ask you to do something about the user's constant disruption to the page.
==Feuds==
I would like to find out your input about the "Feud" section on the ] page. I think that the addition of Foxy Brown and Remy Ma to that section was not needed because Minaj was not involved in any way with what is detailed there. Its basically just speculations and assumptions from different websites/blogs and no real connection to an actual "Feud", thus making the section false and making people believe there was an actual feud between them which is not the case. It was already discussed on the talk page but the reason they gave for it being there was that it had it had "credible sources". So do you think it should be classified as feuds even though Minaj has absolutely nothing to do with information given, whether verbally or physically. ] (]) 06:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
:If it's in an article about a living person and sourced only to a blog, you can always delete it, ].&mdash;](]) 20:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Thank you <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 22:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== ] report ==


== ] ==
I previously informed and about for the acupuncture page. Middle 8 was just by ] but he is continuing to edit war:


{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/MassMessage}} ] (]) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Middle 8 was previously edit warring over the specific numbers. On two separate occasions Middle 8 added the word "characterized" to the lede and on two separate occasions Middle 8 added the word "described" to the lede.
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692047625 -->


== Jdogno5 Socking as Lucifer Morningstar ==
I think this can be reported to AE or I can let you handle this situation. You wanted me to run things like this before I make a report. ] (]) 04:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
:It's not a 3RR violation. I will discuss it with Middle 8.&mdash;](]) 05:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi there. I was on the Lucifer DC comics page and noticed that a user Lucifer Morningstar, is adding information that Jdogno5 previously added to the page that is speculative. Looking at his contributions show that he had been editing pages that Jdogno5 use to and adding the same/similar information, similar grammar and wordage, etc. As you previously blocked Jdogno5, and it is rather blatant that they are the same person, I fighters I should let you know to see if there is socking going on. Sorry to bother. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 06:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
==Certification Table Entry==
Hi Kww, I have left some messages regarding a few issues for the certification template at the talk page of the above. Can you please take a look? If you are not the concerned person for making these changes, can you please direct me to someone who should? —] · <sup>] ]</sup> 05:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


== ] case closed ==
== Punkox, again? ==


''You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.''
Hi Kevin. are very similar to his. He's been repeatedly adding sales from Sony Japan's website (which are inflated, of course. It says it's sold 100K when original sales stand at 40K). Can you take a look? ] (]) 13:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
:He's been adding fake certifications, again Kevin. ] (]) 12:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


The {{RFARlinks|Arbitration enforcement 2}} has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:
== Request to submit to ] ==


1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the ] case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at ] and be kept open for at least 24 hours.
Middle 8 was recently warned for at the acupuncture page. Now User:Middle made changes against a clear consensus again with another sentence in the lede. Middle 8 unilaterally restored the that was previously rejected. The previous wording was discussed in detail at ] and the previous wording is . Middle claims the wording is . (This was similar to a previous edit where he claimed the wording was . See ]. He claimed on his talk page "<small>(I don't remember why I also deleted the "with no valid ] for the majority of its treatments", but as you can see, somebody else restored it, which I didn't contest.)</small>") ] made the specific proposal on the talk page. I made in mainspace and this was also . The change to the lede by Middle 8 was clearly according to the diffs presented.


3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.
With your permission I would like to submit this to arbitration (or you can decide if anything should be done). I was told to run this by an as you know. ] (]) 02:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.
Middle 8 deleted sourced text claiming" . The text is sourced using a . Middle 8 was being disingenuous on the talk page. See ]. He was also being disruptive at ].


I would like to submit this, along with recent past disruption, to ] or you can decide what to do. ] (]) 15:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC) For the Arbitration Committee, <span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS; font-variant:caps;">] (])</span> 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
:Discuss this at: ''']'''
<!-- Message sent by User:Kharkiv07@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Kharkiv07/List_1&oldid=696701020 -->


== Seasons greetings ==
==Am I out of line or...?==
Hey Kevin, how are things? In my 9+ years on Misplaced Pages this is probably the most ridiculous disagreement I've ever had with someone, but can you keep a temporary eye on ]? In particular, the week of April 19: ''Billboard'' listed all three artists equally, names separated by commas; it has been displayed as such for months... however now ] is insisting that the names be formatted as "featuring", claiming that is the correct way to format names. The song's article lists the artists with "featuring" (although I think that is incorrect, as the single's cover art does not say "featuring" anywhere), and my point is just to keep things as was shown in ''Billboard'' (any of the source links will confirm this). Anyhoo, we've been back and forth a few times and I saw that you had some past history with this user, so I thought I'd ask for your assistance. Oh, and if you think that I'm being too critical here just let me know and I'll drop it... I can't believe I've even spent this much time on it already but, ya know........ - ] (]) 12:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


== Happy Holidays to you, your family and friends. May you have happy editing! ==
== Courtesy note ==


{| style="border:2px ; background-color: #FFBF00;"
I've mentioned the case you filed regarding office actions at ]. Cheers, ] (]) 14:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" valign="right" | ]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2; vertical-align: left; height: 1.1em;" | '''Happy Holidays to you and your family and friends!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | '''May this season bring you joy and happiness and happy editing!'''.] (]) 02:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
|}


== Charts == == Happy New Year! ==

Original text on talk page ]:
''Greece (Greece Digital Songs), Lebanon (The Official Lebanese Top 20), Mexico (Moniter Latino) and Turkey (Turkish Single Charts) still need a entry. I've noticed that a lot of mainstream singles have chart entries of at least one of these countries.--Kimberlylambert (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

:To get an entry, there needs to be a stable archive and a way to compute the URL for the archive entry from the date.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC) ''

Could you help me with this? I'm trying to implement the four nations into it.--] (]) 09:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
--------------------------------------------

== Not relevant to the lead? ==

, as would Nicki herself <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

== A bowl of strawberries for you! ==


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Happy New Year!'''
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talkpage ] (]) 00:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">]</span> ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">] ]</span> 00:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
|} |}


== Filter 620 == == archive.is blocked ==
happy new year, kww! i tried to add an archive.is link to the ian murdock article as no reference otherwise but a pastebin link confirms that he announced his death. but i get an error that archive.is is not allowed. i read the rfc and i would be annoyed as well by some bot adding links to a users own archive service. but in this case i find it not so practical. i read on the rfc that it is not on the spamlist. can you please detail the exact conditions when archive.is would be allowed and when not? --] (]) 22:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
:That's easy. It's never acceptable under any condition for any reason. If you can't find a reliable source to point at, don't add the information. If you can find a reliable source to point at, feel free to use a reputable archiving service to archive the link.&mdash;](]) 23:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


== RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes ==
I'm not sure this is doing what it's supposed to. E.g. why was disallowed? Or ? Both are valid corrections to the article, the same change was recently made per request at ]. Other filter hits appear to be from users . Disruptive, perhaps, but not consistent with the intent of the filter, right? I've changed it back to log-only, for now. Thanks &mdash; ] ] 16:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
:Perhaps we could also disable ]? It's been nearly a month since the last hit. Cheers &mdash; ] ] 16:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


There is an RfC at ] concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --] (]) 22:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
== 86.138.231.134's new account ] ==


== Refactoring of your statement at ] ==
Sorry for interrupt. IP's new account is editing non-stop. It was the same edit on ]. ] (]) 12:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi Kww. The clerks have redacted parts of your statement at ]. You are welcome to rephrase removed content in a way that is not inflammatory and does not contain personal attacks. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know on my talk page. (Specific actions may or may not have been taken by me personally.) Questions may also be directed to ], the clerks' mailing list ({{nospam|clerks-l|lists.wikimedia.org}}), or the Arbitration Committee mailing list ({{nospam|arbcom-l|lists.wikimedia.org}}). Thanks, ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]&nbsp;'''·'''&#32; ]) 14:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
== ''Media Viewer RfC'' case opened ==
*{{tps}}- now that's just silly. How is someone supposed to say another editor is being disruptive on purpose if they're not allowed to say "being disruptive on purpose"? I think you clerks are far too overzealous with the redaction. ] ] 14:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
::*Beyond silly, but every interaction I've had with TRM has involved Humptydumptyism of one kind or another. He's a well-respected former bureaucrat and long-term administrator, you know, which means that we no longer expect him to be held to the same standards as mortal men, like actually following ] and ].&mdash;](]) 15:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
:::You're welcome, as far as I'm concerned, to discuss this with {{U|L235}}, but you're not welcome to just reinstate it. ] (]) 15:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


== Tony Penikett ==
You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. Before adding evidence please review the ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Callanecc@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Callanecc/sandbox&oldid=617409742 -->


== ''Amigoe'' == === ] ===
* {{pagelinks|Tony Penikett}}
'''Unprotection:''' Expiration Date. Mo
*Why don't you responding unprotection of Tony Penikett few days ago?
:*Because anyone that read the edit notice when they made the comment on my page would know that I can't do a damn thing about it, for one. For two, I don't believe that there's any need for anonymous editors to edit articles about living people.&mdash;](]) 23:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
* Can you do it for god's sake? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Your inability to read indicates that no one should unprotect any article that you are interested in. Please go away until you become literate.&mdash;](]) 15:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
* {{pagelinks|Tony Penikett}}
'''Unprotection:''' Expiration. Mo
:Let's repeat this: I cannot unprotect the page. It's impossible. Every time you leave me a message, you get a message '''''explaining''''' to you why it's impossible. Since you have failed to explain to anyone at any time exactly ''why'' the page should be unprotected, it's quite unlikely that anyone else will do it either. So go find something else to do.&mdash;](]) 18:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
* Listen to you, your,re the one protecting the article I been not editing the article for 2 years so its your responsibility do it I say and no gets hurt GOT IT?! <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:I'll respond one more time: I cannot unprotect the article. It is not possible. Even if I thought you had good intentions (which I don't) or thought you were competent to edit the article (which I don't), as the message you see ''every time you leave me a message explains'', I am no longer an administrator. Go away now.&mdash;](]) 20:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
* please just once more I'll do anything I could? <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::* *sigh*&mdash;](]) 20:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


== Our persistent anonymous friend ==
Hello Kww. I created the article on the '']'' in order to get more information on its history and circulation (so that other editors can also take a look and analyze its reliability). Luckily, but strangely, the Spanish Misplaced Pages had an article on it; I have managed to translate it and include a couple of sources in English. You seem to have a better understanding of the newspaper, and think it would be helpful if you could add some information to the article. Best regards.--] ] 04:17, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
:I'll see what I can find sources for. My familiarity with it is primarily from simply being a reader. While I preferred the ], I would read the ] on occasion. I wish I had had the foresight to save the article we are discussing.&mdash;](]) 05:04, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


I've come to the conclusion that it's no longer worthwhile to even engage "Mo" at all anymore. As of now, if I see any further "unprotect" requests from them on ] or my own talk page, all I'm going to do is hit the revert button and walk away. You might want to consider that option as well, even if just as a sanity-preservation tactic. ] (]) 21:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
== ] ==


== A Barnstar for You ==
Hey Kww, minutes after the page protection ended the socks returned to edit war about the genre. '''] <small>]</small>''' 16:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

==In cricket they call it "Hitting a Big 6"==


{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}} |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ]
|rowspan="2" | |rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar''' |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Diligence'''
|- |-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | ] informed me that you were instrumental in the blocking of ], so I just wanted to thank you for doing a great service to Misplaced Pages. Veteran users who reveal bad intentions late in the "game" are more dangerous to Misplaced Pages as a whole than most know. Happy editing! <span style="font-family: Brush Script MT"><span style="color:#983498">'''~Lord Laitinen~''' (])</span></span> 04:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For your astute observation on Jimbotalk: ''"The WMF seems to be implementing features that make things 'modern' without sufficient engagement with the community to make sure that they will actually improve things and without spending time understanding the editing flow. Combine that with the dismissive attitude towards 'power users' and you have a breeding ground for problems. Quite simply, there's nothing about Media Viewer that I could describe as an "improvement" unless you presume the reason I want to examine the image is to get a larger version of the image, which I rarely want to do. Flow actually seems designed to intentionally interfere with our normal communication methods, ostensibly on the grounds that the reason people have a hard time joining the community is that editing talk pages is hard. In practice, it seems to be designed to encourage brief, superficial discussion without allowing us to branch into subtopics as easily."'' Kudos. —Tim /// ] (]) 15:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
|}<!--Template:The Barnstar of Diligence-->
|}{{z147}}


== About user 42.60.241.232 ==
==Also==


Hello, I noticed that you gave warnings to ] because their disruptive editing on ], they seem to be at it again concerning what they think is unnecessary by removing it but that information has ALWAYS been on the page. Is there someway we can block this person from editing please? ] (]) 10:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Kevin, please drop me an email if you get a chance. Talk pages don't swing it for this. ShoeHutch@gmail.com Thanks, —Tim //// ] (]) 16:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)


==Deletion review for ]==
-----
] has asked for a ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> —] 22:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


== Croatian Airplay Chart ==
== I think it is time to file a SPI ==


Way back in 2009 you started an AfD for ], it was recreated in 2012 and I created an AfD at ] to see if it should be deleted. Your input would be appreciated. ] (]) 09:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
*See by the Klocek sock account deleting text from the Nature source.
*See by Khawar.nehal making non-neutral changes to the text from the Nature source. The suspicious account knows something about arabic.
*See by Technophant deleting sourced text from the Quackwatch source. On Technophant user page I remember reading he speaks a little arabic and he edits articles .
*See by Ricflairsbutt making non-neutral changes to the text from the Nature source.
*Acuhealth wrote: I am concerned that the skeptic bias on the acupuncture page overlooks modern science. Acuhealth deleted "Acupuncture points and meridians are not a reality, but merely the product of an ancient Chinese philosophy"
*Technophant deleted "Similarly, no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians."
*Stillwaterising also deleted "Similarly, no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians."
*Technophant is actually Stillwaterising.
*Stillwaterising is from Texas. The is also from Texas. See http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/99.35.189.129
*Stillwaterising created the Myofascial meridians article Technophant restores text originally written by Stillwaterising.
* Technophant reported ] to . Milliongoldcoinpoint also reported User:Jmh649 to . Both reports were not a 3RR violation.
*Technophant violated 3RR at acupuncture. Klocek also violated 3RR at acupuncture See ].
* Technophant added the POV tag to the acupuncture article. Ricflairsbutt also added the POV tag to the acupuncture article.
*With this new evidence I found there is definitely evidence of quacking. I request permission to file a SPI report. ] (]) 17:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
::], your evidence linking to Klocek is too weak. Your evidence linking Technophant to Stillwaterising is rock solid, but there's no evidence of a crime: your one diff of Technophant restoring an edit by Stillwaterising isn't going to do anything because the linkage was declared. I've warned Stillwaterising that . Unless you can come up with a stronger linkage to Klocek, I think that's enough for now.&mdash;](]) 03:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Technophant deleted text on July 17, 2014 but previously on September 12, 2012 Stillwaterising deleted the same sentence (Similarly, no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians.). I asked him if he deleted the but rather than collaborate he from his talk page.
:::The topic ban was on . To avoid public scrutiny Stillwaterising to the other account, and he rejoined the WikiProject Medicine on July 23. He then with the other account on July 24.
:::If you can see , he added the text Clean start to his user page in late July of 2014. It was right after the topic ban and he then of his user page. I think he deleted his user page to hide he was using another account. The only way to confirm the events with his user page is to have his user page history restored. ] (]) 18:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
:::I noticed and . Both accounts know something about pharma. A checkuser is the best way to clarify this matter IMO. My gut is telling me this is the . ] (]) 19:22, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


== Collect essay; second bite at the cherry ==
Funny things are happening again. This edit added an and now this edit changed the . I don't know what to believe anymore. ] (]) 04:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)


You participated in an that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is . ] (]) 00:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
:Technophant and Stillwaterising are the same person.
:Stillwaterising is from Texas. The is also from Texas. See http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/99.35.189.129
:The edit by the IP appears to be . The IP is also from Texas. See http://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/71.40.3.92 I think a SPI would clarify this matter.
:The IP 71.40.3.92 calls ] a "pit bulldog" https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:The_Banner&diff=prev&oldid=618267342
:It was odd the IP 71.40.3.92 claims "I'm new to this debate, however there seems to be a pattern."
:Technophant calls BullRangifer "The Pit Bull" https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Technophant&diff=next&oldid=618435864
:There appears to be evidence of socking. I request to submit this to ]. They can check for sleeper accounts. ] (]) 03:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
::No doubt that it is Technophant. Unfortunately, it precedes my last block of him. I'm watching for repetitions.&mdash;](]) 03:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
:::Since you think there is no doubt it is I will go ahead and file a case for the connection with the that is connected to . ] (]) 04:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
:::: You can add to the list. A very feeble attempt to seem foreign. -- ] (]) 04:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


=== Possible ban violation === == Re: Grits ==


Possible again. He put it and then created an attack page against me and other editors. I MFDed it. See ]. ] (]) 06:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Re : I didn't notice the past history. I set the semi-protection. -- ] (]) 03:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


== Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart ==
== ] ==


Kww, can I request you to just per glance this discussion I initiated at Ericorbit's page ]? —] <sup>] ]</sup> 12:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Quite similar with ], she repeatedly added questionable source on ]. Huh Magazine (UK) did not have wiki page, and confused with ] (American magazine). ] (]) 02:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


== Editing policy collapsed discussion ==
== Stillwaterising/Technophant/My Core Competency is Competency==


Hi,
Hello Kww, I'm a bit confused--It looks like per the conversation ] () that {{u|Technophant}} is stating that they are an alternate account of {{u|Stillwaterising}}, but in that discussion you make reference to edit which seems to indicate that Technophant is an alternate account of {{u|My Core Competency is Competency}}. Can you please help explain how these accounts are related? Thanks... <code>]]</code> 03:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
:I hadn't focused on the bit with My Core Competency is Competency. I'll look into that. What I had noticed, ], was this bit:"<nowiki>]&nbsp;•&nbsp;]&nbsp;•&nbsp;(formerly (]</nowiki>)".&mdash;](]) 03:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


Please take a look at the decision to collapse the discussion of Hyder, Alaska at WP:Editing policy.&nbsp; I don't find it credible that this is not suitable for discussion from a policy viewpoint, especially in the context of the ongoing identical discussion on the talk page.&nbsp; If you don't think that an un-collapse is appropriate, perhaps you would provide your own insights/viewpoint.&nbsp; Thanks, ] (]) 23:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
:It looks to me like the part of the edit pertaining to My Core Competency is Compency was just a formatting fix: it was the only element of the list with a signature format instead of a bullet format.&mdash;](]) 03:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
*Ahh, I see that you have not contributed to Misplaced Pages since my brief edit a week ago at ].&nbsp; Thought I'd let you know that this issue has gone to a noticeboard.&nbsp; ] (]) 05:38, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


== ] ==
::Ah yes that makes sense, my misinterpretation, thanks. <code>]]</code> 03:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello Kww. Since you haven't been around for a while, I've added you to the page linked above due to inactivity. Please remember to remove yourself from the list if you come back. Your efforts will definitely not be forgotten either way. Best regards, ] (] / ]) 02:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
:::Yes, that's all it was. And in case anybody is wondering I did inform a checkuser when creating the Technophant account and no I have never created or used any others. ] (]) 04:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


== ]: Voting now open! ==
== ] ==


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Kww. Voting in the ''']''' is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The album's genre from source is electronica, but ] added alternative rock two times, however the user noted that saying do not remove alternative rock unless discuss on talk page. ] (]) 16:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


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.
== Discussion/content ==
Hi. Could you weigh in on the discussion at ]? It concerns whether a line detailing a certain critic's grade is off-topic or inappropriate to include. ] (]) 20:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review ] and submit your choices on ''']'''. ] (]) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
== FAC ==
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52 bot@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52_bot/spamlist/22&oldid=750585861 -->


== This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on ==
Kww, I'm not sure how involved you've been with the ] article overall, but she currently is ] and your help/input would be highly appreciated. '''''] (] '''·''' ])''''' 21:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)


This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:
== "broadly construed" ==


''']'''
You noted Technophant's attempt to remove that language in your comment , but have accepted his version .


Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.
It's a community topic ban, and the original language did include "broadly construed", so that does need to be restored.


The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
Unfortunately, in the confusion and discussion with Technophant during his attempts to dictate the wording of his topic ban, ] comment left out those words:


*15 June 2015 RfC: ''']'''.
* Per consensus at ANI, User:Technophant is indefinitely topic banned from all edits related to Alternative medicine, and specifically Acupuncture. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. Any questions about whether an edit will constitute a topic ban violation should be directed to an administrator ''before'' the edit is made.


The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of '''omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' "''' and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, '''institutions''' etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "'''in any article'''".
is more accurate and includes the words "broadly construed" (my bold below):


The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:
* Per discussion at AN/I, you are indefinitely topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to ] and/or ], '''broadly construed'''. Any violations of this ban will result in blocks. The topic ban may be appealed in 1 year. If you have any questions about the ban, please ask me or another administrator for clarification. (This ban has also been listed at ].) <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 21:13, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


*31 December 2015 RfC: ''']'''.
A banned editor should not be dictating the terms of their ban (although I have no objection to adding the WP:BANEX language), nor have total control of their talk page when it is being used by the community for a community discussion. (My comments here should be on that page, not on this talk page.)


The result of that RfC was that the "'''in all Misplaced Pages articles, without exception''', nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".
Under those conditions, legitimate comments should not be removed by the banned editor, nor the banned editor allowed to ban his accusers from his talk page, especially since this is part of the battlefield behavior which got him in trouble in the first place. During that time period, the page has effectively become the community's page for discussion of the issues, and all involved parties have a right to comment, as long as they are civil. The types of denials, attacks on accusers, and argumentation we've seen from Technophant would usually have resulted in a removal of talk page access, but that didn't happen.


Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --] (]) 03:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
was quite civil, but he removed it . That's not right. Since when do we reward disruptive editors?


He also repeatedly removed (whitewashing the page) and rearranged content (most of it his own comments) during these discussions, making it confusing because comments were made based on other comments which were no longer visible. He even managed to put a few comments in the wrong chronological order. I suggest that a guideline/policy be made for such discussions to the effect that no major archiving should occur during that time. Only legitimate and minor refactoring should be allowed, usually using strikethrough, and with good edit summaries. -- ] (]) 16:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

: It's also noteworthy to mention that he has not yet shown any understanding for why he was topic banned or blocked. Nothing at all. All we have seen is self-defense and attacks on his critics. It's all everybody else's fault but his own. With that attitude I am not optimistic. -- ] (]) 16:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

YGM <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 23:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

== Another user removing archive.is ==

Hi Kww. Another user has come by and is continuing to remove archive.is links while the RfC is happening. They are ]. See their . If they can be blocked like the other users you had to deal with once the RfC had opened, that would be much appreciated. - ] (]) 18:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
:Also ] is doing the same thing. ] ] 18:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
:: I just noticed this topic here. It's been awhile since I have seen it and my memory may be wrong, but didn't a previous RfC (or other decision) decide to let bots and editors delete all those links? I wasn't aware there was another RfC in progress. What's happening? -- ] (]) 20:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
:::{{ping|BullRangifer}} See ]. - ] (]) 21:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
:::: Thanks! -- ] (]) 21:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
{{od}}It seems like the RFC was closed, it seemed quite short and I don't know how well broadcast it was? I don't know, what is the stage from here? Also, just to give you an idea of why I like archive.is, I have been hunting for the following source for 3 weeks, the original link is dead, web.archive had abandoned its snapshot altogether, you couldn't make a new archive nor see the original. Yet has a snapshot of it, taken from the web.archive archive. This information that I have scoured and scoured for and am unable to find a replacement for can now be used because of archive.is. ] / ] 23:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

== Editor has ] and is ] ==

Jayaguru-Shishya was notified of the on April 4, 2014.

Past behavioral problems by Jayaguru-Shishya:

I think there was a specific reason Jayaguru-Shishya decided to edit the chiropractic article. Jayaguru-Shishya obviously noticed the following contributions by Kshilts: Kshilts deleted and other text from the chiropractic lede

Kshilts wrote on March 31, 2014 "" But it was not Kshilts who put together references for the lede. It was . What could possibly be his motivation for coming to the chiropractic article. Maybe Jayaguru-Shishya got upset at Mann jess. and noticed Mann jess was in a content dispute with Kshilts. He probably noticed Mann jess was in a content dispute at chiropractic in late March of 2014.

Shortly thereafter, on April 1, 2014 Jayaguru-Shishya added text to the chiropractic lede that failed V. He claimed the text passed V but the text was original research and the text did not summarise the body. He wrote "I was trying to restore some contributions by '''Kshilts'''." Jayaguru-Shishya never acknowledged he did anything wrong with adding OR to the lede. He also unintentionally ignored the past discussion in late March of 2014. See ].

Jayaguru-Shishya said "I'd like to suggest that I'll keep my hands off from those articles now." Despite his assurances in his unblock request, he has continued with the same behaviour at alternative medicine articles. Jayaguru-Shishya supports the proposal that is littered with original research and with text that does not summarise the body. See ] and ]. Jayaguru-Shishya claimed to have consensus to delete the text at Traditional Chinese medicine where there was no consensus in the first place. Jayaguru-Shishya argued on the talk page that there was consensus to delete the text. See ]. Without fixing the problem Jayaguru-Shishya deleted the tags rather than removing the primary sources and falsely accused me of violating the 3RR rule. Jayaguru-Shishya made a 3RR report but there was no 3RR violation. See ]. Jayaguru-Shishya in my previous comment.

Jayaguru-Shishya that was at the acupuncture article. The outdated source from 1997 has a warning in red that explains the source is outdated. Only after it was deleted again he agreed it was reasonable to delete it. There but it was by Jayaguru-Shishya. The edit summary was "Please feel free to revert if you feel like it: WP:CON "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections..." <- no objections so far, and I'm in support | Also: (talk page)" So what is the problem? He should check the source first to verify it is reliable rather than restoring disputed text.

Jayaguru-Shishya wrote on the talk page: "I find Middle8's edits to improve this article. No complaints about those IMHO." Jayaguru-Shishya commented again on the talk page to support Middle8's edit without any specific explanation of his own: "I still can't find any OR in Middle8's edits, and I have to disagree with QuackGuru here: I think the edits helped to improve the article." Jayaguru-Shishya did not give a specific explanation for to Middle's version that was . See ].

Recent behavioral problems by Jayaguru-Shishya at chiropractic:

Now there is another content dispute at chiropractic where Jayaguru-Shishya reverts to the version by Kshilts. I tagged the . The first revert was made under the edit summary "shorten long section and organise text; remove unsourced text)". The OR and undueweight was . After the edit was reverted again Jayaguru-Shishya the disputed text against consensus on July 24, 2014. He claims "" but he did add something. He added OR and disputed text. He the comment that the edit added OR to the article. I explained it in my on July 23, 2014 the edit added OR and was a violation of WP:SUMMARY. He claims "So far, sourced material was removed, as stated above." But he is again not addressing the "1) poor quality sources 2) undue weight 3) original research and 4) lack of consensus." See ]. Jayaguru-Shishya has a repeated pattern of incompetent editing and is ]. I would like to submit this to ] or you can evaluate the matter. ] (]) 21:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
:Seems to be a bit of tit-for-tat going on: ] and a previous ] ] (]) 21:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

== I.A.O.P.M.R.M.R.T.M.M.P.A.F.S. blocked ==

Please see . Many thanks. ] (]) 23:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

== Help from admin ==

Hi. Since you're an admin, could you address somehow? Because I've addressed the editor's inaccurate and misleading use of a source, heavy-handed use of quotes, and grammatical error in both my edit summaries and responses to the article's talk page, articulated it fully, only to get a personal attack and . Please revert them, address them, or something, because I'm itching to revert him myself, but don't want to have another edit war with someone nitpicking my prose. ] (]) 21:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

: Btw, this article was by {{u|Bencherlite}}, so maybe protecting it from new users (they've been around for since 15 July. ] (]) 21:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
:: See, that's ], Dan. Just because I am newer doesn't mean I can't edit ''your'' article. There are no grammatical errors in my edits; you are mistaken. Kww, please take a good look at before deciding if Dan is right to jump all over me. ] (]) 21:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
:: Did you notice that he said: " don't want to have ''another'' edit war with someone nitpicking '''my prose'''"?(unlike Misplaced Pages articles, the emphasis is ]) ] (]) 23:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
::: . The emphasis is yours. ] (]) 05:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

::: {{u|Kww}}, this may be a sock of ], blocked for hounding and harassing me at articles I'm a significant contributor at, starting with ''Misterioso'' (]). What led me to believe this have not been the tedious syntax changes at ''Misterioso'' (which is what started Jazzerino's behavior), or the WP:OWN accusations littered like by Jazzerino at their talk page and his edit summaries reverting me, but how by Jazzerino at ''Misterioso'' is the exact change as by MaximumEdison. Quite eerie. ] (]) 00:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
*Kww, thanks for your diligence. I appreciate it. {{U|Dan56}}, I'm sorry that you got a sock master on your tail. I'm going to look at ], obviously. It doesn't alleviate all of my concerns, at least not immediately, but you'll have noted that mine were much less numerous than those of {{U|Harmelodix}}, for whom I have no love. I'd never run into this Jazzerino character--if you had suspicions already, though, why didn't you bring them up earlier? Or didn't you suspect them until now? Thanks, ] (]) 14:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

==''Media Viewer RfC'' draft principles & findings==
Hello. This is a courtesy note that the draft findings and principles in the ''Media Viewer RfC'' case have now been ]. The drafters of the proposed decision anticipate a final version of the PD will be posted after 11 August. You are welcome to give feedback on the workshop page. For the Committee, ''']''' ~ (]) 02:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

== ] ==

Can you sockpuppet him/her? He/she is ]'s new account. ] (]) 06:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

== Attempted meatpuppetry, removal of comment in block discussion by User:Technophant ==

Greetings Kww. While I hesitate to increase my involvement in this situation I feel the issue may be serious enough to warrant action. My concerns are twofold.

First is the attempt to engage in meatpuppetry by discussing and proposing edits to pages from which the user is blocked including off wiki activity
* "''more about maps''"
* "''restoration of bad faith removal''"
* "''last edit for a while, add MrBill3 to banned user list''"
* "''ok, here's my 2cents''"
* ""
* ""

Second is the removal of a post providing evidence of this from the section on discussion of block review
* "''Undid revision 619784338 by MrBill3 (talk) let it go''"

This is of particular concern as I am under the impression it is appropriate to post to a user's talk page in discussion of blocks, bans, NB filings etc. and not appropriate to refactor others comments in such discussions. I am sure you are aware that multiple comments have been refactored in several discussions of this kind. There has also been removal of block reviews and multiple refactoring of block review requests. I don't think this editor is demonstrating a willingness to work within PAG, engage collaboratively or genuinely attempt to improve the encyclopedia.

Sorry to bring this to your talk page as I am sure you have better things to do. If this should be the subject of an ANI filing or some other process please let me know. Thank you for your contributions to WP. Best. - - ] (]) 13:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
:I'm keeping an eye on this, but my impression right now is that doing nothing is the best thing. No admin is likely to unblock him and his efforts at meatpuppeting have been limited. There's not enough meat there to warrant remove talk-page access at this time. I've left a small note at Pc123ct1's talk page about proxying.&mdash;](]) 13:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

::]: Thank you for your message. I was aware of that policy and it never entered my head in this instance. The emails will be personal, and if he attempted to edit through me, of course I would resist it. I can understand your caution and take your message in the spirit it was made, but from my experience of him on the ] and ] pages, I cannot imagine for a minute that he would attempt this. He asked me to email, and I had been wanting to for a while anyway, but didn't know how to (am fairly new to editing in Misplaced Pages). On those pages, since I began editing there in early June, I have found him nothing but a helpful and vigilant editor who contributed a lot to improving the article, without any edit-warring or disputes with others, and everything that has happened recently has come as a very big surprise. --] (]) 14:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
:::]: I don't think an email exchange will be sustained. All I have had is more of the same as on his Talk page (grievances). --] (]) 16:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
::::I have had more emails, but no meatpuppetry involved! But it is obvious he is keen to get back to editing the pages we share work on (non-medical), so please give him a chance. --] (]) 12:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

== Reliable source noticeboard ==

, you can see the verdict of ] regarding the 1895 published book. I will therefore remove it from the article. If you have any concerns, please, kindly have them resolved in the noticeboard.--] (]) 15:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

== The Pinkprint ==

It would be appreciated if you looked over and voted on the move request for "The Pink Print" to the "The Pinkprint". Up to this point there hasn't been a direct response as to which spelling was correct. Nicki Minaj herself clarified the question directly stating it was written, "The Pinkprint", (https://twitter.com/NICKIMINAJ/status/497117375712329728).
Leave either your support or opposition for the move here: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Pink_Print#Requested_move_06_August_2014. Thank you for your time, ] (]) 00:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC).

== Now I better understand why... ==

I'm surprised and bothered that such a simple RfC has yet to create any sort of consensus on the Natalee Holloway matter. I can't understand why either, as I personally find the topic quite interesting (from an academic standpoint, but also for the mystery). Nonetheless, this also makes me consider that it wasn't necessarily Overagainst's ] that made discussions complicated (other Wikipedians just don't really seem to care about the case). Let me know if you can think of anything else that can be done about it (maybe relisting the RfC and adding more categories to it?).--] ] 04:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
:I might have a bit of a bias, ], but I suspect that has a lot to do with why people tend to see an article ownership problem: there are occasional editors that get very emotional about a point and only a few editors that care enough about the topic to fend them off. I see the problem with the particular RFC is that you didn't ask a very interesting question. Nearly everyone would agree that JvdS's conviction in Peru deserves to be mentioned. The point of disagreement is whether mentioning it in the lead presents an ] issue. I believe it does, because it creates an expectation that of course JvdS must have killed Natalee too. Others do not, but that may be because they think it is obvious that JvdS killed Natalee too, so creating that expectation in the reader's mind doesn't seem to be a problem.&mdash;](]) 05:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
::The question is about the criminologists' (etc.) opinion and its relevance in the section on Peru. This is not the lead question. I'm concerned now that the RfC question really is ''that'' confusing; but, maybe you made a minor misread of it? Regards.--] ] 12:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
::Nevertheless, I do understand what you mean about the lead question, and will make sure to mention it clearly when presenting an RfC for it.--] ] 12:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
:::It looks like you have expanded it from the initial version that I read. It's ''better'', but still not focused on something that you will get strong opinions on.&mdash;](]) 13:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

== Help... revisited ==
Sorry to bother again, but another editor--EastCoaster007--whose account creation coincided with others after Jazzerio's block has popped up again (with no edits since 22 June) on 6 August, a day after Harmelodix was blocked, to "notice ... Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Dan56" and ]. What caught my eye mostly was the fact that this editor was one of ''those'' to make tedious, syntax changes () to my FA Song of Innocence (around the same time as Jazzerino and Harmelodix in June). Another editor to devote so much time to ''reviewing'' me again. It may quack some, and at this point, I have very little good faith after the above nonsense. With only minor changes to articles starting during a few days in June, then returning with a concerted effort and focus on me only as it appears in their edit history, it seems really suspect. ] (]) 16:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

== Kesha videography ==

I noticed that the Kesha videography was deleted because It was created by a blocked user, but since ] has made 17 music video appearances, I think it should be restored, so her discography page isn't too long. If not, could I just have the text? ] (]) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
:Excuse me, but could you please take the time to reply?
] (]) 21:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
::I won't provide the text to any article created by a banned user, no. Personally, I doubt that a videography article is a good idea, but I have no strong feelings on the topic.&mdash;](]) 21:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
:::I just want the text, as I think it may have been a good article or at least a stub to improve on. She has made a lot of appearances in music videos, and since you have no strong feelings, please can I use it as a draft? To then improve on? ] (]) 15:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
::::Absolutely not. I '''will not provide the text to any article created by a banned user.'''&mdash;](]) 15:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Kww}} Please - hear me out, I'm trying my best to keep my argument within reason, and all I am asking you to do is do the same. Maybe that user was on to something, but I can't know that unless I see what was written, and then I can change it, so the article will not have any ties to the blocked user. You're right, it was a G5 violation and they don't deserve to have their article published, but I just need the text so it won't be THEIRS. It'll just mean I have enough information and referencing in one place to go on. Thank you.
:::::] (]) 12:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
::::::No.&mdash;](]) 15:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|Kww}} I find that you're being very unreasonable by not putting petty issues aside for no GOOD reason. Thank you, but I know when to arguing with someone like this is the same as talking to a wall. At least the wall would be helpful enough to give me something to lean on - you're just stubborn. Thank you for your utmost consideration. ] (]) 17:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

== Deceptive behavior ==

Thanks for . What he wrote is an outright lie. I noticed it, but have been reticent to comment because of that improper "banning" from his talk page. Such banning should not be allowed in a situation as this. A blocked editor has fewer, not more, rights. His "request" has also now turned into a demand. That's very unfortunate. He's not in a position to demand anything. This is all what happens when talk page access isn't denied earlier. We end up with lots of crap to deal with. I see no evidence of repentance. -- ] (]) 15:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

== Helping Dan56 with content disputes ==

I'm no expert, but a quick glance at your contributions reveals that you assist Dan56 at several articles whenever he is in an edit war with others. Shouldn't you, as an admin, remain neutral regarding content? You helped remove hip-hop from ''808 and Heartbreak'', but ''Relevant'' magazine says, "This reviewer can say without a doubt that ''808s & Heartbreak'' is the best Kanye West album to date, and the best hip-hop album of 2008." Why is "the best hip-hop album of 2008" not explicit enough? ] (]) 18:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess what I meant was, if you are going to intercede in content disputes and revert to Dan56's preferred version, then you shouldn't also be blocking everyone Dan56 gets into an edit war with. It seems like you either get involved with the content disputes as an involved editor, or you block suspected socks that edit war with Dan, but you shouldn't be doing both. ] (]) 18:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
*{{U|CountGramula}}, not every revert is engagement with content. Kww has a right to revert (or mass rollback) edits by a sock. I don't always agree with such mass reverts, but accusing him of siding with one party in a content dispute while using his tools, that's incorrect. {{U|Dan56}} is indeed followed, stalked, harassed by one sock puppeteer, one who fooled me too (User:Harmelodix). This is not to say that I side with Dan since often enough I disagree with him on content. In other words, I think this is a bit bigger than you suggest it is, and I doubt that Kww blocks everyone Dan disagrees with, since he hasn't blocked me yet. There is a big fat SPI on that puppet master and you should look at it, and you should give Kww some credit. If you want to re-revert individual edits that you think are positive, that's fine with me, and I hope that's fine with Kww also. Thank you, ] (]) 18:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
:* That's a good point I guess, and I don't doubt that Dan has his share of socks following him, but Kww has blocked several accounts that Dan56 edit wars with, restoring the article in question to Dan's preferred version. I just thought that they should either block socks or get involved in content disputes, but not both, as they appear as a personal admin bodyguard that blocks accounts and restores Dan's version. If I were an admin, I would do one or the other, but not both. I did look at the SPI, BTW, but I don't see any concrete evidence that any of these accounts have been technically connected to Jazzerino. Kww seems to have taken the position that anyone who edit wars with Dan56 must be either Jazzerino or MariaJaydHicky, but it looks like a vigilante style ] that lacks technical evidence, which is a really good reason for Kww to reconsider their involvement with Dan56. When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. I am actually half-expecting to be blocked now too, since . ] (]) 18:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
::*Actually, I have several tests beyond "fights with Dan56" that I apply before blocking an editor. Unfortunately, you ''did'' fail one of them, so your account did wind up blocked. It would be nice if you simply went away and stopped wasting everyone's time. Ultimately, an established editor that didn't create dozens of accounts to fight with him will take care of any legitimate issues with his editing. All you are doing is making it more and more likely that such an editor would be erroneously blocked.&mdash;](]) 19:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
:::*Alright then. Thanks Kevin. ] (]) 20:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

== Saban troll ==

Can you just turn ] back on? He's posting the same screed to his user talk now that he's blocked, again.—] (]) 07:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
:Done.&mdash;](]) 13:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
::I've made a new thread on ANI to address this and have identified two ranges. Do you think you could take a look?—] (]) 07:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

== RfC: Using certification icons on Template:Certification Table Entry ==

There is an ongoing discussion at ] on whether or not certification icons should be applied to Template:Certification Table Entry. ] (]) 22:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

== Filter 559 ==

Hi, any idea what's going on ? I can't see any reference to archive.is ] 22:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

== Topic ban violation ==

User:Herbxue is keeping in a sandbox that is related to acupuncture and he is participating in a discussion related acupuncture. He was previously informed he was violating his topic ban. I can submit this to ] or you can evaluate the matter. ] (]) 00:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
:Looks to me like he hasn't touched it since being advised it was a topic ban violation. Therefore, I won't take any action and you should not pursue this further.&mdash;](]) 05:21, 12 August 2014 (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 Defender of the Wiki Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | You are an amazing Wiki! ] (]) 00:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
|}


==Edit warring on Missy Elliott awards page==
== ''Media Viewer RfC'' arbitration case - extension of closure dates ==
There is an edit war occurring that has been going on for the past few months now. And there seems to be no resolution. Inaccurate information keeps being embedded alongside improper grammar and lack of reliable, accurate sources. May you or another contributor of your power weigh in on the issue and reel in the users for the article's ]? ] (]) 18:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
:I'm sorry, ], but I lost my adminship as punishment for my efforts to keep unsourced articles like that in check. I can't recommend any procedure that will work and not have you disciplined as a result. I found that giving up helped my attitude immensely.&mdash;](]) 02:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
::Terribly sorry to hear Kww, you were definitely a go-getter when it came to make sure that articles would not be congested with poorly misconstrued content and always set an end goal to ensure that the article lived up to a neutral tone in accordance to Misplaced Pages guidelines. Thank you greatly for responding. ] (]) 02:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2017 election voter message ==
Hello, you are receiving this message because you have commented on the '']'' arbitration case. This is a courtesy message to inform you that the closure date for the submission of ] has been extended to 17 August 2014 and the closure date for ] proposals has been extended to 22 August 2014, as has the expected date of the proposed decision being posted. The closure dates have been changed to allow for ] to be included in the case. If you wish to comment, please review the ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 10:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Callanecc@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Callanecc/sandbox&oldid=620893848 -->


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Kww. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
== Jesus! ==


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.
I thought you might be interested in learning that the overwhelming consensus of historians who have studied this matter all agree that Jesus of Nazareth did exist and was crucified at the order of P.P. This isn't just biblical scholars, but real honest to God historians. It is an almost certainty that Jesus was a real person. This water into wine business, and other "miracles" well that's quite a different matter. But rest assured, Jesus was as real as Julius Caesar.] (]) 04:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
:"''Historians who have studied this matter''" is somewhat of a self-selecting list, which creates a bias problem, one extremely similar to the problem we have with finding scientists that have studied ]. I'm listening, though: if you can demonstrate the existence of any significant number of non-Christian, non-Muslim historians that have studied the the problem and come to the conclusion that there was enough evidence to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth existed, I'd be very interested. They aren't listed in our article on the subject, and I'm unaware of their existence.&mdash;](]) 06:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
::My dear good man (forgive my presumption), I have no desire to involve myself in the argument at ANI nor the article. It's too contentious for my blood. I posted here for that reason. I can't rmember the documentary I saw, but I believe it was on PBS. It was a secular investigation into the existence of Jesus, and it relied on eyewitness accounts on the events leading up to Jesus' trial and execution. These accounts were recorded by scribes of the time. Are those scribes reliable sources? I won't offer an opinion, but the panel of secular and non-secular historians universally agreed JoN gathered followers, caused a ruckus and got shiskabobbed for his troubles. I kind if liken this to climate change. I'm completely unqualified to offer an opinion, but I do believe the experts who say its a real thing. I'll ask my folks about it tomorrow and see if I can find the title for you.] (]) 07:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
:::A title would certainly be a step in the right direction. A documentary that you can't quite remember what it was, where you saw it, or who was on it isn't a particularly persuasive argument.&mdash;](]) 15:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
::::. And here is some text from an Evangelical site complaining about the series:


If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
''America's PBS television (Public Broadcasting System - viewer and tax supported) is currently broadcasting a seductive, but dangerously inaccurate film series about Jesus Christ and the early church. The series is part of the FRONTLINE program and is entitled "From Jesus to Christ, the First Christians."
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/06&oldid=813406902 -->


==Happy new year==
The series was developed by a producer who appears to enjoy using his position to promote left-wing, liberal beliefs. He promises to reveal "the real story of the rise of Christianity… challenging and upsetting conventional ideas." One of the scholars used in the series is the liberal Jesus Seminar co-founder John Dominic Crossan, . The series also heavily promotes their PBS Web site on this subject, which among other things promotes: "Writings from, and about, the Jesus Seminar, the controversial group of scholars which meets and determines, by vote, the veracity of stories and texts about Jesus."


Hoping you have a happy and successful 2018, and remember: "]". ] <sub>]</sub> 09:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
It is worthy of note that no evangelical scholars were used in the series. Rather, the emphasis was on people from such liberal institutions as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Duke, Brown, Union, etc. According to Craig Blomberg of Denver Seminary, the series "does not acknowledge distinctively evangelical perspectives at any point."''


== Template:BillboardURLbyName ==
] (]) 21:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
:I wasn't aware that liberals and non-evangelicals were automatically non-Christian and non-Muslim. I suspect that they weren't aware of that either.&mdash;](]) 23:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
::It seems lots of people want to question motives on this subject. Not me.] (]) 03:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


There is an edit request at ] that begs for your help and attention. Please take a look. Happy New Year to You and Yours''!'' &nbsp;''''']'''''<small>&nbsp;&nbsp;]&nbsp;</small>&nbsp;<small>05:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)</small>
== Another edit filter ==


== ArbCom 2018 election voter message ==
Do you think you can whip something up to stop the vandalism happening at {{la|Taipei}}? No one's bothering to semi-protect the article it seems and the IP user keeps posting the same string so it shouldn't be difficult.—] (]) 23:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
:Can you point me at some RFC or formal discussion that would support filtering it, ]? Content-based filters need fairly strong justification.&mdash;](]) 23:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
::It's nationalistic vandalism. I posted about it on ANI but I was told to just RBI.—] (]) 00:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
::He's gotten bolder and calling my reverts "communist PRC propaganda". He also seems to like the same sentence to describe Taiwan.—] (]) 01:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


{{Ivmbox|Hello, Kww. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
Back again, different situation. I keep having to request protection on ] because an anime's fans kees adding a character to it. Do you think you can do something with ?—] (]) 12:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


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.
== Overly restrictive filter 601 ==


If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. ] (]) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I am told you’re the author of filter 601, which is apparently the ID of the filter that’s rather unpredictably disallowing my edits. Could you tell me why this is, and/or put a stop to it? I’d greatly appreciate either option. Thanks. —] (]) 16:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018/Coordination/MMS/06&oldid=866998196 -->
== Talk pages consultation 2019 ==


The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Misplaced Pages, to participate in ] on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at ''']'''. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. <!--You are informed of this consultation, because you were an integral participant of the previous discussions around Flow per <https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:Flow?editorlimit=200>. Please ignore, if you are not concerned.--> ]<sup>]</sup> 05:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
== Early non-admin close ==
== Nomination for merging of ] ==
]] has been ] with ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfmnotice--> ] (]) 09:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
==] nomination of ]==
]
{{Quote box|quote=<p>If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read ].</p><p>You may want to consider using the ] to help you create articles.</p>|width=20%|align=right}}
Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a notice that the page you created, ], was tagged as a test page under ] and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the ] for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the ] if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.


If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the {{Querylink|Special:Log|qs=type=delete&page=Template%3ASingle+chart%2Fbillboardref|deleting administrator}}, or if you have already done so, you can place a request ]. <!-- Template:Db-test-notice --><!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom --> ] (]) 10:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The discussion was and no rational explanation was given to oppose the page move. See ]. See ]. To avoid wasting time the page should be moved so that the contents and the title match.


== ArbCom 2019 election voter message ==
See ]: "Inappropriate early closures may either be reverted by an administrator"... ] (]) 00:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
:Wasn't particularly early: RM's usually run a week. In six days, you didn't have anyone supporting your position. It would have been irresponsible to close the RM any other way.&mdash;](]) 00:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
::What I meant was there were only two other comments and the editor who opposed wrote "we would probably agree that the content of the article doesn't really match the title" He know the contents does not match the title. Another editor also the same thing. ] (]) 01:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
== Peter piper picked pickling, not pickled, peppers. ==
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2019|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.
I learned this nursery rhyme in the 1940's. I think that the later source has been corrupted. I'm not willing to engage in a flame war over this topic, despite its world-shaking importance, so I suggest that both of us search for earlier sources of the rhyme. ] (]) 01:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2019 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. ] (]) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
== ''Media Viewer RfC'' arbitration case - motion to suspend case ==
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/MMS/03&oldid=926750323 -->
== Nomination for deletion of Template:BillboardChartNum ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ‑‑] (]) 12:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
== Nomination for deletion of Template:BillboardEncode ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ‑‑] (]) 10:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)


== Relax (song) ==
You are receiving this message as you have either commented on a case page or are named as a party to the case. A ] to suspend the ''Media Viewer RfC'' arbitration case for a maximum of 60 days due to recent developments. If you wish to comment regarding the motion there is a section on the ] for this. For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]). <small>Message delivered by ] (]) at 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)</small>
<!-- Message sent by User:Callanecc@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Callanecc/sandbox&oldid=622684419 -->


Hi. Can you reduce the protection from ] to pending changes? There have been a few requests to make edits and Charlie is inactive (as far as I know). Thanks. ] ]<sup>]</sup> 21:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
== ] ==
:That edit notice you saw when you left this comment wasn't kidding, ]. They stripped me of adminstrative rights over five years ago for blocking an administrator that insisted on forcing unsourced material into articles.&mdash;](]) 04:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
::Oh sorry. I didn't read it and I didn't know about it. ] ]<sup>]</sup> 04:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message ==
A new user from ]. Can you sockpuppet him/her, and revert his/her edits? ] (]) 13:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
== ] ==
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2020|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.
Much likely similar edit pattern from ] on ]. Can you please sockpuppet him/her? ] (]) 01:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2020 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. ] (]) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
== Unprovoked return to aggressive behavior by Technophant ==
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Coordination/MMS/02&oldid=990308077 -->
==] nomination of ]==
]


A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a ], a ], a ], under discussion at ], or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
This matter needs to be looked at by several admins who know the history and/or have used Technophant's talk page, so I'm pinging ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. I'm also pinging the involved "banned" editors: ], ], ], and ]. Since I am "banned" from their talk page, I'm doing this here, but this should not be necessary.


If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may '''contest the nomination''' by ] and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with ]. <!-- 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> 15:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Here's what just reappeared:


== Meaning of "baboon" in a 17th century text ==
: '''Banned users'''
: Due to disruptive edits, insults to myself or others, personal attacks, harassment or other incivility, users QuackGuru, Atlan, BullRangifer, and MrBill3 are indefinitely banned from editing on my talk pages. I had tried to make a "free speech" zone where editing would be allowed, however I no longer wish to do this. I'm done being bullied. I am asking for a mutual ] to allow Misplaced Pages to once again be a safe place from personal attacks and harassment.


From https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10764-018-0063-5 : "Originally expressed in English as “babewyn” (or “baboyn”), it was first applied (fifteenth century) to grotesque statues and decorations (e.g., how gargoyle is used today). In the fifteenth century, the word in English also became associated with monkeys of any origin (Oxford English Dictionary 2018). By the late 1800s, the term was used mainly for members of the tribe Papionini (i.e., large-bodied primates of Asia and Africa); but, in the 1900s, it quickly came to be associated particularly with large-bodied, terrestrial, long-snouted monkeys of Africa. These included members of the genus Papio (standard baboons), members of the genus Theropithecus (geladas, T. gelada), and members of the genus Mandrillus (mandrills, M. sphinx, and drills, M. leucophaeus). The continuation of the historical narrowing of the meaning of the term “baboon” ..." - so that reference is relevant and should not be deleted, methinks?<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>
This totally unprovoked return to aggressive behavior by Technophant is very odd. Why? Obviously their repentance was only feigned, and therefore an indef ban should be reconsidered on behavioral grounds. Take a look at their and you'll see no provocations at all. All those strong personal attacks are just placed there, without any evidence. They are gross failures to AGF. AGF is a policy and such a gross violation is sanctionable. That needs to happen, and Technophant instructed that they are not allowed to ban any editor who comments civilly, even if it's unpleasant.
:]: there's no evidence that your citation is about a chimpanzee, then, so no, it should not be restored. What did they use in your Italian reference, and how do you know that <i>it</i> specifically refers to a chimpanzee and not some other ape?&mdash;](]) 05:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
::Before anything I would like to point out that the most dubious of the three is the one that's actually preserved in the text of the article, from Damian, which only talks about "maimo", i.e. monkey - which is highly unlikely to be a sub-Saharan ape in the 11th century Liguria! Now, the text from the Italian-language reference (from travels to sub-Saharan Africa, and in particular Luanda is mentioned as being near where this supposedly happened) explicitly mentions that the crossing was with "macachi grandi", i.e. large monkeys (as opposed to mediocre and small monkeys, as mentioned/differentiated in one of the the previous sentences). This is as explicit a reference to an ape - either gorilla or chimpanzee - as can be in such an old and non-biological text. Now, I certainly cannot infer it is a chimpanzee but not a gorilla (and the same with the reference from the English text , although, if true, it must be one of these because any other crossing is almost certainly too distant to be possible). But do you really think this therefore justifies purging this information from the article as irrelevant? I'd argue we should collect the highly relevant information - and even on the pedantic side it's possible it was specifically chimpanzee, that's not counterindicated either, and the talk is of possibility, so this is relevant even if more general human-ape hybrids are (pretty strangely!) considered irrelevant to the article.
::So what I'm saying is, if an explicit reference to chimpanzee and not say even bonobo is necessary period, then most certainly the reference to Damian should be removed, too.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>
:::I'd prefer removing the older reference. If you want to write an article about ape-human hybrids, I'd have no objection. By the way, if you would end your comments with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, you'd be signing them.&mdash;](]) 14:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message ==
Such page bans are an abuse of the purpose of our talk pages, and prevents proper use of Technophant's talk page. It's a blatant personal attack on all of us and it's very uncollegial/uncollaborative. An editor who doesn't try to get along with other editors really shouldn't be here. If they really want an interaction ban, as the edit indicates, then they should be locked up on their own talk page and not be allowed to edit or comment anywhere else. Put them in isolation with a vow of silence! That way they get their wish....no interaction. -- ] (]) 04:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


<table class="messagebox " style="border: 1px solid #AAA; background: ivory; padding: 0.5em; width: 100%;">
:As I was pinged I'll chip in. So far as I am concerned so long as Technophant abides by the topic ban and refrains from more direct personal attacks, I am not concerned. While this is a backhanded accusation of bullying which I mildly object to, it doesn't concern me much. As an improperly requested IBAN I don't expect it to go anywhere. I have no intention of posting to that user's talk page unless appropriate per policy. If Technophant edits in some way that I find it necessary to post to their talk page it would involve probably just a template with comment or notification. I have no reason to anticipate this at this time. My editing interests don't seem to extend into the areas Technophant edits in (outside the topic ban with minor exceptions). I think if ROPE is left available and used ''then'' some action might be appropriate. I don't know if BullRangifer's editing interests on articles have created a reason for their interest. My experience with BullRangifer does not give me cause to suspect they would be wielding a STICK but this seems a bit of an over reaction. If my reading of this is wrong or my response seems off, my talk page is open. Best. - - ] (]) 04:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
<tr><td style="vertical-align:middle; padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</td><td>Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2021|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.
:: I'm just pissed off at being attacked out of the blue, for no legitimate reason, and such a gross violation of AGF and NPA then goes unpunished. We really need to either get rid of NPA and AGF totally, or enforce them. At the very least a warning needs to be given. They should strike those personal attacks. Here I was looking forward to being able to edit peacefully and collegially alongside Technophant, but he just poisons the atmosphere. -- ] (]) 05:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2021 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>] (]) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)</small>
*I think he's just irritated by the continuously unclosed SPI in which he is named. I dislike his tone, and have always believed that talk page bans should be impermissible, but, unfortunately, the community as a whole disagrees with me about that (and disagrees quite strenuously, so far as I can tell). There's nothing here for me to act on.&mdash;](]) 04:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
</td></tr>
</table>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1056563129 -->
== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 16:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
== Nomination for deletion of ] ==
]] has been ]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> – ] (]) 05:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
==] has been nominated for renaming==


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 07:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:: What about the unprovoked personal attacks? There's something to be done there. -- ] (]) 05:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
==] has been nominated for renaming==
*Simple solution: unwatchlist his talk page. There's no reason for you to continue to interact with him. (See also ] #65.) <span style="font-family:times; text-shadow: 0 0 .2em #7af">~] <small>(])</small></span> 15:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: I love that page! It's been on my watchlist for years. BTW, I don't interact with him at all. While ] (always interpreted by the perp as approval and encouragement) is not a thing for ''any'' loyal and experienced Wikipedian to do, especially for admins, #39 does fit this situation quite well.
:: Ultimately it's up to admins what type of message you all want to send, because inaction (when informed) ''is'' a deliberate action which sends a clear message, and it ''will'' be interpreted as approval. General history here tells us that, and especially the history in this case. If you doubt my interpretation, I can inform you that I have a legal precedent, in which the judge used my logic above, and my exact wording, in her decision, thus getting a malicious prosecution case against over 30 people and entities thrown out. -- ] (]) 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::Unfortunately, we have a large contingent of editors that doesn't understand the harm that things like this cause. If I were to follow my own opinions, too many would be eager to interpret that as some kind of petulance over Adjwilley having overriden my block of Technophant despite my explicit and specific objections to him having done so. It's just not a ''big'' enough issue for me to be able to argue that any reasonable admin would take action.&mdash;](]) 17:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
* Just unwatch the talk page. Admins aren't the police and they aren't anyone's mom. If you want to keep watching the talk page because "''I love that page''" it's not up to us to send some message because you don't like what you see. ] (]) 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:: ], I was referring to my "love" for this page: ] (User:Antandrus/observations on Misplaced Pages behavior). -- ] (]) 19:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::My mistake. The point remains. Ignore the editor, unwatch their talk page and all of this will melt away. ] (]) 19:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::: Well, I've done what I could by bringing this to all of your attention. -- ] (]) 19:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
:::::I also invite ] (]) to unwatch my Talk page too. For the record, I never initiate contact with it, and I always delete its comments, as permitted. I already have a mom who cares about me. Thanks. ] (]) 21:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


<div class="floatleft" style="margin-bottom:0">]</div>''']''' has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the ] guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at ''']''' on the ] page.<!-- Template:Cfd-notify--> Thank you. ] (]) 22:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
== Attempting to locate SPI ==


== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
Hey I'm trying to find the SPI that led to the blocking of ]. I'd like to review it. It says he was an Sock of ], but I can't find an investigation mentioning either of them over at ] even using the search. ] (]) 20:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC) <small>Please either {{tc|ping}} me or reply on my talk page.</small>
:I'd also like to ask that ] is restored. This draft showed promise and I see no reason to delete it. If its needs another steward, I can take up that role. ] (]) 20:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
::I actually can't find the investigation even when searching everything. Was one conducted? ] (]) 21:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
There was no formal investigation, ]: the socking was too obvious to require one. And no, I will not restore articles that were created in defiance of a block.&mdash;](]) 22:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div>
:If as at all possible I'd like to see diffs to substantiate that. I'm happy to change my opinion if you are able to provide compelling evidence. From the interactions that I had with him he did not seem like an editor that much experience. He was asking me for help with using citation templates just a few days ago. I'm going to bring up the article at ] then. I'll add a link here when I've opened the request. ] (]) 22:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-text">
::I'm retracting my earlier comments about him not being a sock. ] (]) 02:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|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.
==Deletion review for ]==
An editor has asked for a ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. <!-- This originally was from the template {{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~ --> ] (]) 22:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2022 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>] (]) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
== Need your help ==


</div>
Your comments you made on my talk page saying ""I do not believe that there is any reason to believe that the problems that led to Technophant's block won't repeat themselves" and will also add obviously Technophant's repentance was only feigned and short lived." have come back to haunt me . I don't know if you've been following my actions, but I'm guessing you have. I've interacted, mostly by email, with ], and ] regularly and I have stayed away from topic ban areas, wrestled my daemons, and found a newer more respectful place in this universe. I hope you can revise your statement. If I remember right it was you final word about me. I hope you've changed your mind. ~] <small>(])</small> 01:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
</div>
:Also, can you my review "QuackGuru/SkepticalRaptor/Yobol" SPI draft in my ]. ~] <small>(])</small> 12:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1124425183 -->
== "]" listed at ] ==
]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks"></span> has been listed at ] to determine whether its use and function meets the ]. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 1#Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album)}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 06:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


== ] ==
==Case Opened: Banning Policy==
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at ]. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by September 16, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 12:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


Hello {{U|Kww}}, ] launched ] which is based on streaming data primarily for South African music replacing EMA. I think it is necessary to add the chart data to the ] along with its airplay and all. I'll be on the lookout for your response, {{thank you}}. '''<span style="color:Purple">dxneo</span>''' (]) 11:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
==Your input would be appreciated...==
on the issues raised at ]. This isn't meant as, or to be construed as, canvassing because it's about a simple matter of fact, which I'm asking you about because you're scientifically literate and objective. I've asked a couple other clueful users, whom I trust to be objective, to comment as well. Thanks! regards, ] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
:Update: Simplifying my excessive parsing, the question is simply how to cite an Ernst paper -- per ] -- but now JzG/Guy is just going to email Ernst. --] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


:Oh and '']'' also launched '''<span style="color:Purple">dxneo</span>''' (]) 11:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
== DeadSend4 ==


== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message ==
I am responding to the user's UTRS ticket, and before proceeding, I thought to ask you: would you object to a conditional unblock with a clear Mariah Carey & Christina Aguilera TBAN, and that any violation of the TBAN and/or resonable doubt of violating our policy on meatpuppety will result in an immediate indef block, considering reblocking can be done easily? I understand the block reason used was for "abusing multiple accounts" (actually for alleged meatpuppetry), but considering how difficult it would be to "prove" these meat/canvassing allegations, unblocking with conditions to reblock if/when these conditions are violated may be helpful IMO. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 17:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
:The topic ban would suffice, ]. As for proof, it's only hard to prove now because the forums he was posting on took the call to arms into private sections so that they couldn't be monitored any more. At the time of the block, there was no reasonable doubt.&mdash;](]) 18:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
::Thanks for the lightning fast reply. I will submit the TBAN conditions to the user and ublock if he accepts them clearly. <span style="font-family:Sylfaen;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;">☺&nbsp;·&nbsp;]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]</span> 18:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
==]==
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div>
Kww, you might be interested in it. Mind you a clear cut violation of ] is going on with users resorting to even use sites like Perezhilton.com. —] · <sup>] ]</sup> 16:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|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.
== Middle 8 is continuing to edit against consensus ==


If you wish to participate in the 2023 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>] (]) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small>
User:Middle 8 was notified of the discretionary sanctions and he was notified of for the ] page.


</div>
Middle 8 is continuing to try to rewrite or delete the same sentence:
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1187132049 -->
==MfD nomination of ]==
] ], a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:Mfd notice --> ] <sup>(]) </sup> 02:34, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
* He deleted sourced text but claimed the source doesn't support general statement. In the previous discussion, Middle 8 claimed . He had a discussion on ]'s talk page too. See ]. There was a discussion about using the source. See ].


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
* He replaced sourced text with original research in the lede. His edit was also a violation of lede because it did not summarise the body.
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
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.
* He reworded the text to alter the meaning of the sentence. The part "may be" was original research. See ].


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>] (]) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
*. Now he replaced sourced text with SYN and OR. For example, the part "that indicates a lack of effectiveness" was original research. He is repeatedly adding text to the lede that does not summarise the body and he is repeatedly replacing sourced text with text that failed verification. See ]. There is another discussion where editors support using the source for a conclusion. See ].


</div>
I request permission to submit the above to ] or you can decide if anything should or should not be done. ] (]) 19:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- 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/02&oldid=1258243447 -->

Latest revision as of 00:12, 19 November 2024

Archives at:

  1. User talk:Kww/04022009
  2. User talk:Kww/Archive05202009
  3. User talk:Kww/Archive09072009
  4. User talk:Kww/04012010
  5. User talk:Kww/04232010
  6. User talk:Kww/06052010
  7. User talk:Kww/06182010
  8. User talk:Kww/07182010
  9. User talk:Kww/07242010
  10. User talk:Kww/11012010
  11. User talk:Kww/04142011
  12. User talk:Kww/08252011
  13. User talk:Kww/03122012
  14. User talk:Kww/11032012
  15. User talk:Kww/06092013
  16. User talk:Kww/12072013
  17. User talk:Kww/20140727
  18. User talk:Kww/20150717


BENN JORDAN

This person is not notable, and certainly doesn't need 14 seperate wiki articles on each of his works, none of which are notable or sourced, nor is he. He appears to be a hack bedroom producer that simply uploads his content to illegal file sharing sites. I've nomined him for speedy deletion. Please also assist removing the other 12+ pages he has made himself, apparently.

Nelly Furtado

Nelly Furtado has a portuguese passport, she said it in an interview to The Independent in 6 March 2004 (she was interview by Aoife O'Riordain), but The Independent has erased that interview probably because it was done more than 10 years ago (the interview was located here: http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news_and_advice/story.jsp?story=498282). What you call a fansite is a forum where the interview was "copy pasted". I don't know why you guys are trying so hard to hide the fact that Nelly has portuguese citizenship, but that's a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockmaker00 (talkcontribs) 15:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

But I found that source! The Independent (UK) 6 March 2004, Nelly Furtado interview by Aoife O'Riordain. Title of the interview: «My Life in Travel: Nelly Furtado.» Blockmaker00 (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There was an interview in a portuguese magazine in 11 November 2006 (Revista Única), where the journalist ask: "Do you feel more canadian or portuguese?" And Nelly say: "I have a Canadian and a Portuguese passport, but I feel more Portuguese because of my roots." Check http://nellyfurtado-ninhas.blogspot.pt/2008/02/revista-nica-portugal-2006.html and you will find a photo from the pages and the title "I feel more portuguese". That sentence is mencioned all over the net (google "Nelly furtado" and "passaporte português"). Misplaced Pages should be a place for facts, but that's not the case. Shame on you.Blockmaker00 (talk) 16:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems I found AGAIN that Nelly Furtado is Portuguese. In the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCqT2PIsDzo (@01:55 - an interview to a brazilian program), Nelly say: "Sou canadiana, mas portuguesa também. A minha alma e o meu coração são portugueses". Let me translate it for you: "I'm canadian, but also portuguese. My heart and my soul are portuguese." That's a primary source, don't you think? Will you change the article to Portuguese-Canadian or do you want me to do it? Blockmaker00 (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I will need to evaluate the YouTube video later, Blockmaker00: I cannot access YouTube from work.—Kww(talk) 19:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem. Take a look at this video too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYGKj3WPhQk. It's an interview to a mexican program. Nelly say @02:30: «Yo me siento hispanica y latina también, porqué yo soy portuguesa». In english: «I feel hispanic and latin also, because I am portuguese». I will continue to look for more videos, but I think we have the evidence we need in these two (Nelly say she is portuguese in 2 different languages). Blockmaker00 (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LB38fLBZc8I (portuguese program). @02:38 Nelly say: «Descobri a música mais moderna de Portugal. Música que vinha de Lisboa: Pedro Abrunhosa, Santos e Pecadores, Madredeus... Coisas que me faziam sentir orgulhosa de ser portuguesa. Fiquei ainda mais orgulhosa de ser portuguesa.» In english: «I discovered the portuguese modern music. Music from Lisbon: Pedro Abrunhosa, Santos e Pecadores, Madredeus... Things that made me feel proud of being Portuguese. I felt even more proud of being portuguese». Blockmaker00 (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
You don't need to see the other videos. See this one in english: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ezIHQ0pkTE. @01:25, Nelly is asked: «You are not spanish, right?». And then, the answer: «No. I'm actually PORTUGUESE-CANADIAN....» Not a fansite, not a blog: the truth from her own mouth. Blockmaker00 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to see a video that isn't a copyright violation, Blockmaker00. None of those are authorised copies.—Kww(talk) 22:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if I can find one video that isn't a copyright violation. But I will try. At least, now you know the facts: she is portuguese and she said it dozens of times in newspappers, magazines and TV shows. It's really sad to see «is a Canadian singer» in the Wiki page after hearing Nelly say repeatedly she's portuguese-canadian... Blockmaker00 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Arb case request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Kww and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Writ Keeper  16:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song)#Request for comment

You were one of editors of the article. I invite you to an RFC discussion. --George Ho (talk) 19:38, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man Arbitration Case Opening

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz 18:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

However the case ends, do know that you've definitely had a positive impact on Misplaced Pages overall. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

List of best-selling music artists

Please can you unprotect that page. You protected it about 3 months ago; there's no indications that it still needs protection now. Thanks. 88.104.25.154 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that page has been protected for years, and can't seem to survive unprotected. What you see in the log is me moving it back to semi-protected after a brief period of full protection. So, sorry, won't be doing that any time soon.—Kww(talk) 21:03, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Kww. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 11:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Sportsguy17 (TC) 11:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Selena Gomez's "associated act"

It's for long-term relationships with multiple collaborations. See Template:Infobox musical artist#associated_acts for an expansion, Justasaddream.—Kww(talk) 15:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Kww and The Rambling Man arbitration evidence phase closing soon

As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 13 July. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Liz 17:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Kww, I'm really sorry that much of the input at arbitration has favored you losing the mop. Hoping that doesn't happen. Not sure what you'll do if you become desysopped, but I wish you all the best for the future, and definitely don't think you've been as bad of an admin as some users seem to suggest. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Though, thanks for your past five years of your administrative efforts. Eyesnore 02:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to thank you as well for your service as an admin. You definitely have been an overall net positive to the project. Cheers, Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision

Hi Kww, in the open Kww and The Rambling Man arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted

MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Anonpediann

Hi Kww, I think you're aware of Anonpediann although I thought I'd bring him up anyway. He's got a retired sticker on his talk page, yet he's going through talk pages and removing comments like here. I'm surmising that he is removing them because he believes they are his (I note that User:Justasaddream redirects to his user page), but this is obviously disruptive if other people have responded to them. Thoughts? I'm a little confused by this scenario. I think that maybe he was signing comments as Justasaddream even though that account didn't exist? I found a proper name change request from Urjustaghost --> Anonpediann so that one is clear to me. I'm still warming up to my newly "earned" admin tools. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Rewarn, revert, and block if it repeats.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Time for a vacation?

When was the last time you were on Bonaire? Atsme 00:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This spring. Believe me, I'd love to be able to just move back home.—Kww(talk) 00:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I just got back to the US - was on Bonaire for 10 mos. Wish I had known you were there!! Atsme 01:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Kww (talk · contribs)'s administrator permissions are revoked. He may regain the tools at any time through a successful request for adminship

  2. Kww (talk · contribs)'s edit filter manager permission is revoked. He may only regain them as follows: If he is desysopped as a result of this case, and is later successful at regaining the administrator tools through a successful request for adminship, this restriction will automatically expire. If he is not desysopped as a result of this case, he may appeal this remedy after 12 months to the Arbitration Committee.

  3. The community is encouraged to establish a policy or guideline for the use of edit filters, and a process by which existing and proposed edit filters may be judged against these.

For the Arbitration Committee, Liz 14:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kww and The Rambling Man closed


The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For defending the verifiability policy, even at personal cost. Reyk YO! 15:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • He stated in this edit he's not going to be very active anymore, Bishonen. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I doubt I will be very active from this point on. I've always been frustrated by Arbcom's ability to miss the point of every case set before it, and this case was no different. I view this as an extension of our Eric Corbett problem: once an editor is popular enough, the blowback from a block is hazardous. It was somewhat entertaining watching Arbcom try to distinguish the BLP violations TRM was blocked over from other BLP violations, try to rewrite WP:V and WP:BLP to justify their position, fail to do so, and still find that blocking TRM was so unjustifiable that I required a desysop. An edit filter that allowed an IP to talk about his edits rather than simply blocking him was some nefarious scheme of mine to avoid scrutiny? A failed experiment, certainly, but hardly a nefarious scheme. An edit filter that prevented the addition of completely unsourced tables to awards articles was so problematic as to warrant a desysop? Not in any universe that takes WP:V seriously.—Kww(talk) 21:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I second that. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 15:26, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm very sorry about this. You've done a lot for the project, and the bravery I've seen in standing up to malign folk should earn you plaudits, not this. I've long since given up on ArbCom as something necessary for the project I hope you stay. I understand if you do not. In any event you have my great respect and gratitude.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I also think it's disappointing that you were desysopped and I think it's a shame that you're scaling back your time here. I can't think of a more productive, effective and efficient admin in the music articles than you, Kww; it won't be easy for others to fill in for the work that you've done. Acalamari 13:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I am shocked and dismayed by this news. Although I am not involved in this dispute, I wish to echo the sentiments of Acalamari and others. I have come to consider you the MAIN MAN when it comes to music articles and have learned much from observing your edits and project activities. One thing that I remember learning from you particularly is that Bubbling Under charts are not true extensions of their parent charts, as songs cannot fall back through the BU positions after the song has been on the parent chart.—Iknow23 (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I too am very sorry to see that this has happened. I am not as active on Misplaced Pages anymore, so this comes as a huge surprise, as I could not foresee anything like this happening. I say this because our previous experience has shown you to be extremely diligent and effective, with you being able to route out problematic editors of any kind. You will be sorely missed. DARTHBOTTO talkcont 03:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

STARKILLERS

Hi, I've made several edits to the music wiki page of starkillers only to have been reverted by a rookie editor. I seek your assistance. This article is full of wiki:puff including talks of funding from (fictional) gangsters, unsubstatiated claims of chartings, an un-notable podcast internet radio show, etc. Its clearly authored by the dj himself as in the ASSOCIATED ACTS section, when you check to edit it, it states 'please don't add associated acts here as starkers is a freelance producer'.

It is a ridiculous promo piece.

Please check it out and revert the page back to my edits.

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Housexpose (talkcontribs) 03:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

ARCA notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Kww and The Rambling Man and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:51, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This is completely unrelated to anything you've done (if you've even done anything; I don't know) before or after the decision was announced. Basically, several people were confused by remedy #2, so I've filed a request to get Arbcom to clarify what they meant. Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant. Thank you.  · Salvidrim! ·  03:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Courtesy notification since you have been mentioned on AN. Well, technically you're mentioned on Technophant's talk page which is partially transcluded on AN (long story), but the end result is similar enough that I feel it warrants the usual notification..  · Salvidrim! ·  03:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard Offer unblock request for Technophant

Technophant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Technophant has requested an unblock under the standard offer. As one of about 60 editors who has contributed to User talk:Technophant you may have an interest in this request. Sent by user:PBS via -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Mate

If you give up, perhaps we all need to. Thought of losing an admin devoted to verifiable content saddens me. Best wished. Hope all that was needed was a break, not retirement. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The Rambling Man

If you don't want to cause drama and strife, please do not post on The Rambling Man's talk page again. I can't put it simpler than that. Ritchie333 07:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

If he doesn't want to to respond, Ritchie333, he shouldn't intentionally ping me while insulting me. I don't know how much simpler than that I can put it.—Kww(talk) 10:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I was going to go to TRM's page and advise him of the same, but he has scrubbed the message off his talk page, which I take to read he wants to forget it about it. Seriously, all that happens when the two of you bang heads is trouble; walk away from it. Ritchie333 10:17, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I pretty much have walked away: in the conflict between the content-creator cult and those of us that value reliable sourcing, the content-creator cult has won. I remain flabbergasted that an admin that intentionally violated WP:V, WP:BURDEN, WP:BLP, and WP:NPA had such widespread support, but a dissent-free Arbcom decision made it pretty clear that I'm no longer welcome. I only monitor my talk page for the occasional ping that I receive to take care of any issues that I may have left open.—Kww(talk) 16:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request archived

The Kww and The Rambling Man arbitration clarification request dated 4 August 2015, which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived to the Kww and The Rambling Man case talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

RE: Counting to 100

I know that, but look at other discography pages. They all have numbers greater than 100 for songs who peaked in "Bubbling Under Hot 100." WikiBrainHead (talk) 14:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Kim Kardashian RfC

You previously gave an opinion about the filmography section at Kim Kardashian. Please see Talk:Kim Kardashian, where a request for comments has been started. 31.54.158.76 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone taken the edit requesting of her surname not being used more than once after her occupations as a model and TV personality respectively? It sounds messed up and out of place. The tape made her famous after all.

I know that you retired from adminship, but let someone take the opposite to Kourtney Khloe and Kylie's surnames being repeated after said occupations because using she is repetitive.

Thats all,

67.81.163.178 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice: Proposed change to WP:INVOLVED

Discussion is at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators#Proposed change to WP:INVOLVED --Guy Macon (talk)

Hello

I'm not sure if you remember me (you're probably more familiar with another username, which you can see on my user page), but I'm sorry to hear that you lost your administrative privileges. I only just now found out while keeping up, though I'm not participating, with a discussion regarding possible tool misuse by an administrator. (Do a CTRL + F for your name "Kww." You're mentioned three times.)

Both you and Apparition11 frequently tried to help me when I was in my "stubborn era," and as you can see from my block log, I never really "soaked" all the advice in, so I was out for a while. Amaury (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Help with disruptive IP

Hi Kevin. I'm having a problem with an IP at the article The Stone Roses (album). They continue to restore their controversial edit to the article, without responding to content of their changes at the RfC (I opened for them), calling WP:BRD an "irrelevant doctrine" and refusing to leave the article in the condition it was in before their bold edit was made, like BRD states, instead reverting and edit-warring once again. Could you please help restore some order to the article? It appears it is the same who disrupted the article in November of last year when they forced several RfCs at the talk page in an attempt to introduce similarly synthesized material into the article using the same sources. Dan56 (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No admin tools left here, Dan56.—Kww(talk) 09:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Templates

Hi Kww, I'm sorry to see you won't be around any more – for various reasons, Misplaced Pages has lost quite a number of longstanding excellent editors like yourself over the last 12 months, and that can't be good for the project. Anyway, just a quick question if you are still reading your talk page: are there other editors who will be maintaining the Singlechart and Albumchart templates in your absence? Best wishes for the future. Richard3120 (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I keep track of pings and messages. Not as quickly as I used to (depends on how bored I am). No one in specific has taken over the templates I used to maintain, but there are a number of editors that do OK with them.—Kww(talk) 00:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Ah thanks, I'll direct my query there then - the German chart website has changed its layout and consequently screwed up all the links that pointed there. Thanks. Richard3120 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Help

Hi Kww! I just wanted to ask you for help because in the page "That's the Spirit", at the composition section, backing the genres, there are a lot of sources which reliability is not clear at all. Could you help me to clean up this sources i'm talking you about? Thanks. Anonpediann (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Anonpediann (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Tony Penikett

Could you unlock the article had been protected so I can add some details not for vandalism, is for own good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.199.242.44 (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

When you edit this page to reply to me, please read the message that comes up.—Kww(talk) 21:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz 13:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP

Hi. Would you be amenable for me removing the protection on this talk page you added back in March? Another IP (unrelated to this one) wants to discuss something, and it's pretty rare that we lock talk pages indefinitely to anyone. PS: I know you don't have the tools anymore, but that doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on this. Ritchie333 10:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why anyone chooses to discuss it any more, Ritchie333, but if you want to put up with it, feel free to put up with it.—Kww(talk) 22:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence

Hi Kww

Your section on the evidence page has been moved to the evidence talk page as it does not meet the requirements for inclusion as evidence. This has been undertaken as a clerk action and should not be reverted.

For the Arbitration Comittee. Amortias (T)(C) 12:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

User LikeDude23 5SOS page vandalism

Hi,

User LikeDude23 keeps vandalising the 5 Seconds of Summer page, by constantly changing the genres of the band to pop and classing them as a boyband. Their acts have been extremely annoying and as you protected the page, I ask you to do something about the user's constant disruption to the page.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zafire94 (talkcontribs) 22:03, 11 November 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 Misplaced Pages 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) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Jdogno5 Socking as Lucifer Morningstar

Hi there. I was on the Lucifer DC comics page and noticed that a user Lucifer Morningstar, is adding information that Jdogno5 previously added to the page that is speculative. Looking at his contributions show that he had been editing pages that Jdogno5 use to and adding the same/similar information, similar grammar and wordage, etc. As you previously blocked Jdogno5, and it is rather blatant that they are the same person, I fighters I should let you know to see if there is socking going on. Sorry to bother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.76.228.45 (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

Seasons greetings

Happy Holidays to you, your family and friends. May you have happy editing!

Happy Holidays to you and your family and friends!
May this season bring you joy and happiness and happy editing!.Mark Miller (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV 00:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

archive.is blocked

happy new year, kww! i tried to add an archive.is link to the ian murdock article as no reference otherwise but a pastebin link confirms that he announced his death. but i get an error that archive.is is not allowed. i read the rfc and i would be annoyed as well by some bot adding links to a users own archive service. but in this case i find it not so practical. i read on the rfc that it is not on the spamlist. can you please detail the exact conditions when archive.is would be allowed and when not? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

That's easy. It's never acceptable under any condition for any reason. If you can't find a reliable source to point at, don't add the information. If you can find a reliable source to point at, feel free to use a reputable archiving service to archive the link.—Kww(talk) 23:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC announce: Religion in infoboxes

There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Refactoring of your statement at WP:ARC

Hi Kww. The clerks have redacted parts of your statement at WP:ARC. You are welcome to rephrase removed content in a way that is not inflammatory and does not contain personal attacks. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know on my talk page. (Specific actions may or may not have been taken by me personally.) Questions may also be directed to the clerks' noticeboard, the clerks' mailing list (clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org), or the Arbitration Committee mailing list (arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org). Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

  • (talk page stalker)- now that's just silly. How is someone supposed to say another editor is being disruptive on purpose if they're not allowed to say "being disruptive on purpose"? I think you clerks are far too overzealous with the redaction. Reyk YO! 14:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Beyond silly, but every interaction I've had with TRM has involved Humptydumptyism of one kind or another. He's a well-respected former bureaucrat and long-term administrator, you know, which means that we no longer expect him to be held to the same standards as mortal men, like actually following WP:BURDEN and WP:BLP.—Kww(talk) 15:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
You're welcome, as far as I'm concerned, to discuss this with L235, but you're not welcome to just reinstate it. Drmies (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Tony Penikett

Tony Penikett

Unprotection: Expiration Date. Mo

  • Why don't you responding unprotection of Tony Penikett few days ago?
  • Because anyone that read the edit notice when they made the comment on my page would know that I can't do a damn thing about it, for one. For two, I don't believe that there's any need for anonymous editors to edit articles about living people.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Your inability to read indicates that no one should unprotect any article that you are interested in. Please go away until you become literate.—Kww(talk) 15:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Unprotection: Expiration. Mo

Let's repeat this: I cannot unprotect the page. It's impossible. Every time you leave me a message, you get a message explaining to you why it's impossible. Since you have failed to explain to anyone at any time exactly why the page should be unprotected, it's quite unlikely that anyone else will do it either. So go find something else to do.—Kww(talk) 18:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll respond one more time: I cannot unprotect the article. It is not possible. Even if I thought you had good intentions (which I don't) or thought you were competent to edit the article (which I don't), as the message you see every time you leave me a message explains, I am no longer an administrator. Go away now.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Our persistent anonymous friend

I've come to the conclusion that it's no longer worthwhile to even engage "Mo" at all anymore. As of now, if I see any further "unprotect" requests from them on Talk:Tony Penikett or my own talk page, all I'm going to do is hit the revert button and walk away. You might want to consider that option as well, even if just as a sanity-preservation tactic. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You

The Barnstar of Diligence
Awilley informed me that you were instrumental in the blocking of Funkatastic, so I just wanted to thank you for doing a great service to Misplaced Pages. Veteran users who reveal bad intentions late in the "game" are more dangerous to Misplaced Pages as a whole than most know. Happy editing! ~Lord Laitinen~ (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

About user 42.60.241.232

Hello, I noticed that you gave warnings to User talk:42.60.241.232 because their disruptive editing on VIXX, they seem to be at it again concerning what they think is unnecessary by removing it but that information has ALWAYS been on the page. Is there someway we can block this person from editing please? Alicia leo86 (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for UFC 157

User:Theepicwarrior has asked for a deletion review of UFC 157. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 22:22, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Croatian Airplay Chart

Way back in 2009 you started an AfD for Croatian Airplay Chart, it was recreated in 2012 and I created an AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Croatian Airplay Chart (2nd nomination) to see if it should be deleted. Your input would be appreciated. Aspects (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Collect essay; second bite at the cherry

You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Re: Grits

Re your message: I didn't notice the past history. I set the semi-protection. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Bubbling Under Hot 100 chart

Kww, can I request you to just per glance this discussion I initiated at Ericorbit's page here? —IB 12:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing policy collapsed discussion

Hi,

Please take a look at the decision to collapse the discussion of Hyder, Alaska at WP:Editing policy.  I don't find it credible that this is not suitable for discussion from a policy viewpoint, especially in the context of the ongoing identical discussion on the talk page.  If you don't think that an un-collapse is appropriate, perhaps you would provide your own insights/viewpoint.  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:Missing Wikipedians

Hello Kww. Since you haven't been around for a while, I've added you to the page linked above due to inactivity. Please remember to remove yourself from the list if you come back. Your efforts will definitely not be forgotten either way. Best regards, Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kww. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Allow private schools to be characterized as non-affiliated as well as religious, in infobox?

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Misplaced Pages articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2017 (UTC)


Edit warring on Missy Elliott awards page

There is an edit war occurring that has been going on for the past few months now. And there seems to be no resolution. Inaccurate information keeps being embedded alongside improper grammar and lack of reliable, accurate sources. May you or another contributor of your power weigh in on the issue and reel in the users for the article's talk page? ChocoLantern88 (talk) 18:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, ChocoLantern88, but I lost my adminship as punishment for my efforts to keep unsourced articles like that in check. I can't recommend any procedure that will work and not have you disciplined as a result. I found that giving up helped my attitude immensely.—Kww(talk) 02:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Terribly sorry to hear Kww, you were definitely a go-getter when it came to make sure that articles would not be congested with poorly misconstrued content and always set an end goal to ensure that the article lived up to a neutral tone in accordance to Misplaced Pages guidelines. Thank you greatly for responding. ChocoLantern88 (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kww. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy new year

Hoping you have a happy and successful 2018, and remember: "Illegitimi non carborundum". Reyk YO! 09:55, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:BillboardURLbyName

There is an edit request at Template talk:BillboardURLbyName#No longer works that begs for your help and attention. Please take a look. Happy New Year to You and Yours!  Paine Ellsworth    05:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kww. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation 2019

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Misplaced Pages, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Misplaced Pages:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged Blades 05:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:BillboardURL

Template:BillboardURL has been nominated for merging with Template:BillboardURLbyName. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Single chart/billboardref

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Single chart/billboardref, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Muhandes (talk) 10:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BillboardChartNum

Template:BillboardChartNum has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BillboardEncode

Template:BillboardEncode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Relax (song)

Hi. Can you reduce the protection from Relax (song) to pending changes? There have been a few requests to make edits and Charlie is inactive (as far as I know). Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch 21:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

That edit notice you saw when you left this comment wasn't kidding, Tbhotch. They stripped me of adminstrative rights over five years ago for blocking an administrator that insisted on forcing unsourced material into articles.—Kww(talk) 04:44, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Oh sorry. I didn't read it and I didn't know about it. (CC) Tbhotch 04:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Singlechart usages for UKchartstats

A tag has been placed on Category:Singlechart usages for UKchartstats requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Liz 15:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Meaning of "baboon" in a 17th century text

From https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10764-018-0063-5 : "Originally expressed in English as “babewyn” (or “baboyn”), it was first applied (fifteenth century) to grotesque statues and decorations (e.g., how gargoyle is used today). In the fifteenth century, the word in English also became associated with monkeys of any origin (Oxford English Dictionary 2018). By the late 1800s, the term was used mainly for members of the tribe Papionini (i.e., large-bodied primates of Asia and Africa); but, in the 1900s, it quickly came to be associated particularly with large-bodied, terrestrial, long-snouted monkeys of Africa. These included members of the genus Papio (standard baboons), members of the genus Theropithecus (geladas, T. gelada), and members of the genus Mandrillus (mandrills, M. sphinx, and drills, M. leucophaeus). The continuation of the historical narrowing of the meaning of the term “baboon” ..." - so that reference is relevant and should not be deleted, methinks?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus (talkcontribs)

User:Strecosaurus: there's no evidence that your citation is about a chimpanzee, then, so no, it should not be restored. What did they use in your Italian reference, and how do you know that it specifically refers to a chimpanzee and not some other ape?—Kww(talk) 05:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Before anything I would like to point out that the most dubious of the three is the one that's actually preserved in the text of the article, from Damian, which only talks about "maimo", i.e. monkey - which is highly unlikely to be a sub-Saharan ape in the 11th century Liguria! Now, the text from the Italian-language reference (from travels to sub-Saharan Africa, and in particular Luanda is mentioned as being near where this supposedly happened) explicitly mentions that the crossing was with "macachi grandi", i.e. large monkeys (as opposed to mediocre and small monkeys, as mentioned/differentiated in one of the the previous sentences). This is as explicit a reference to an ape - either gorilla or chimpanzee - as can be in such an old and non-biological text. Now, I certainly cannot infer it is a chimpanzee but not a gorilla (and the same with the reference from the English text , although, if true, it must be one of these because any other crossing is almost certainly too distant to be possible). But do you really think this therefore justifies purging this information from the article as irrelevant? I'd argue we should collect the highly relevant information - and even on the pedantic side it's possible it was specifically chimpanzee, that's not counterindicated either, and the talk is of possibility, so this is relevant even if more general human-ape hybrids are (pretty strangely!) considered irrelevant to the article.
So what I'm saying is, if an explicit reference to chimpanzee and not say even bonobo is necessary period, then most certainly the reference to Damian should be removed, too.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus (talkcontribs)
I'd prefer removing the older reference. If you want to write an article about ape-human hybrids, I'd have no objection. By the way, if you would end your comments with ~~~~, you'd be signing them.—Kww(talk) 14:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BaftaURL

Template:BaftaURL has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Singlecert

Template:Singlecert has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:42, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Category:Singlechart called without song has been nominated for renaming

Category:Singlechart called without song has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Category:Singlechart usages for Wallonia Tip has been nominated for renaming

Category:Singlechart usages for Wallonia Tip has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Steel1943 (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 1 § Spirit in the Dark (Lindsay Lohan album) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Record charts/Sourcing guide

Hello Kww, RiSA launched The Official South African Charts which is based on streaming data primarily for South African music replacing EMA. I think it is necessary to add the chart data to the Misplaced Pages:Record charts/Sourcing guide along with its airplay and all. I'll be on the lookout for your response, Thank you. dxneo (talk) 11:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh and Billboard also launched Billboard South Africa songs dxneo (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

MfD nomination of MediaWiki:Unsourced-award-warning

MediaWiki:Unsourced-award-warning, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/MediaWiki:Unsourced-award-warning and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of MediaWiki:Unsourced-award-warning during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. EggRoll97 02:34, 24 December 2023 (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) 00:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)